Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

One of the enforcement provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking was that after three months passed from the case's closure, the Committee would review the manual of style for stability (remedy). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue (I originally brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests and was referred here by a clerk). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Now why wasn't that put on the agenda and calendar? I will flag this up, but if things are slow, the best way to get action on this is to file a request for clarification. That tends to focus attention more than a talk page post does. But wait a bit and see, as my e-mail pointing this out might get something happening. What would help is some indication of whether such a review is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; this whole ArbCom "filing system" is very confusing. As to whether a review is needed, I think things have improved quite a bit. However, it's hard to tell for sure when the part of MOSNUM that was in dispute during the case has been semi-protected for half a year. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was unclear. I was saying why didn't we (ArbCom) put it on the calendar. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I disagree with WMC's desysop based on my own principles on what should lead to a desysop. Sure there was bad judgment outlined and the abd block was a very, very bad move - but I fail to see how a full removal of his adminship is of real benefit to the site. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll save you from reading about 2 MB of mostly content-free text: The case was moving toward a do-nothing result until Abd tested the page ban and WMC blocked him. This pissed off arbcom, so they desysoped WMC. Arbcom planned to essentially ignore Abd's disruption until Risker proposed the three-month ban in the final days. The end. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too late, I read through pretty much all of it over the past month in anticipation of the case's end. Pretty much sums it right up, though. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another seriously flawed decision. Just plain lazy on the part of ArbCom. I've applied page bans before. I've also applied page bans on articles in which WMC was helping me out. He's a well reasoned, and highly dedicated administrator. To revoke his mop is childish. Hey ArbCom; Restore his mop. Now. You do not craft policy by holding people retroactively responsible for violating non-existent policy. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, William violated existing policy. He blocked Abd during the case, when he was clearly too involved to legitimately take action. One could perform a root cause analysis to figure out how things reached that point, much in the same way the NTSB attempts to reconstruct the chain of failures leading to a plane crash, but it would be a depressing and academic exercise. If there is a moral, it's that admins who fail to recognize goading, swallow their pride, and ignore it will not be admins forever. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What MastCell said. There has been several issues of questionable actions with the admin tools in the past, and blocking someone you were in an arbcase with (at the time the ArbCom case is going on) is pretty much not going to fly, ever. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC did violate policy - he responded to the deliberate provocation of an editor even ArbCom agrees is disruptive and tendentious. It would have been wiser for WMC to resist the temptation offered by the bait. More importantly - and much more disappointingly for Wikipedia - it would have been wiser for ArbCom to consider what was in the best interests of developing high-quality encyclopedic content rather to act on the afront it felt about WMC's unwise block. Unfortunately, the messages from this ArbCom case are (i) that ArbCom either cannot or will not control its own case pages; (ii) that the quality of the science content of the encyclopedia is not a priority of the Committee; and consequently, (iii) that the Committee will not offer any encouragement for adminisatrators to work in contentious areas but rather will continue pretending that science-literate uninvolved administrators (a highly endangered or extinct species) are in plentiful supply. The burnout and departure of science-literate editors is also apparently not a reason for concern. The Committee could have acted against WMC with a forced break and acted in a way that loudly reinforced their dedication to the purpose of Wikipedia. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Arbitrators but the decisions their judgements and priorities in this case have been poor. EdChem (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it is very foolish to do such things while ArbCom is actively looking at you. It's not smart to do them in the first place, but during an arbitration is asking for trouble, sadly. Still, the main result was right: since his return from a block in 2008 Abd has been on a path of escalation to burnout. It's remarkable he's lasted as long as he has before being blocked for a long time especially given his tendency to scream "cabal" at every turn. After the last arbitration he seemed to believe that he'd been fully vindicated and carried on precisely as before (if not worse), which is one of the things that sent me on a long wikibreak. Life is too short for your hobbies to be dominated by obsessives with no goal in mind other than to hound you for failing to agree with The Truth™. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the eventual outcome, but I was alarmed at the degree to which attempts to demonize expert editors were successful. Just because somebody has expertise in a subject, does not mean he has a conflict of interest. We've seen on Wikipedia for some time now concerted efforts by the wilfully ignorant to set themselves up as somehow in opposition to expert editors and to attack their excellent work. Instead of dealing with those people for timewasting, there has been a tendency to treat them at their own evaluation--as somehow being engaged alongside those who have taken the trouble to study the subject in an endeavor to improve Wikipedia. That isn't the arbitration committee's job. It must recognise that some of these "disputes" are in fact political attacks, often openly orchestrated off-site, and intended to distort the facts and weaken the integrity of Wikipedia. --TS 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be taken into account by the Committee when considering their practice of allowing people to keep evidence in userspace and link to it from the Evidence case page is that there are hundreds of thousands of bytes of smears and innuendos, insinuations and unfounded accusations about other editors in Abd's user space that were entered as part of Abd's "evidence" in this case. When I complained about the extent to which my positions, intentions, actions and motivations were misrepresented throughout the case, an arbitrator said, as a way of consoling me, that since I wasn't mentioned in the final decision, I could assume that none of that was taken seriously by the Committee, but that if I felt strongly enough about it, I could ask to have the material blanked. Well, I guess I'm not very consoled, since I value my reputation for integrity and am sincerely offended at being so throughly defamed without any discernible purpose, and I'm not sure how blanking the inaccurate and misleading accusations could be accomplished, when the misrepresentations of fact were strewn liberally throughout the case, and much of the offending material is in Abd's user page.

The "cabal" userpage has been nominated for MfD, but a common argument against deleting it is that it is part of evidence in an ArbCom case so can't be deleted. There is an entire page-long section about me on that page, and the "evidence" is just an attempt using synthesis and OR, using a couple of quotes from user talk pages totally out of context to try to make a case that I had an "axe to grind", simply because I said that in my opinion there were sockpuppets involved in the delegable proxy mess, because I felt that Kirk Shanahan's preferred version of the cold fusion page was more neutral than Abd's preferred version, because I had once supported Science Apologist, and because I had said that I didn't find discussion with Abd to be a particularly productive way to spend my time. These are honest opinions, I hold them still, but for them to be entered as evidence of my "involvement" with a "cabal" is simply beyond incredible. There is no credible evidence for any "involvement" with the other editors listed in the cabal, even if collusion isn't part of the definition. I believe this entire page should be blanked; I request formally that at least my section of it should be blanked. It seems to me it's the least the Committee could do, to remedy a little bit of the harm that's been created by this case. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to AGF; after all, I was specifically encouraged by an arbitrator to make this request, so I'm making it. But it's really a bigger issue that I'm raising here: encouraging editors to exceed the evidence limit by linking to unlimited text in userspace can have at least two unintended consequences: (1) it can lead to a proliferation of mudslinging and unsubstantiated accusations cloaked as evidence, as in this case, since it effectively voids the requirement to keep evidence concise and supported with specific diffs, and (2) it creates the problem of evidence in the case not being kept on the case pages and archived with the case. It's just out there in userspace; users could alter it, delete it, add to it, do anything they want with it, rather than it being protected with the case for historical reference. I just think the Committee should think about the consequences when allowing this practice in future. Woonpton (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the problem you describe may be pretty unique to the editor. As for reference, just link to old revisions or copy/pasta into your userspace. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton, thank you for reminding me about this. I will go and carry out the courtesy blankings now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, when you've finished holding your breath, do you think you could give arbitrators a chance to respond before you insert a cynical soundbite like that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We closed it because nothing productive was going to come of it. Doing so doesn't necessarily require your assent, though that is preferable. Please stop pursuing this. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. What Skomorokh said. You want WMC to have the mop back, then write an RfA and get him to accept it. That or his appeal to the Committee are the only ways he'll get it back, and this is a waste of time and a drama-magnet. → ROUX ₪ 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC) This is neither the time or the place. WMC can seek community support for adminiship through RfA if he so chooses.  Skomorokh  07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Instead of trying to influence the discussion with "archive," collapse box, strikeout, or similar censorship technologies, let's apply the principle of good faith and move this to RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley: Support Hiberniantears (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I will not be referring to myself as a "Wikipedian" until this travesty is reversed. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Roux and Sko... Come on! Look at the thread below and tell me I'm wrong. Pastor Theo was a banned user. OMG, WTF, WMC??? Why do I need to have this discussion at RfA? You're asking the community to undo an asanine decision in a forum that is historically vindictive towards former admins. Way to put process before the encyclopedia. Maybe one of you two could tell me what you think this project is, exactly? I was under the impression we were a free Internet encyclopedia. If this is actually a place for fan boys to smack people around to compensate for their real world existence... Maybe I should just sign onto some kind of comic con thing. This thread ain't closed... Your's truly, Hiberniantears (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is closed. And you should be conducting yourself in a more appropriate manner. WMC is welcome to go to RFA is he wishes to have his admin tools back. You should talk to him about that, not rant here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) A. I started this thread. B. You guys closed it without consulting me. C. I am free to question the decisions of ArbCom. D. Fine, I brought it to RfA. E. Why did you spell he as "he"? Did I miss some gender bending element? I haven't bothered to read through the case owing to the aimless, sophist structure of your process. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Opposing the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley WMC seems to show persistently poor judgement. In addition to blocking Abd during an Arbcom case involving Abd, WMC reverted the article at issue to 50 edits back, with edit summary "Lets wind everyone up". On 25 June 2009 he indef blocked ChildofMidnight. When questioned about this, WMC responded "I should slow down, and possibly only edit when sober" - either that's a particularly tasteless joke or WMC is totally irresponsible. Either way WMC is unfit to use the powers of admins. --Philcha (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) No way in hell. This case was just the thin end of the wedge of WMC's failings as an admin. MickMacNee (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My thanks to the open minds willing to discuss the transparency of the committee's decision. Oh wait, you arrogantly closed this thread. I guess absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. Once again, any editor is free to disagree with your decisions. Any editor is free to voice this disagreement. Likewise, any editor is free to have these disagreements heard openly. Lastly, any editor is free to wield a minority opinion, and have it not be silenced. I urge you guys to remeber this. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In regard to item 5 of the Arbcom decision:

5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

I have created a relevant discussion page at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Arbcom_directed_discussion_-_Policy_on_non-consensual_topic_or_page_bans. Manning (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. When I have a few moments, I will try to post some background that will be relevant to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged, probably the better place. Based on an initial thought expressed there, I have drafted a proposal at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions that would generalize the "discretionary" sanctions approach used by the ArbCom in various cases.  Sandstein  17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I really don't like the way that arbcom has encouraged what amount to straight votes. The subtext in "should come to a consensus in one month"... The only way that could be guaranteed is by doing a straight vote of some sort, like what happened with Ireland, which has turned into some wet dream for people interested in voting systems. Did everyone forget why we don't usually vote? Gigs (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No voting implied or needed. Discuss things, and if there is no consensus for any change, then nothing changes. i.e. if there is consensus, then make changes, but if not, then don't. What is paramount, though, is to publicise the discussion widely. Get lots of views, of both admins and non-admins. Don't just get the views of those following arbitration cases. Have a look at Wikipedia:Publicising discussions and see if the advice there has been followed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Following on from Woonpton's request above, I have courtesy blanked the following pages of this case: the proposed decision talk page, the evidence page, the evidence talk page, the workshop page, and the workshop talk page. I also intend to blank the user subpages that were used to present evidence in this case (or move them to subpages of the evidence page and blank them, but need to leave a note at an ongoing MfD first). I think Abd and Enric Naval used subpages in this case - will need to check that. Starting this section to enable discussion of these actions because WMC left me a note saying he objects to the case pages being blanked. I don't object to my actions being changed or reversed (e.g. by adding a link to the pre-blanked version in the page history), but if some discussion and input from others (including other arbitrators) could take place first, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision and wish it to be reversed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As a thoroughly naive onlooker, I am perplexed at this flurry of "courtesy blanking"? What exactly is the difference here between "courtesy blanking" and "attempt at suppression"? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! Me! I know this one! Courtesy blanking avoids gratuitous hurt while leaving the entire history for anyone who wants to look, whereas suppression is a term almost exclusively used by people who mistake Wikipedia for an experiment in free speech (which it explicitly is not). Guy (Help!) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I too don't get the "Courtesy" bit. Presumably the main effect of blanking is to exclude the content from searches? If so it is a tricky call. It is in all our interests to rebuild Arbcom's credibility and brush some of all this under the carpet. No admin will put the project first if Arbcom cannot be relied upon to be careful and fair. At the same time there is an issue of fairness to WMC and negatives of drawing a veil over the repute of some other individuals concerned which will be unhelpful to the project (e.g. in that it will adversely affect quality of decision making in the next Arbcom elections, it will make identifying other trolls a tedious job from contribution history rather than an easy one etc). On balance WP favours openness so I think the pages should not be blanked. A gui, de to their content might help--BozMo talk 08:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the case it is not easy for an uninvolved editor to get a handle on things in the first place. The de-sysopping of a longtime administrator performing substantively correct administrative actions in protecting the encyclopedia against disruption, over what look to be procedural violations, seems extraordinary. Perhaps I just don't get it. I am certainly going to get it a lot less if Arbcom blanks pages of evidence and deliberations. Arbcom cases are supposed to be handled in a transparent way, aren't they? If you blank the record, I would hope you would vacate any findings and sanctions to which that part of the record applies. Otherwise it becomes a secret tribunal, something that should be reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances. There are other ways to avoid ongoing damage from unwise things some may have said. Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is usually asked for if someone has been needlessly harangued or the parties require some privacy due to real-life concerns. The article history still has the entirety of the information on it, so the information is not being deleted, merely hidden from casual view. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And if some other involved party, such as WMC above, feels that "courtesy blanking" compromises the history of what had happened to them, where does that leave things? --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the page history, two clicks away. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it doesn't help in deciding what to do in the present case, it is worth noting that a major cause of the problem that now exists is the breakdown in control of the case pages. There certainly needs to be a discussion of the lessons that this case has for case management, and I'd like to know whether ArbCom and the Clerks are planning to have any such discussion, and if so, whether it will be on wiki. EdChem (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, even though WMC behaves sometimes like a complete idiot, warranting a thorough rap-over the knuckles, he is still, all in all, one of the more useful administrators Wikipedia has been privileged to have, and something has gone significantly wrong here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC),

There is a confluence of interests here. Woonpton is (rightfully) bothered at Abd's unfounded smears. Arbcom completely failed to maintain control over this sprawling case, so it is in their interest to keep it out of casual view. Thus when Woonpton asked for blanking, Arbcom was all too happy to oblige. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris, there is no way you can stop Abd from engaging in these problem behaviours short of bannination, and that's not consistent with allowing him his day in court. You'd have to have clerks following him round the entire project, or temporarily restrict him to case pages only (I'd have asked for that temporary injunction but that's because I have previously experienced Abd's obsessive behaviour). Guy (Help!) 10:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It rather looks as though C has misinterpreted W's request; see [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Who was it supposed to be a courtesy to? Stifle (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Woonpton; see top of this thread William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is just that, a courtesy, born out of common decency for others who feel that their lives will be adversely effected by the page being open to casual view. If anyone is so curious as to see the Scandal! that they believe was there, they merely have to exert more effort. Now, we can spin our wheels in glorious cynicism about who is gaining what advantage over the political machinery of a website, but I'm entirely more concerned about maintaining the above common decency on the off chance that someone's real life is adversely effected because of something stupid that happened in the backstage of Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vair nice, but as it is now clear that W doesn't want the pages blanked, and I don't want the pages blanked, and no-one else has asked for them to be blanked, please explain (since arbcomm, as usual when things get sticky, has suddenly gone silent) for whose benefit the blanking has been done? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal. There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case—at least Abd's evidence. Hell, there was an aborted blanking campaign right in the middle of the case[2][3][4] Several users supported blanking the evidence pages in Abd's space, including some of the people commenting here. I found this to be a reasonable request, so the pages are now blanked as a courtesy. If in fact no one wants them blanked, I'm confident we will undo it.

Perhaps this was a mistaken reading of the participant's sentiments, but selectively blanking the pages is not an option we've ever entertained. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a mistaken reading -- indeed, Woonpton said "it blows my mind"[5] that Carcharoth (and now you) could interpret her request in this way. But stuff like that doesn't surprise me anymore. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. My apologies (I think me and Carcharoth were on a similar wavelength here).

Now that it's understood that blanking is an all-or-nothing proposition, does anyone want the evidence pages blanked? Cool Hand Luke 18:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear whether you're speaking for yourself or arbcomm at this point; if the latter, how and where this decision has been made. I would assert a distinction between pages in user space and those in arbcomm space. I maintain my desire to see the pages in arbcomm space unblanked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone wants them blanked, but I say, leave them as is. It is the Arbitration Committee who let things run completely out of hand, and now the involved users feel negatively affected. I don't think that blanking is the solution to that. I don't like rugs, but for those who do, this does not belong under it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "it is now clear" that I don't want the pages blanked; the statement on my talk page simply clarifies that my specific request was about a particular section on Abd/Cabal rather than a request to blank the case; it didn't occur to me at that time that anything could be done about the false accusations and extreme distortions of fact that were liberally larded throughout the case, but at least I wanted that one section with my name at the top of it to be blanked. My feelings about the blanking of the case as a whole are mixed, as anyone reading my statement with any feeling for nuance (I'm realizing that this seems to be a scarce commodity in Wikiedia) should be able to see. On one hand, I would prefer that the false accusations, insinuations and accusations about me not remain fossilized here for everyone to see; on the other hand I can see WMC's argument too, that the case should be preserved for the record. But isn't it true that if you go back in history to the version before the blanking, it's all still there? So doesn't the blanking serve both purposes: conceal smears from public view without eliminating the content? Or does it really affect the usability of the information in some way?

It is my personal opinion that this case was a complete disaster from beginning to end, and the damage that the case will have done to the encyclopedia will remain, no matter what happens to the case content. I will assume that if the blanking of the case was indeed done in response to my comment, it was an honest attempt to be responsive to my concern (although strangely late; the problem should have been stopped while the case was ongoing, and I find it curious that arbitrators who had no interest in my complaints and the complaints of others while the case was going on should suddenly become so attentive to our concerns, after the horse is long out of the barn). But I'm not the only one to be considered here, and I wouldn't want my ambivalence about the blanking to be taken as a signal to unblank. There are others who have been equally affected, who should speak for themselves on the issue, although at least one of them is unable to at the moment.

@Tznkai: my concern isn't at present a real life concern; I just don't like being lied about. However, there are others who are affected who may well have real life concerns; I wouldn't want to be seen as speaking for anyone else. Woonpton (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Woonpton, and in general, I think the same principle applies even for mere emotional dislike, though it is obviously less of a big deal than say, impending job loss.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra perhaps I've completely misunderstood you (and if so I apologize), but it seems to me what you're saying is the following: 1. ArbCom has mucked up, failing to address 2. a mess where a bunch of people got unjustly attacked and thus 3. ArbCom should not courtesy blank the same so their mistakes are transparent. That seems to leave keeping the mess that adversely effects innocent parties, because you want to punish/expose ArbCom.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Tznkai: I want Arb.Comm. to come with a real solution? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@W: Apologies for misrepresenting your views. Thanks for stating them clearly here. Would it help at all if a header was put clearly at the top of all these pages, something along the lines of "These are the preserved record of an arbcomm case; the presence of an allegation in these pages carries no implication at all that it is true"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if CHL's ref'ing [6] etc is trolling or just a failure to understand. Assuming the latter: that was a last-gasp attempt to do arbcomms duty for it and try to keep some kind of order on the pages. Alas it failed; arbcomm voted for the current disaster area. Which is indeed part of the point: you've failed to keep any order during the case; it is just too late now to say whoops lets shovel it all under the rug. If this info was so terrible that allowing people to stumble over it is terrible, then how could it be allowed on the case pages for months on end? That position makes no sense. Also where does There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case come from? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not trolling. Other parties do not have the right to control the presentation of another's evidence during a case. Nor should others control how evidence is kept after the case is closed.

To clarify an earlier question: I'm speaking only for myself here, and you should always assume that's true unless I explicitly say otherwise. That said, I don't think many arbitrators would support selectively blanking evidence from one party of the case without a really good reason.

There's no rug-shoving going on here. Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked. You might note that I didn't even participate in the deliberation of the case; the interpretation of a cover up did not occur to me until several users here made the accusation. Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked - I assume that is true. Indeed, you said: There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case. However, I've asked you above why you believe that and you're distinctly reticent on that point. Do you now accept that is an error? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Past tense, per the widespread support of blanking here. I am not now sure whether there would be support for complete blanking, but I do not believe selective blanking is acceptable. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A point of data: I am generally in favor of blanking procedural pages as a matter of routine (or at least on simple request) at the end of a case. This, obviously, does not include the decision proper; nor does it include deletion. This is a matter of simple courtesy.

Suggestion of selectively blanking parts of pages because one doesn't like them is... ethically unacceptable. I'm surprised anyone would even consider such a thing— obviously that will never be allowable. — Coren ^(talk) 19:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage you from doing so as a matter of routine, and ask you where you think your mandate for doing this comes from. or at least on simple request is regrettably ambiguous - do you mean, one request from any one participant (not even a party) is enough for you to blank, even against the expressed wishes of parties? A simple majority? I don't think you should do anything after a case that hasn't been decided during a case. If you want this as a matter of routine, you should include it as a routine motion in each case. That would give everyone a chance to express an opinion in an (ahem) orderly fashion, instead of this rather all-too-typicaly disorderly process we've ended up in. Anyone seen Carcharoth around recently, BTW? Blank-n-run seems rather poor form William M. Connolley (talk)

You're making, I think, the unwarranted presumption that there is value to keeping the case pages around after a case has closed. Certainly, the arguments and reasoning have historical value and need to be kept for transparency, but they do not need to be displayed or (worse) mirrored by the myriad leeches out there that are uninterested in keeping that material off search engines.

As far as I and most other arbs are concerned, the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages (and the talk pages) are mere artifacts of the process, and can be blanked without bureaucracy. In fact, many of us have express dismay on how complicated doing seemed to have been in the past. I would have agreed with your concerns if there was discussion of deleting the pages (which is generally not done), or of altering them in a way that can twist their significance; but a simple blanking that leaves the history intact is at worst harmless and at best can help put a matter to rest and keep possibly prejudicial crap off the search engines. — Coren ^(talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

67.122.211.205 (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coren, this is helpful. Perhaps I misunderstood the arbitrator who told me on the proposed decision page that if I was unhappy about false accusations and inaccurate statements that had been made about me, I should feel free to request that the material be blanked; I understood that to mean that I could request that parts of the case be blanked. (And while no one has answered my question about whether blanking affects the usability of the content, I found that when I went to bring up that diff to link to here, I wasn't able to bring it up. So that's a problem, I agree).

I didn't see any reasonable way to blank comments that were threaded with other comments, so I wasn't requesting that information be selectively blanked out of the case pages, and I wasn't aware that the entire case could be blanked on request. I just made this little request about this one section that had my name at the top of it and was all about me; it was really just a token request, as a protest against the wholesale defamation of editors in this case. I didn't realize that this was not a reasonable request, especially as I thought I'd been encouraged by an arbitrator to request the blanking of defamatory comments. But (to clarify again) I was happy (delighted, in fact) with the decision to blank the entire case and felt that my concerns were finally being heard; my understanding was that the courtesy blanking was "on behalf of multiple users" so I felt this was a response not just to me but to concerns of the community. I thought that was the best solution to the whole mess, so I was surprised (blown away) this morning to see Carcharoth's statement above that it was done solely in response to my request, and I was also surprised to find that there were people who were very unhappy about it. I believe Luke when he says he was genuinely trying to respond to concerns (and he's right that a number of people commenting on the MfD thought the page should be blanked; where are those people now?). I guess I just want to go ahead and leave, and you guys can do whatever the heck you're going to do about this. I thank those who tried to be responsive to my concern, and wish you well. Woonpton (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment to say I'm aware of the responses here, and to reply to WMC's "blank-n-run" comment above. If you look at my contributions log, you will see that I started the courtesy blankings between 00:44 and 01:14 last night (UTC). My computer then crashed (as was noted in my edit summaries later on) and as it was late I decided to finish things off in the morning. I saw WMC's comment on my talk page and between 07:48 and 08:22 I replied, finished off what I'd started the previous night, and started this section as a place for discussion to take place (the latter action was prompted by WMC's objections). I then went to work. As it turned out, I had to work late, and then I had to get a bus home because of flooding on the London Underground (heavy rain here today). This is why I haven't been around to answer questions. (If anything is ever really urgent, I can be contacted by e-mail during the day). I had always intended to return to this section, so a bit of patience would have been appreciated, rather than "blank-n-run" comments and wonderings about where I'd got to. Having said that, I do need to deal with something else urgent now (trying to set priorities here, and making this post here was my first priority, but there are some other things that need attention as well), but I will come back to this later tonight (in a few hours), and respond further to what has been said here. I do in particular want to try and clear up any misunderstandings about the blankings. In particular, please note the last sentence of the post I made to start this section. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Just a brief update to point to what I said here (replying to WMC on my talk page). It doesn't cover everything that was said, but hopefully it will answer some of the questions. As I said there, I want to say more tomorrow, time permitting. Bottom line is that either everything that normally gets blanked is blanked, or nothing. No selective blankings. The diff of what I originally said to Woonpton is here. I think she was looking for that. Hopefully that will clear up a few things. I've been consistent with what I said in that diff, and I stand by what I said there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is all this crap about? Blanking a page changes nothing as to what actually happened on a page. It just removes it from search view. So long as the main ArbCase page remains, every single one of the links are there and as noted, several editors are aware of the History tab. I'd also be thinking that consolidation of several other "evidence" pages should be moved under the parent case page and blanked. Many more than the participants and adjudicators of this case are aware of what a black stain it is - but there is no reason that various search engines should casually pick up and rate the various search phrases, surely that is an unintended consequence. There is no doubt that many people will retain an institutional memory of what happened here and will be able to find links quite easily. So what exactly is the rationale to not courtesy blank all the relevant pages (and move them into case sub-pages)? So long as the main or index page which leads to all the rest is present and public, what is the compelling reason to preserve every one of them? Selectivity is unfortunately not an option here. It's all a bad scene... Franamax (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing that any other case pages be similarly blanked? What's so speial about this case that they should be? 98.210.193.221 (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose no such thing, though I wouldn't necessarily object. An "ArbCase SearchPage" function wouldn't be all that hard to design (hint: it would search the 2nd-last version of a page, if the last one had changed radically in size). Blanking of ArbCase pages is not exactly unheard of. But I shan't cite specifics.

In this specific case, whilst we are not apparently faced with a specific request, we have general concerns raised about certain spurious allegations raised within the case. In addition, we're faced with a purported evidence page in a userspace which raises even more spurious allegations. (And other upages of purported evidence, which validity I've not examined) In the one page case of which I'm aware, concerns have been raised to the point of MFD nomination, and the existence (but not text presence) of the page has been defended as it being a record of the Abd/WMC case. Fine, the page should be preserved. What I suggest is that all such userpages containing evidentiary but unsubstantiated suggestions(/accusations) should be moved under the master case page and blanked en bloc, so that no unsupported accusations remain open to search-engine ministrations. We've had enough damage here and many editors will know where to look. There is at least one "evidence" page that should be blanked and more than one are prejudicial to innocent editors. Remember that moving and/or blanking pages hides nothing - it just organizes and creates a different condition for search engine discovery. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So... lets try to sum us where we all are on this disaster. Its become clear that arbcomm would rather "courtesy blank" these pages, but it now looks like the courtesy is to arbcomm rather than anyone else. Ca now admits that he knew halfway through the blanking tht there was no support for it, but continued anyway to get a fait accompli. His current response is I do in particular want to try and clear up any misunderstandings about the blankings but note that he is very careful to avoid suggestion that he might undo it. Meanwhile, CHL's support turns out to be based on "overwhelming consensus" on some entirely different page. What we're not getting is a restoration of the status quo ante while the matter is discussed; arbcomm are just stonewalling. I didn't think you could possibly make this ill-managed case any worse managed but you have indeed succeeded. Given that no magic pixie dust is going to make this decision for you, please explain just how you are going to acheive "consensus" on what to do William M. Connolley (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you are being — to be generous — disingenuous. There is no stonewalling, here, and no drama to be had beyond what the copious amounts of bad faith your are displaying generates. Go do something else for a while. — Coren ^(talk) 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that bad faith here is any faith placed in ArbCom. Pages in wikipedia arb space should not be blanked without good reason and an official request, with discussion. The blanking of user space pages should be decided by the community, and ArbCom and clerks should have never have allowed Abd to spam his accusations all over the place. ArbCom should have never taken this case in the first case - the community was willing to deal with it. The disaster that arbcom and the clerks managed to turn it into would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that you (the arbs) have actually managed to damage the project. A few individual arbs seemed to be sensible, but I would encourage them to leave the stinking carcass of arbcom before they become irredeemably tarnished - like FT2. Undo the blanking of arb pages until an involved user makes a specific request here or by email (and the request is posted here). I warned Abd off AC, as I knew it would end badly for him, but the ridiculous damage to the project, and the view that arbcom is above criticism, is truly something else. Verbal chat 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that bad faith here is any faith placed in ArbCom." Quotable.

At any rate, why do you think that ArbCom views itself as above criticism? As a bloc, we do not want WMC's page to be deleted. I think that criticism is necessary for us to function, in fact. Pile it on. Cool Hand Luke 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest separating criticism of the handling of the case from the question of whether the pages should be blanked. I don't think that blanking is an attempt to sweep anything under the rug; any user with 10 minutes' experience on the site can view the evidence in its entirety, and the blanking only hides it from being scraped and mirrored.

If someone involved in the case (including, for that matter, an Arbitrator) feels strongly that the pages should be blanked, then let's do it. It's a courtesy. If no one wants them blanked anymore, then let's not do it.

I understand the urge to criticize the handling of the case, and I hope that some lessons can be learned from its unfortunate trajectory (and that of its logical predecessor), but that won't happen until the ruckus settles and people (myself included) can digest it in peace. In the meantime, if possible, let's use this thread to discuss the courtesy blanking issue; other venues are probably more appropriate for criticism of the case handling if one feels so moved. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with MastCell's sentiments. Few would dispute that ArbCom members work diligently in a highly controversial arena. It is understandable that editors will, on occassion, disagree (in perfect sincerity) with ArbCom decisions. However, it seems rather irregular to make claims of a conspiratorial cover-up scheme. The blanking is really a rather small issue, and one that should be decided in a collaborative and yielding spirit. —Matheuler 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My response to WMC (on my talk page) is here. I've stated there my view that there have been misunderstandings and incorrect assertions made by WMC and others about these page blankings, and I've suggested a different venue to resolve those misunderstandings, but the relevant bit here is what I've now said and done about the page blankings (paraphrased below):

• (A) I've read through the arguments for and against the blankings in the discussion here WT:AC/N, and given that there was some degree of support for the blankings, and that many people (not just those who objected) had aspersions cast about them in those pages, I'm not going to reverse my actions (though I did come close to doing so). However, given that some people have failed to realise that the full text is still accessible in the page histories, I've modified the notices on each page to include a link on each blanked page to the version of the page before blanking, and to the page history, and links to all the other pages in the case (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I know this is not the full unblanking WMC wanted, but I hope it does address some of his concerns, and the concerns of others, about accessibility, and a desire for people to be able to see and judge for themselves what happened in this case.
• (B) There are a multitude of pages in userspace that still need dealing with in some way. A total of 23 pages. I've made a list here. WMC did ask me not to mix up userspace stuff with what happens to the case pages, so rather than going ahead with what I proposed earlier (moving to subpages of the evidence page and blanking) I've made that list instead, and will leave notices for the users concerned, and then notify my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee, and leave those pages for those users and the rest of ArbCom to deal with.
• (C) If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait a few days or weeks, to see how he feels at that point, and then if he still wants the case pages unblanked, to file a request for clarification. I will abstain from voting on any clarifications filed with respect to the final disposition of the pages in this case, though I may make a statement if needed. I'll remain active on clarifications and amendment requests on other matters related to this case.

As I said, I have to move on to deal with other things now, but I hope this addresses the concerns of WMC and others. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, in future cases, the practice of presenting evidence in userspace subpages be restricted or explicitly disallowed. This looks like a massive pain to clean up, not to mention a potential drama-magnet. Skinwalker (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The evidence limits are untenable in complex cases. Some of the parties under review have made hundreds or thousands of relevant edits, and to fairly review the case they should all be available. It's rather absurd that Arbcom could presume to take a case and not allow the parties to present all of the evidence. If I am a party and I face that limit, I'll summarize on the evidnece page and create a sub-page somwhere with the complete details. Whould would you suggest? That Arbcom members refuse to read it? That it get summarily deleted? That I be sanctioned for creating a page of diffs? Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then lift (or liberalize) the evidence limit. No deletion or sanctions. It is almost always unenforced unless someone steps well over the line, and often not even then. My concern is that someone could file MFDs for each and every one of the 23 subpages Carcharoth lists. Not to mention that Abd scattered, at one count, around 500 kilobytes of "evidence" around the case pages and his userspace, most of which consisted of diff-less aspersions. This is a gigantic mess to clean up and monitor. Also, if you think arbs read all of the evidence presented, you probably don't follow many of their proposed decisions. Skinwalker (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this just gets worse. My response to Ca's inadequate response is on his talk page. As to Co There is no stonewalling, here - that is exactly what there is William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So... given the total absence of stonewalling here, as asserted by at least two arbs (although how that can be reconciled with If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait I don't know. For the record, no, I'm not happy with any of this), when am I going to get an answer to Given that no magic pixie dust is going to make this decision for you, please explain just how you are going to acheive "consensus" on what to do? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What do we do if/when we find out there was an off-wiki coordination by cold fusion proponents to delegitimize opponents? Protonk (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads on pikes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan of drawing and quartering myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File it under "blindingly obvious", recognize it as one of the inevitable drawbacks of a top-ten website that anyone can edit, and resolve not to be goaded quite so easily next time? Question the legitimacy of a field whose proponents seem to spend more time litigating their case on Wikipedia than doing actual science? Use the case as a learning exercise to improve our handling of small groups of agenda accounts? All of the above? MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're new around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just regressing. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've un-archived this as it isn't finsihed: you haven't yet decided the "courtesy" blanking issue. Obviously you're not stonewalling (because you've said you aren't) so please remind me what decision was made and how? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See my points A, B and C at 00:34 17 September 2009, above. To reiterate, I reviewed your concerns and those of others, including those who couldn't understand why you were making a big deal out of this, and I made the decision not to unblank the pages, but made the following changes: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Those changes were a response to your concern that the previous versions of the blanked pages were not very accessible to those who don't know how to access page histories. My changes made the blanked pages more accessible. The userspace pages (point B) have not yet been dealt with, largely because of your objections and because I said I would ask others to deal with that (because you objected to me doing so). I have asked another arbitrator to review this (the list of userpages, covered in my point 'B'), but nothing has been done yet. I'll quote point C again in full:

If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait a few days or weeks, to see how he feels at that point, and then if he still wants the case pages unblanked, to file a request for clarification. I will abstain from voting on any clarifications filed with respect to the final disposition of the pages in this case, though I may make a statement if needed. I'll remain active on clarifications and amendment requests on other matters related to this case.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this? Do you need a link? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. I've pointed you in the right direction several times now, but you don't seem to be listening. If you just want to repeat the same things you said before, then we will continue to go round in circles. At the moment, from where I am sitting, it is you who are stonewalling, on the decision that you need to make, on whether to take this further or drop it. Unarchiving this noticeboard talk page thread is precisely the wrong way to go about taking this further. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You've now clarified the only unclear point: that this arbitrary decision was made by you on entirely flimsy grounds. You've stonewalled on the unblanking; the trivial tweaks you've made are irrelevant. The place to discuss this is here. You have nothing more to say; fine, don't say it. Perhaps the rest of arbcomm does William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The "rest of ArbCom" is, in the main, in favor of routine blanking of case material other than the main case page and (obviously) final decision. Mostly confused about why you are making a big deal out of this trivial clerical matter.

To note, I am the one Carcharoth requested handle the user space pages (which I have been distracted from by the current EE mess), and I expect I will be moving them to Arb space and blanking them in a manner consistent with the case pages proper. — Coren ^(talk) 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

Proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct. Input, please. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I've placed this post on the wrong page. I'm alerting arbitrators to a discussion concerning what the policy says about sockpuppetry and desysopping. I'd have thought arb opinions were important on this matter. Link Tony (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We are no longer a club working on a private project. Whether or not we like it, we have in reality acquired a public responsibility for maintaining a resource important to the general public on an international level. In practice, becoming an arbitrator requires such a period of activity here that it is impossible to avoid having friendships and preferences within the community. A very few people can put these entirely to pone side in a cold-blooded fashion--most people cannot, and it is in any case questionable whether such people would have a sufficient understanding of human behavior to serve properly in the position. We might need at the highest level people who are independent of the community they will govern. Should we consider replacing arb com with a group either selected from people working only on other Wikipedias -- there are many responsible people there with a sufficient knowledge of English--or of obtaining funding to hire professionals. They may in each case have their biases but they won't have the personal feelings.

Short of this, the minimum is establishing technical barriers against the worst forms of abuse: as a first step, the work of an not just an arb but an admin is sufficiently sensitive to require positive identification of all sitting and future people in this position. The immediate preliminary need is requiring all members of arb com to disclose their knowledge of admins using undisclosed accounts, or any variant of this. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But how would these folks get 'tuned in' to what the community actually wants? –xeno^talk 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A witch hunt? Sounds like a great idea! We set up and enforce a system where editors who get into trouble with Wikipedia's arcane rules and bullying justice system are left with no sensible choice but to create a new account. Then go after them like crazy if they make the huge mistake of actually disclosing to anyone who they are. And round up anyone who knew of their good faith efforts to turn over a new leaf with the only means available.

There was no abuse by Law. He was a good editor and a good admin. Instead of this nonsense we should be cracking down on POV pushing abuse and actual socking and cabalism used to distort our article coverage. This is an encyclopedia and we should work to improve it instead of engaging in this disruptive score settling. Put the thing to bed. In fact, give Undertow adminship and revoke it for those who have used this circumstances to further their own agendas. We need more good admins and to weed out the bad ones. This whole circus reeks of hypocrisy and abuse, but as per Orwellian rules on Wiki the accused are the ones who tried to do right. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

it is apparent that some of the people involved have a different standard of doing right than I do. I am not proposing to be their judge. And this is my point: we can all agree to remove those who harm Wikipedia, but it is harder to judge whom they are. I am not sure any of us who are involved here can judge fairly. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is that Arbcom does so much of its business in secret? I read about all these e-mails with dismay. It's no better than the admins and their cat rooms. Stop hiding and come into the light. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

errr ... cat room? ... I for one only have a "puppy" room. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason ArbCom does any of its business in secret is the same reason why only a few people are allowed to have access to the CheckUser tool and the Oversight tool: The information they deal with can have far-reaching results in the real world. For example, it would be utterly inappropriate for me to reveal people's IP addresses without a very good reason, and unless I have no other choice, I will never publicly connect someone with their IP address, regardless of what they do. And ArbCom deals with far more sensitive information that I do as just a checkuser. I cannot understand why you are always complaining about ArbCom and others acting in secrecy. While doing SPI cases, I sometimes come across established users when doing who happen to be editing from the same ranges as vandals, particularly on Tiscali and some other British ISPs. Would you like it if I happened to see your account on the checkuser data, and in my report of my findings, I listed all of your IPs and user agent strings on an SPI page or somewhere, where any crank can find it with a minimum of effort? Purely by chance, in the relatively short amount of time I have had access to the checkuser tool, I have come across information such that I could probably give you the location of around 20 established users to within around a hundred kilometers. Even better, many of these users are editing with their real names, or at the very least, their real names are well known. Do you think, in the interests of some convoluted notion of "GIVE ME TRANSPARENCY OR GIVE ME DEATH", I should publicly out these people's real-world identities on one of the largest websites on the Internet? And again, what I have found is purely through random chance. ArbCom has people directly telling them what I can only infer circuitously. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• The work that the Committee does in private is done so because it is not appropriate for public viewing. Simple. AGK 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the above. The Arbitration Committee does everything they can in public. Unfortunately, there is a lot of private information tossed around, and if that were to leak out, Bad Things^TM would happen, both here and in the real world. Transparency is a priority, but they can only do so much. If you want them to do more, you'll have to get the Foundation to change the privacy policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As a member of this Committee, I have come into possession of personal information of hundreds of Wikipedians; many of them may not even know that I have done so. Like J.delanoy above, I have coincidentally seen revealing information about editors when carrying out a checkuser. I have oversighted hundreds of edits purporting to "out" one editor or another. I have received endless gossipy emails, some of which I barely bother to scan. I have had private discussions with editors in which they have revealed the names of their children, their employers, their financial status, their sexual orientations, their real names, and their photographs. We have talked about cars, travel and weather as often as editing interests and wikiphilosophies. None of this information is the community's business. You can rest assured that I am withholding a great deal of irrelevant information from the community. In some cases, I am withholding relevant but private information from the community as well, such as health conditions of certain editors or exact IP addresses and useragents. That is as much a part of being an arbitrator as is transparency and fiduciary responsibility. I hold the Privacy policy to be more important than just about all others, and I genuinely believe that doing so is what the community expects of me. Risker (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have " private discussions with editors in which they have revealed the names of their children, their employers, their financial status, their sexual orientations, their real names, and their photographs... We have talked about cars, travel and weather as often as editing interests and wikiphilosophies", then it means that arbitrators are not focused on real arbitration business. Perhaps the suggestion of an outside consultation to suggest ways to work more effectively is warranted. Why is Wikipediia so different than real life concerns about privacy and related issues. Surely a Human Resources department of a large company would be privy to man such "secrets" but it would not eat into their usable work time. —mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's called being human. Wikipedia is just like real life: everybody has problems; life is hard. The centerpiece of civility is thinking of other people, and caring about other people, enough to listen to their concerns and try to make their lives easier in small ways. Jehochman ^Talk 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec; reply to Matisse)Nah, let's just dispense with the whole notion of arbitration being done by humans. We'll get some coders to build us some ArbBots, emotionless automatons who will certainly never disrupt the purity of the Holy Arbitration Process of the Universally All-Important Wikipedia with discussions about things that would only interest a mere human. Cheeze and rice. :::facepalm:::GJC 00:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be called being "overly involved" and "enabling" from a psychotherapeudic point of view. There is no evident that in real life such situations are not handled by "humans". Should the U.S. Supreme Court Justices carry on extensive side conversations with the litigant parties? How does an editor get to be on such intimate terms with an arbitrator and talk about cars, travel and weather? I once contacted an arb personally with a question, and was told that it was inappropriate to contact an arb in such a manner, that communications must be with the arbcom as a whole. What are the standards for this? It appears that individual arbs have different standards. Should an editor just "arb shop" to find one that is willing to play the role of a confidant? —mattisse (Talk) 12:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was it stated that it was with "litigant parties"? Arbitrators have every much a right as editors and humans as anyone else to have contact with other human beings. Judges and lawyers have friends in real life too. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the role of arbitrators needs to be clarified. My understanding was that they were a dispute resolution body. Are they social workers also? How does one get to have an arbitrator as a "confidant"? And does not all this intimate conversation not affect arbitrator judgment, as it did in Casliber's case? —mattisse (Talk) 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly the more I read the AC/N and related talk pages the more I understand why business gets done in secret. Some people just tend to lower the signal to noise ratio drastically on each and every issue by insisting that everything is "ZOMG Admin abuse" or "CABAL issues" or "HYPOCRISY!". I suspect that engaging in some deliberations privately is a low energy way to escape a lot of that nonsense. Some of the ostensible reasons offered may not be concordant with that (e.g. private information), but I have a strong suspicion that it is a motivating factor. We obviously can't publicly acknowledge that a subset of editors are routinely ignored on the basis that their commentary is fatuous, but private channels of communication certainly cut them out. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

One great way of avoiding being called a "hypocrite": avoid hypocrisy. The best way to react to being called a hypocrite: 1. If you're not one, explain. 2. If you've been one, reform. Complaining about being called a hypocrite when you've been engaging in hypocrisy: Hmmmmm, sounds hypocritical. Noroton (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually in practice that's not a very good guide. Because your expectations for consistency in my actions may be totally unreasonable (and are certainly not explained to me beforehand). One person's hypocrisy may be another person's mitigating circumstances. Protonk (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Then that would be covered by option 1. Or you could ignore it. In this situation, if you don't explain, don't complain. -- Noroton (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Or just avoid discussion with people who mistake nuance for hypocrisy on a regular basis. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons why there is an ArbCom is that there needs to be a place where there is an expectation of privacy within a project that is committed to open editing and transparency. In truth, there are several places within Wikipedia that more transparency would be beneficial - but the day to day mechanisms of the ArbCom mailing lists and the in/outboxes of the individual members are not among them. One of the reasons for the annual bunfight that is the ArbCom elections is that we are placing our trust in strangers to keep secrets from us where necessary and to betray confidences if only absolutely required. This is also why ArbCom members, who are otherwise fine people, have to resign when they realise they have failed those standards; there needs to be a body that provides that reassurance that private communications and the contents thereof will be dealt with in as much confidence as there can be. The other side of this coin is, while we bewail the souls who admit to have failed to always maintain those lofty ideals, the amount of good that comes from speaking and acting outside of public view can and never will be known. We simply must trust that this is the case, and those whom we have given this responsibility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been off-wiki all day and don't even know where to begin reading if I wanted to catch up (... maybe I don't?). So sue me if this is the wrong place. But what I have read so far is dismaying. I count at least three arbitrators being raked over the coals to one degree or another. Lots of "what did you know and when did you know it". Lots of "how dare you!". Lots of gnashing of teeth.

Is the ArbCom rotten to the core? Nope, I don't think so. Just human. So what is going on here Targets of opportunity? Witchhunt? That's starting to look a bit possible to me. What is the point of dragging one arbitrator after another through as much mud as can be stirred up? If we want to, we can bring the whole arbcom crashing down. Is that what we want? I don't think so. I have my beefs with some individual arbs but this ArbCom has done a lot of good, and this wiki is too big to function without one, or with a crippled, lame duck one. Those of you stirring, or aiding and abetting the stirrers, why are you doing it? Maybe you're helping someone or another settle old scores. Think about that. ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like there is a wide spectrum of responses. Some people are bemused about this particular instance of our ban/block policy intersecting with human beings in a strange way. Other people are genuinely (and I think rightfully) pissed that a few admins and an arb decided that one set of rules was ok for their friends and another set for everyone else. Sifting through the bulk to venting on this page to thread those concerns out is a heroic task, but I wouldn't call this a witch hunt. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• No Lar, think about this. A handful of trusted and powerful officials appear to have been applying one standard to their friends yet holding the rest of us to the letter of the Wikilaw. For those of us in the cheap seats it's hard to know just who is a knight and who is a knave these days. It's not just the latest clusterfuck with Law/The_Undertow but consider the recent unmasking of Pastor Theo/Ecoleetage and even the nefarious doings of Steve Crossin/Zhang last year. All these incidents confuzzle us in the grunt-class. The position you've taken here is pretty rotten when viewed in that light. Predictable but rotten nonetheless. Crafty (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• I for one, see a great deal of legitimate disagreement about who was obligated to do what - and a dearth of information about who knew what and who did what. At this point, I see no way where speculating on the motivations of others is useful. I have not done my part to encourage calm in this situation, and for that I am sorry. I am now, however asking everyone to take a breath, and step back. Whatever has been done, whatever was not done, will slowly but inexorably become clear. I understand the suspicion and the anger, but I know at least in my life, it isn't worth it. I have friends and family who deserve better than to deal with a bad mood brought on by Wikipedia. --Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Lar, I don't see it as an overall witch-hunt (oh, those convenient wikiphrases that elide the issues) although certainly some participants are throwing eggs. Nor do I see all this as being specifically directed at Arbs, though they are rightly being questioned as to their prior knowledge. The big problem I see is that two, then three, then latterly minus a kind-of-half-an-apology, admins have insisted that the end justifies the means, fuck the rules, they'll do whatever. I think it's this profound lack of insight into why the community would have any concerns at all with actions (or non-actions) in the admin role that has so roused the community. Casliber is a profoundly unfortunate casualty of this, but at least he stepped up and acted honourably and in a proactive way. Read past the agendas, there is a lot of deep concern being expressed here. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This largely sums up my view of the situation. I am completely astounded at how many editors here don't seem to see how serious this is., or even that it is wrong at all. To inflate the issue and place it in r/w context: If you found out a policeman had known one of his good friends was a criminal, and helped not only conceal his past but also to get him fake id's, and get him on the force, which his crime specifically prohibited, and lied about it to the mayor, to the public, to everyone - and then was exposed, and had the defense "he wanted to leave his past behind and I knew he'd make a good cop" would you for one second think that was acceptable? Would the cop still be on the force? This is inflated, yes - but it is distinctly analogous. I urge those of you who are looking at the minor detail that "the fake cop didn't get in any trouble in his 6 months on the force" as legitimizing the deception, and think long and hard about what was done to the community. Now think about putting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not saying it (the incident) is not serious. It is. I just say that the aftermath has, in my view, at least partly moved from a reasonable, rational investigation, to a witchhunt. Are there still reasonable participants? Sure. But over time I see more and more "what did you know and when did you know it" sorts of questions, and more and more ax grinding and oxen goring. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Actually I agree with Lar on the surface of it here. Now, I don't think that is the intent of any individual; at least I hope not. I get the impression though that there are some deep-rooted grudges and possibly resentment that are sub-consciously raising to the top of this mix. I think one of the polarizing issues here may be the desire of some to place "friendship" and "web-site loyalty" into some sort of competition and asking which comes first. I think a lot of folks are struggling with their own definitions here, and looking for answers. Eventually we will all have to come to terms with that individually. Perhaps the wording of having one's back could have been more delicately phrased - as I don't believe that any one here would seriously allow harm to come to Wikipedia; but the situation now is what it is, and we must all work together to find the solutions. I think the order of the day should be as Lar mentions, putting personal feelings aside for a bit, and approaching things in a calm and rational manner from this point forward. — Ched :  ?  03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The issue here is that Wikipedia's embrace of anonymity permits this sort of abuse. We have rules which presume that humans will behave in an honourable way when in fact we know that they do not. Perhaps we need to reflect on that.Crafty (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's actually pseudonymity, but regardless: pretty much all of human society is built around the expectation that humans will behave honourably. But we also recognize that not all do, which is why we also have sanctions for particularly bad behaviour. If you're getting at requiring registration of identity, no problem, I can download a dozen of them for myself right now. It's what gets eighteen-year-olds into bars. Personally modelling proper behaviour is the only way to go IMO. And in this particular case, it's not anonymity which is the problem at all. It's collusion and a failure in the idea of what constitutes "friendship" as opposed to enabling. The honourable course was always evident here. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, Lar, I agree with you. Pardon my French, but its pretty clear that people fucked up. We dropped the ball. Now the curtain has been lifted, and we have a choice: keep obsessing over punishing everyone that was involved, or move on with the business of building an encyclopedia. Personally, i'll opt for the latter. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 04:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • With mistakes this large, it's important to not simply acknowledge them, but also to try and learn from them. Or in other words: How could we improve procedures, to prevent situations like this from happening in the future? The first idea that comes to my mind, is that perhaps it's time to require all administrators to provide their real-life identities and contact info to the Wikimedia Foundation. For example, require each candidate with a successful RfA to send an email with their real name, city of residence, and a phone number, before we toggle their admin bit. --Elonka 05:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This won't scale, and as the thread continuation below outlines, it's fallible/fairly easy to spoof. (Poetlister/Baxter beat it) Better, in my view, if some sort of identification is to be required, to use something more like what Google or Amazon use, as I opine at User:SirFozzie/Alternate#View_by_Lar and the discussion at User_talk:SirFozzie/Alternate#Lar. (note that I raise it there in a different context but if you decide you want real names from category X, and X is large, manual methods don't scale) Technically that is harder to spoof than a faxed copy of something. (It has side effects such as ruling out classes of potential users... those with no fixed address, no credit card, or what have you... but it technically works better than faxed IDs). ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not worth it. WMF isn't responsible to Wikipedia-en for one thing, and most admins shouldn't be forced to fork over that sort of information just to be an admin on a website. Additionally, there are some parity issues here: I willingly identified myself because I deal with private information - things that matter. I, and everyone else who has access to private data, will find out real names, addresses, and the other pieces of identity that give you a little lever with which you can terrorize someone. Ninety nine times out of a hundred that is way more important then anything on Wikipedia proper.--Tznkai (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And what would the WMF do with this data that would help such a situation? If someone is willing to deceive the community at RFA, I imagine they would be willing to deceive the foundation as well. Mr.Z-man 05:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That solution isn;t going to accomplish anything. The WMF has more important things to do, and admins shouldn't need to have their personal information on file. One thing I would support, though, is mandatory Checkuser of admin candidates. Checkusers are trusted with private data, and if there are no serious abuse issues the CU wouldn't have to disclose them. I brought this issue up after Sam Blacketer, and people resisted it due to privacy concerns. I brought it up again after Geogre, and people again raised privacy concerns. Is it maybe time to take a serious look at this idea? The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 05:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you name one single instance of subsequent admin abuse that would have been prevented by such a measure? Franamax (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Checkuser-ing RFA candidates would have prevented this situation. Among other things, months passed between the use of the two accounts. Further, if admin candidates know they'll face checkuser, and are intent on deception, then they can figure out how to circumvent it.   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)Several admins, such as Geogre and Law, would not have been able to deceive users about their ban evasion abuse of sockpuppets. What Sam Blacketer did was unambiguously abuse of his position, and that would have been prevented if his alt account had been known. Pastor Theo double voted and closed discussions that his non-admin account(s) had voted in, which is also clear admin abuse that was discovered by an SPI. The Pastor Theo one was still ongoing, as the accounts had been used concurrently as recently as a week before his desysopping. Running a checkuser on him before opening his RFA would have caught this, and he would have been prevented from abusing the position. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 06:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, if I were a desysoped and banned user who wished to return and become an admin again then I could borrow a friend's ID and submit it in place of my own. If I had never been a sysop, and had merely been banned, then giving my ID to the WMF wouldn't raise any red flags because they wouldn't know that I was a banned user. If folks want to engage in deception then there will always be a way, especially if there are trusted users who aid in the deception.   Will Beback  talk  06:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course all Admins should have their details recorded with the Foundation. If people want their privacy respected they're free to remain ordinary editors. For those who feel the need to be trusted by the Community, why shouldn't their identities be recorded in some place? Normally now I would ask, "what have they to hide?" but I think the antics over last couple of months have given us the answer and that answer is "plenty". Crafty (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, Wikipedia community and privacy matters are two completely different leagues.--Tznkai (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

←So what? You've already said it, so that's the end of the matter? I'm not suggesting Admins details be published on the Main Page, rather that they identify themselves to the Foundation. Just like Stewards, Oversighters, Checkusers and all the other numerous functionaries the Project is burdened with. Crafty (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Functionaries for -en number well less than a hundred, admins number around a thousand. Stewards by the way, operate at the Foundation level, not just on -en. Admins have radically different responsibilities (a marked lack of them in fact) than functionaries do. When I handed over my personal information I signed up for a significant fiduciary duty: to maintain, respect, and protect privacy, something serious with real life, legal implications. Responsibility to the "Wikipedia Community" isn't even in the same ballpark.--Tznkai (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

While I've said above that neither checkuser nor RL ID would necessarily catch every attempt at deception, I think they would be reasonable and helpful steps to take. I don't want my contact information known to every vandal, but I have no objection to sharing it with the WMF if I volunteer to serve in a position of trust.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. But it would give people like Law/The Undertow, Ecoleetage and their kind pause for thought before socking to get/retrieve admin status. Gross violations would be curtailed and I think that's what we're dealing with here. Crafty (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoleetage called an editor's employer and by multiple reports is rather unrepentant. Law/The undertow evaded a ban and by all reports feels terrible. They are not the same "kind"--Tznkai (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this debate they are they same kind. Mendacious sorts, given to deception. Granted Ecoleetage had that whole creepy stalker thing going on, but that's just an extra special add on. It's time we got serious and really made Adminstrators accountable. Since there's no easy way to make them account to the community, we can at least make them accountable to the Foundation. Frankly, you're all under a cloud right now. Crafty (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That extra special add-on is a substantive difference. How does giving someone (for the sake of argument) your name, number, and address make you accountable? In the real world, it means its easier to sue you, damage your credit rating, screw up your employment history, and steal your identity. Now, I'm not going to do anything along those lines to anyone over what they do to the Wikipedia community - and I doubt you'll find anyone at WMF willing to do the same.--Tznkai (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So this idea (identification to WMF) is basically contingent on people who are willing to deceive the community for months all of a sudden listening to their conscience and deciding to follow the rules when faced with the prospect of emailing a copy of their driver's license to the office? Because if they just continue their deception there, it won't solve anything. Mr.Z-man 07:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not looking for a magic solution to catch all instances of this. However, catching some is better than catching none. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 06:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Whats the cost though? Privacy is a big deal - it should be a big deal. You have any idea what kind of damage you can do with an IP address and a google search or two? Give me a name and address, and we're in business, specifically mine in yours. How many good admins are going to step down or never run, for how many bad admins not making it in return? Besides, the assumption of bad faith just doesn't work all that well in general.--Tznkai (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I and others are suggesting and I think you know it. The idea is that Administrators on any wikimedia project (especially this one) should provide their RL ID to to the Foundation not to me, not to the Community. There is no earthly reason that an enwiki sysop should not be held to the same standard as a Foundation Steward. Crafty (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Edited to add that if you value your privacy so much, you can get it back when you surrender your bit. Crafty (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm saying you shouldn't trust anyone with that information cavalierly, nor ask anyone else to, even the vaunted WMF.--Tznkai (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, I think I've shown adequately how a sysop and a steward are substantially different.--Tznkai (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever. I see no reason to prolong this exchange. We have each made our various points. It's really not about what we think, but those who read what we write. I thank you for the civil and what I hope has been a constructive exchange. :) Regards, Crafty (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)A steward has access to all the private data on every Wikimedia wiki - checkuser data, oversighted edits, etc. There are real-world legal responsibilities and foundation-level policies involved. The most an enwiki admin has access to are deleted revisions. They are not on the same level. As for "if you value your privacy so much, you can get it back when you surrender your bit" - how does that work. Are we now also requiring the office to perma-delete the emails and burn any paper copies after desysopping (which would also make detecting cases like undertow/Law somewhat more impossible using this method, since The undertow was desysopped long before Law was at RFA). Mr.Z-man 07:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work Zed. Obviously I was indulging in a rhetorical flourish for the benefit of the peanut gallery. Yeesh! Crafty (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that if someone is deceptive enough to go to all that trouble to feed their addiction, giving false details to WMF would not actually be beyond the question, so making all admins disclose may not only not solve the problem but drive a certain class of former editors to criminal activity all for the sake of fooling a website and getting their "cred" back. I'm not saying that any of the present parties being considered would do that, but I could think of at least one banned, regularly socking editor who no doubt would be able to. Orderinchaos 09:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we're forgetting that Checkusers are people specifically elected because the community trusts them with private information. Its not like mandatory CU at RFA would mean giving your name and address to the community as a whole. The most the community should know about the CU results is that either everything is fine, or there is a problem with sock abuse. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 07:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, doing checks occasionally when there is reason for suspicion will find more problems than doing routine checks. If people are aware that they are going to be checked, then they are more likely to edit in ways that will keep alternative accounts from being detected. Plus, there is often a misunderstanding about the way that a check helps determine if an account is an abusive alternative account. The check only plays a part in determining if an account is link to another account. The other methods that are available to everyone can be used first, and then if problems are suspected a check can be requested. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• We certainly see the usual witchhunt for Geogre here. Several admins, such as Geogre and Law, would not have been able to deceive users about their ban evasion, writes The Wordsmith above.[12] Is it because Geogre isn't here to defend himself that such random fairy-tales are increasingly posted about him? And have they now reached to it being OK to talk about his — non-existent — ban— what ban? — let alone his supposed ban evasion? And to suggest that his actions were pretty much like Law's? Gee, what will Geogre have done next year, run a dope ring? Wordsmith, please check your facts next time you sling mud at the absent. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
  • concur with Bishonen here - Wordsmith, suggest you redact your statement to either omit Geogre, who has never been under any ban and was not ban evading when he made his perfectly legitimate (but later misused) sock, or else to completely rephrase your statement to make that distinction. The only similarity is a sock - which is a legitimate similarity for this discussion, and your point that CU could have found that is correct - but you are mis-stating the facts about Geogre. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You are both correct, Geogre did not evade a ban. It was late when I made that comment, and I confused the two. It was an honest mistake, though I certainly appreciate the lack of an assumption of good faith about my intentions. Geogre did abuse socks, though, so I stand by my assertion that more investigation of candidates would catch other instances of abuse. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 17:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Demanding the arbs answer "When did you know about Law" without any evidence of a particular arb being culpable is a witch hunt. Why aren't all those who !voted in his RFA being asked to answer? Just for the record, I did not know til this all blew up a few days ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• With all respect, "witchunt" generally refers to persecution of innocents, and more specifically to the HUAC hearings. McCarthy was asking about communism, a political party, protected under the Constitution, and one which during the 1930s gained some popularity and by the 1950s when he was conducting the HUAC hearings had become a bugaboo - tantamount to admission of satan worship in the popular mind - and was being used to condemn and ruin the lives of those who were merely friends of those who had attended a Communist party meeting once. In other words, persecution of those innocent of any wrong. This, OTOH, is about what we now know is a cover up of administrators deceiving in order to promote to a position of trust one who created an account illegally while under ban. If you wish to use an historical allegory, this is more like the Watergate hearings, or Nuremberg. Wrongs have been committed, and a coverup committed; those in positions of trust have aided and abetted those committing those wrongs. It would reassure the community greatly to have this concern put to bed. Thank you for alleviating the worries and concerns of those who asked this, and answering this question. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "persecution of those innocent of any wrong" is what is going on here. A FEW admins and one arb knew about it however long ago, but most people didn't. I certainly didn't. Again, why aren't all those who were part of his RFA being demanded to ask this? Why are arbs being singled out? I know part of the answer will be arbs have a higher position of trust and I agree they should, but I expect high standards of all, esp admins, and Lara and GC weren't the only admins at that RFA. So yes, this is a witch hunt on arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Because Arbs have more power, Rlevse, and are expected to be above all this. Whether any Arbs facilitated or ignored what The undertow was doing, while enforcing the rules against others, is a legitimate question, particularly given that there's an RfAr going on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And those who facilitated his RFA that haven't been found out yet should be demanded to answer too. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) Not noticing any persecution occurring, and am seeing that wrong was actually done. I am sorry it bothers you to be asked one simple question to confirm you were not a party to this. I would think you'd be glad for the opportunity to reassure those whose trust you hold. This is now a case before ArbCom, and some (please note before you leap down my throat that it was not I) felt it would be good to confirm that none of the currently sitting arbs were part of the deception and coverup. I respect their concerns as valid; I see your complaint of "witch hunt" inappropriate, if understandable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbs are being singled out again. Ask everyone who !voted at his RFA the same question and I'll be satisfied. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I state, I didn't ask the damn question to begin with, and again I point out the obvious, that Arbs are hearing the case, no one else. That said, I happen to agree with Verbal below. Any admin who knew and supported, rather than (as Kww suggested) blocking as a ban-evading account, or (as I suggest) inform ArbCom privately if they could not talk their friend out of such actions, or at the very least stay out of it, should lose the bit as not being trustworthy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) I agree with KC, this isn't a witch-hunt. Cas has done the right thing and retained his dignety and respect, and John has apologised for missing a notification. However, we have a few admins who refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing and have stated they would do the same again. They have abused the communities trust. This isn't about everyone who supported the RFA - just those who acted inappropriately. I don't see how this is a "witch hunt on arbs". THe "open secret" defence is also no defence, as it clearly wasn't well known. Verbal chat 14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec to Rlevse) Admins don't have any power now to decide whether the RfAr is accepted. Arbs do, and therefore it's important to know that they approach the issue with clean hands. It's also a question of practicality. For years, we've allowed admins to be elected with very few safeguards. Every RfA is basically a giant exercise in AGF. As a result, we have a lot of problems, and it's hard to know how they can be sorted out, and some people say it doesn't matter anyway because admins have little power. The ArbCom, on the other hand, is a small, tight unit that does have power and that we need to be able to trust. No one should be made to feel guilty for asking them to confirm their non-involvement in a contentious issue that goes to the heart of trust. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • There could well be more users and admins who knew of this and condoned Law's lying at his RFA. We only know a few right now, there could well be more...more arbs and more users and those concerned should root them all out, not just more arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) In fact, until Rlevse protested quite so much I had no doubts about him. Now I have doubts that have "could" eroded my trust in him as an arb. That is because of his actions, not anyone else's. Verbal chat 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

            Does no one else see the distinct similarities between Verbal's statement here and McCarthy's tactics? UnitAnode 14:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

            • Oh please, Rlevse is good to his word. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I don't think there needs to be any rooting out. If there is actual evidence, questions may be asked. Otherwise, let the cowards hide. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Where's the evidence to demand this of arbs? And your lack of faith is appalling, Verbal. If I'm lying here you can have my Eagle Scout medal. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

More exaggeration. I haven't accused you of lying, but I find your response to this to be unbelievably melodramatic. I've added could to my statement above, as I'm not really interested. Why can't we ask arbs questions? Especially when they are involved in an arbitration on this matter? It really isn't the big deal it's being spun as here. I agree with Jehochman, "rooting out" isn't required here. Comparing my comment to McCarthy is just plain silly. The evidence to ask arbs (not demand) is that two arbs did or should have known, and several admins also knew. It's a good way to clear the air and I would take arbs answers on trust unless presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. No, what's the problem again? Let's leave the hyperbole and exaggeration out this time. Verbal chat 14:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very happy to accept Rlevse's word, and that of any other Arb, and I'm grateful to him for answering the question even though he disagrees with the asking of it. You can hang onto your medal, Rlevse. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SV, thanks for answering. I don't understand the problem with being asked. Verbal chat 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins, who also have trust positions, who were in his RFA and knew of it should be asked this too. There could well be more than GC and Lara, but no one don't seem to care about that. They're only going after arbs albeit with no evidence of wrongdoing other than Cas. I simply think this standard in this situation should apply to all, not just arbs, so yes, there is a singling out here. To me this if fundamentally unfair and uncalled for. Sorry others disagree. I intend this my last stmt on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"going after"? I will say for the third time, I didn't ask this question, but I agree with Verbal - thanks for answering and I don't see your problem with the q. As far as "going after" the only named parties in the Rfarb are Admins; there are at least three admins who knew, and IMO they should all lose their bits. I have not asked, nor am I happy about, any Arbs stepping down or being hurt by this. I am deeply saddened that Cas felt that his ethics required of him that he do so; he has shown much grace in a difficult situation, but I find I must agree with his decision that as he knew at the time of the Rfa and did nothing, he has betrayed the community's trust and I respect his decision to step down. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I have faith in Rlevse (we've made-up now) and agree with him - and KC, and SV. And Elonka (a new one for me). Apologies to all I managed to offend. Improper actions at all levels should be looked at. Verbal chat 15:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Revlse, I think you may be missing the point altogether, but I speak only for myself, an outsider who has no old scores to settle and belongs to no faction (in spite of being--preposterously--named as a member of Abd's fictitious "cabal" in the recent Abc/WMC case.) How it looks to me, as an outsider looking on, is that the project appears to have abandoned the idea of enforcing its ban policy, at least for friends of insiders, and that this is an open secret among a significant portion of Wikipedia administrators and well-connected editors, even to the point that they are surprised and offended that the right of administrators to protect their friends who are editing as ban-evading socks should even be challenged.

The people who weren't in on the open secret, and who thought the ban policy meant something, feel betrayed. It doesn't seem useful to try to root out those administrators who were in on the secret, since it appears there may have been dozens of them (Law/undertow's admission that he told "half the project" suggests that he may have told a lot of people) the problem is that there shouldn't be a climate that condones and enables such open deception in violation of policy, undermining the trust of the community. This incident has exposed a layer of corruption within the administrator corps; the concern is how high does the corruption go? Is the project rotten all the way to the top? I don't see this as "witch-hunting" I see this as an honest and necessary question that must be answered if the trust of the community in its leaders is to be regained. Will ArbCom take a strong stand against such deliberate contravention of policy, or not? As long as there are arbitrators choosing not to answer the question, the perception, right or wrong, will be there that are members of ArbCom who looked the other way and would prefer to have the option of continuing to look the other way, in other words, that deception is condoned by members of ArbCom, and by extension, that there is no part of the governance structure of Wikipedia that ordinary editors can consider trustworthy. Woonpton (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, and it's very well put. Good governance is something we badly need, and we have a chance here to establish certain principles about fairness and conflict of interest that are taken for granted in the real world. Let's not miss the opportunity with "don't ask, don't tell." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Except this has more the appearance of a witchhunt than a good governance drive. You don't speak for the whole community here. They say there are no more passionate anti-smokers than those who formerly smoked and quit (or those who secretly still do). ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lar, would you agree that getting the incompetent and dishonest out would be a start towards good governance? DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. This may not be the best way to achieve that though. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So what is? Sometimes one has to go with "this is the best we've got" instead of waiting an eternity for "this is the best of all". DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Witchhunts are probably not a good example of "this is the best we've got". We can do better, and have. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(After many ecs) A "witch hunt" goes after a creature that does not exist, and damages innocent people in the process. To call a legitimate concern with admins who, actively or passively, accepted and then promoted a banned user into a position of trust a "witchhunt" is to dismiss all those who are profoundly troubled by the increasing evidence of flagrant cronyism. It is my view (and, like the views expressed above of Lar and Slim Virgin, it is only a personal view) that those found to have known prior to Law's RFA of his former identity on WP and to have participated in support of that RFA proceeding, should lose their admin tools, with predjudice. Those who discovered this identity at any time, and said nothing, should lose their admin tools, but with the ability to regain them via a new RFA after a reasonable period of time. Whether this outcome also suits the instigators of drama fests around other topics, or even long-term personal enmity, is of no matter, unless there are lies being promulgated about this troubling series of events and WP identities. Are there? // BL \\ (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The concern is legitimate. Some of the tactics being used are not. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So Lar what tactics do you suggest? DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(After ecs again} What better tactics would we propose that would expose -and yes, exposure is important- and properly demonstrate the degree of the community's displeasure? (Note that this question has nothing to do with my personal view of the enormity of the ethical breaches, but rather with whatever the community feels is the correct measure.) I would also think that anyone commenting in favour of a lighter touch on such matters should not be one of the ones who knew, and said nothing. That would be a clear and inappropriate conflict of interest. (This is another personal view and is not directed at anyone specifically.) // BL \\ (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Slowing down and not chasing revelations for starters. Determine what outcomes are possible and which is desired and how to decide. Determine what it is that needs to be determined in order to choose the appropriate outcome, why it is needed, and how best to go about determining it in a way that is considerate but that does not allow evasion. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Throw us a bone here - we have two issues, one is the immediate one, of what to do in this specific case. Arbs seem happy to ignore it at the moment. The other is the more general and long-standing one of what we do when admins do misbehave, and given the huge number of attempts over a very long time to come up with a policy that won't upset too many admins would gain wide enough acceptance a bit of a lead from Arbcom might actually be helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this case. What is it you want to know? And why? I'm not being facetious. For instance, do you (the general you) want to know whether each arbitrator did or didn't know that Law ==UT? Whether each functionary did or didn't? (for the record I did not know, I had no idea whatever and the first I heard about it was when the news broke) whether each admin did or didn't? Whether each voter in his RfA did or didn't? Suppose you know all of that, what are you going to do about it? Are you proposing sanctions of some sort? Against whom? For what purpose? I have my own opinions of course... despite our defacto "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding former banned users (who defacto, if they can edit quietly and drama free in areas that are low contention, can get away with socking more or less indefinitely, unless they are discovered), we should not have arbitrators or functionaries aiding and abetting the evasion of ArbCom sanctions... That much is clear. but what about passive knowledge? Knowledge one should have known but didn't because one didn't read an email? because a sent email was never received? Knowledge that was being used to try to solve the problem without the drama? It's easy to be absolutist but it's not that simple. So... what is it you want to have happen? ++Lar: t/c 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the agenda, the development of an arbitrator recall process was supposed to have proposals prepared by 5 September and decided upon by 26 September. I realise that the EE mailing list case has no doubt occupied a lot of time, but the community has been waiting a very long time for a resolution to arbitrator recall. A viable arbitrator recall process could also serve as a template for the long-needed administrator recall process. Would an update on the progress of this agenda item be available? EdChem (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this query, EdChem (I've taken the liberty of adding a header). We are currently undertaking an overhaul of the entire agenda, and this item is being looked at as part of that. If anyone else is reading this, and has opinions on other agenda items or the agenda in general (such as what priority to assign them, or whether other items should be added), now would be the time to say something. Carcharoth (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I haven't been asked directly - but I will make a statement here anyway. While I was on IRC, a few weeks ago, I learned that Law = the undertow. To be frank, I didn't really give it much thought since "the undertow" had come and gone before I ever started here. I assumed that anyone was entitled to WP:CLEANSTART. At this point in time I still believe that "Law" was a good editor, a good admin., and a net positive to the project. I strongly believe that Lara is a HUGE benefit to this project, and I strongly support her maintaining her admin. status. While my original introductions with Lara were a bit rough, and I wouldn't presume to be considered "friend", I do believe that there is a mutual respect between us at this point, and I think very highly of her. She has been a tremendous help to me as I've tried to help out a little here and there in the BLP areas, and I think it would be a mistake to allow the loss of such a talent to the project. To be honest, I never thought that her statement that she would have a "friend's back" in any way indicated that she would ever allow any harm or disrepute to come to Wikipedia. I truly doubt that she ever meant to indicate she would allow such a thing to happen. I interpreted her statement simply as one that she valued real life and real friendships over any virtual Internet venue. Just because I love my daughter more than anything in life, doesn't mean I'd let her do something foolish if I had the power to stop it. I'm only familiar with GlassCobra via the EFD page, but I have no reason to question his loyalty to the project, or his benefit to the project. I have poured over countless megabytes of text these last few days, and I still don't have a firm grasp of the entire situation due to the fact that much of the relevant items were conducted off-wiki. Do I think that there have been errors in judgment made? Sure, I think that's obvious at this point.

There are a great many people whom I respect, and consider friends at odds with each other at the moment, and I wish that were not so; but the situation is at hand, and I'll deal with my end of it to the best of my abilities. Beyond that I don't have much more of a statement to make at this time; however, any member of the community is fully welcome to approach me on my talk page and ask any question they so desire, or point me to any relevant information they may think I would value. I do not envy the arbs in this situation, the task ahead of you is arduous, and filled with pitfalls. You've accepted the positions that you have because you hoped to make a difference here; well - here's your chance - make it a good one. I wish you all the very best of luck. — Ched :  ?  15:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For those of us who are trying to find out who did what and to whom and why, so that we might be able to determine whether we are looking for witches or man-eating tigers, some information would be appreciated. I went looking to see what fallout had occured from the adminship of User:Law. That name re-directs now to User talk:The undertow, but there is nothing at TU of Law's contribution history that I could see. Could someone provide links please? Surely the separate contributions should be visible, either at one page or on individual pages. // BL \\ (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Try here: Law (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). As near as I can tell, the flashpoint was on September 20, when he unblocked ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), thereby overturning an arbitration enforcement block which had been placed by Sandstein (talk · contribs). It is expressly forbidden to overturn ArbCom enforcement actions in that way. When challenged, Law was unapologetic. Somewhere around then (I'm fuzzy on the exact timeline), it was discovered that Administrator Law was a reincarnation of banned user (and ex-admin) The undertow (talk · contribs). At least three administrators knew that Law == Undertow, but still either actively helped Law to become an administrator again, or, such as in arbitrator Casliber's case, held their tongue and just didn't say anything even though they had misgivings. For more info:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law
• WP:ANI#Community ban discussion regarding The undertow - now located at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Community_ban_discussion_regarding_The_undertow (modified by Manning (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC) )
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA - (rejected, permalink here added by killerchihuahua)

Caveat: I have not been following the entire situation in sordid detail, so it is possible that I may have left out some key elements. --Elonka 04:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the disclosure of Law's past had nothing to do with me, but was revealed after a dispute on IRC. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka's summary actually seems to be comprehensive. AGK 12:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur, Elonka has done a good job of hitting the high points clearly. The only possiblly salient detail which is missing is that the undertow was desysopped under a cloud, which included IIRC off site harassment. This has led some to feel the admins who aided and abetted him were behaving more poorly than had that not been the case, and led some defenders of those actions to state their view that the undertow was unlikely to ever become admin again unless under a false account. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unimaginable numbers of thanks to Elonka for this succinct explanation. More moderate numbers of thanks, but just as heartfelt, to KillerChihuahua and AGK for their contributions and/or confirmations. I suspect any other readers who come upon these clear and unemotional paragraphs will also be grateful. However, the link to Law is the same one in my question. It goes solely to the talk page of The undertow which has no material in its contribution list for Law and next to none for TU. I would still like to look at both histories, which should be available. What I am not doing correctly here? // BL \\ (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

These may help:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Law
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_undertow

With compliments, Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jehochman. Those are the pages I wanted to see. // BL \\ (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

@Bielle - basically, when you get to a page that has been redirected, you'll see in the upper left of the page a: (Redirected from User:Law) . When you click on the link, it will show you a page with a #redirect (something), you can then click on the "history" tab as you would any other page and see the information you're looking for. Hope that helps. — Ched :  ?  23:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ched. That's very useful information, and, obviously, not something I already knew. // BL \\ (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've also just made a clear summary of each specific policy that was broken in this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.27Arbcom_legislating.27_and_.27no_policies_have_been_broken.27 which might be both helpful, and quash the 'Arbcom would be creating new policy'/'No policies were broken' line. I may have missed out some other policies that were broken in this mess. --Barberio (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

Announcement

Please clarify the 0RR in condition 2 - would this be just on the named topic, or wiki-wide? The wording seems unclear to me. EdChem (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just the named topic. That's the one that seems to push his buttons. And yes the text needs tightening on that.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ok... I have no knowledge of the editor or opinion on the appeal, I just saw the announcement and thought the ambiguity should be addressed. EdChem (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored from archive 7.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.'  Roger Davies ^talk 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stick around. Resignation/defenestration should be for a pattern of poor behavior, not for one mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I just structured this for ease of navigation and getting numbers. I am not up to reading reams of text today, believe me :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't be making a quick decision today anyway; if nothing else, this forces you to wait to make a decision until you are up to reading reams of text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • True, I wasn't planning on closing this in 6 hours though, and it's a bit out of my hands really and up to the community. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is a really substantial difference between knowing about a problem while trying to resolve it quietly and being actively deceptive; this issue has editors in both categories, and I think its clear that Casliber is in the first. I'm a little conflicted about the question of resignation, though, because I am truly surprised to find that an arbitrator knew about this and did not find a way to resolve it. It's less than I expect from arbitrators, frankly. On the other hand, I think Casliber has been an eminently reasonable and trustworthy arbitrator in every other respect and he's a quite likable guy - and I've been told that there are other administrators who ArbCom knows are returned banned or desysopped users, and no action has been taken. So on balance, I won't call for Casliber's resignation but I can't argue against it either. Nathan ^T 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You've been told there are other administrators who ArbCom knows are returned banned or desysopped users? Could you please tell whoever told you this to contact ArbCom at the mailing list address, so that we can sort this out and not have this accusation hanging over us that we know more than we actually know. Individuals (as in Casliber's case) may be aware of some things, or have some suspicions, or may discuss things with other functionaries and checkusers, but that is a far cry from the committee as a whole being aware of things like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I understood Nathan's statement to refer to individuals. Are the other members of arb com prepared to state whether or not they know of other admins in this situation and who they are? DGG ( talk )

My comment describes what informed my decision not to come down either way; if I had actionable information, I'd have posted it. The folks who do have it can post it or not, whether to do so is not my call. Nathan ^T 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Cas, something stands out at me in your apology. You say you told the committee you knew yesterday, but Sandstein posted the RFAR 10 days ago. Why the delay? Thatcher 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I procrastinated. I am quite busy IRL and there was other arb stuff needed doing. I sat and looked that the Sandstein RFAR and realised I couldn't honestly post anything without some misrepresentation so began seriously thinking about it, but distracted by higher priorities elsewhere. Once the identities came to the attention of the committee, I thought I just better do some explaining. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The committee was alerted to the fact that Law=The undertow via another source, about 36 hours ago. While it was being discussed within the committee, Cas indicated that he was aware of this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• If Law's representations are accurate, his ban was technically flawed and the Committee explicitly gave him a right of appeal at the time when it enacted the original remedy. Yet although (apparently) arbitrators agreed that decision was flawed they refused to reinstate his editing privileges when he submitted his request. I currently know of five different requests and appeals, submitted privately, which the Committee has failed to act upon for weeks or (in most cases) months. These haven't been rejected; they're stuck in limbo. People sometimes resort to bad judgment calls when profoundly frustrated by months inaction. One of them is a banned editor (I won't give away the userame) who hasn't socked but is near the end of his tether. Privately he's declared a deadline after which he will give up on formal process and resume editing anyway. I've been entreating him to reconsider, but when the process and its custodians themselves make so little endeavor at fairness my words ring hollow. Apologies aren't necessary but corrective action would help. What are you doing, as an arbitrator, to fix these problems? Durova³²⁰ 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't really the place to discuss this (this section is really about Casliber's actions or inactions). What I would suggest here is that appeals should be publicly listed (just by appeal number if the appellants wish to remain anonymous) and the arbitrator(s) tasked with dealing with those appeals should be listed there as well. That way the delays in the process can be identified and acted upon. But as I am currently responsible for a long delay in a case being heard (an actual arbitration case, not an appeal), I should go and deal with that now. I suggest discussions of arbitrator workload and time management (and questions of how the community can help track this) be moved elsewhere. Maybe WT:ARBCOM? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Where else would be the place? Only one of those five instances is a ban appeal. I'm not even at liberty to discuss some of the others with the Committee via email because the petitioners confided privately. Suffice it to say that in less than half a year two different arbitrators have admitted to looking the other way at admin socking and a third arbitrator had to step down because he himself was an undisclosed sock of a desysopped user. It is very disheartening to see this unfold yet again, and to watch politically connected individuals receive expedited attention while others vanish into a black hole. Hardly anyone has the courage to call that spade a spade, but it does get noticed. It has a terrible effect on morale. Durova³²⁰ 01:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I said WT:ARBCOM, didn't I? This section is about Casliber's apology, not the backlog in ban appeals. What I would suggest is that you get the five people concerned to e-mail ArbCom asking for an update on their appeals. I will personally look out for those e-mails and give them an update on what is happening. I can't promise a date for when their appeals will be heard, because I'm not dealing with appeals at the moment (BASC duty is rotated for a reason), but I will chase things up for those people and anyone else who is reading this and e-mails for an update. But please don't let this subthread overwhelm this section. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, right. Corrective action means more than apology. It comes as a surprise that you consider it off topic. Durova³²⁰ 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I would generally just echo what Nathan says above (except for the "I've been told..." bit, 'cos I haven't :) I like Casliber and think he's a great content editor and great arbitrator but I'm greatly disturbed that an arb would sit by while a returning and not uncontroversial editor would say "I came from another wiki" in their RFA. I don't understand these supposed "friends" of TU, friends are the ones who sit you down and give you the straight goods, not the ones who sit in the car while you're driving drunk. I'd like to see Cas stay on but this saddens me. I also makes me wonder exactly how many dancing skeletons are still in the Arb closet. Franamax (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sigh. This is not quite resignable, IMHO, but it comes close. Letting someone with the obvious emotional instability of the undertow get through RFA again was a really bad decision that was inevitably going to create drama, because this guy is just not stable. I've been around long enough to remember that he yoyos all over the place. We can't have people like this with sysop buttons. He should have been stopped at the RFA stage, if not well before: Wikipedia is not therapy, and all that. Nobody expects arbitrators to be flawless, heaven knows, but not again, please? Moreschi (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Although it was a lapse, the lapse was shared by a number of administrators who took a more active role in promoting Law to adminship despite knowing it was a sock account. There isn't even a consensus, or admission by those who did it, that this was wrong. Without knowing what it is that got The undertow banned in the first place it's hard to assess the gravity of their collective poor judgment: were they favoring a friend? Shielding rulebreaking by an inner circle of privileged editors? Acting out ofor opposition to the Arbcom remedies? Advancing one faction over another? On the face of it, blocks and bans are one of the most serious duties of administrators, block/ban-evading socks are one of the greatest sources of disruption, and fake admin accounts are a significant threat to the project. Looking the other way, or worse, facilitating breaking the most important rules when one feels like it, is fundamentally inconsistent with the duties of an administrator. That sends a bad message to nonadmins too regarding the importance of rules and the fairness of admins. I think we need to look at the larger issue and get a consensus first that facilitating others is a violation of a policy violation, socking in particular, is itself a policy violation. That's probably worth an Arbcom case, rooting out those responsible. That's not what Casliber did, though; Casliber merely looked the other way, and waited a little longer than necessary to disclose the conflict of interest in being asked to rule on the behavior of an editor who was secretly known by Casliber to be a sock. That's not ideal, but I don't see it as getting to the heart of an Arbcom member's duties. Arbcom is already overworked and needs all the help it can get. Too many are resigning or going inactive. The next Arbcom election is the best time to decide: Casliber can decide whether to run again, and the community can say whether it remains confident. Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This guy is making a lot of sense. In particular, I think that GlassCobra (talk · contribs) making what was essentially a nomination that lied by omission was really going way beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Moreschi (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there evidence that GlassCobra knew he was nominating the sock of a blocked user? That's a serious charge.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • For full disclosure: Yes, I was aware that The_undertow and Law are the same person. I have fairly frequent contact with him and am aware of his personal situation. After he created the Law account, we had a long discussion about his approach to Wikipedia and what he thought his place was. He stated his desire to leave behind his clouded past and get a fresh start, with Law as his only account, and I determined that I felt sufficiently comfortable to place my trust in him once again by nominating him. I did purposefully leave out any mention of The_undertow in his RfA nomination; I wanted editors to judge him solely by his actions and edits as Law. I would also like to reaffirm my trust in this editor and call attention to his overwhelmingly positive track record as Law; he has written quality articles, collaborated peacefully with other editors, and used the tools in a manner that is a net positive to this project. It is unfortunate that his identity was revealed this way, and I take this opportunity to note my extreme displeasure with the actions and behavior of the other editors involved in leaking the information. As Georgewilliamherbert has noted, the ArbCom has been aware of other blocked editors contributing under new names in the past. We have precedent of blocked users under new names having friends mentor them and supervise their edits, and some have come full circle to gain the tools themselves. It is quite a mystery to me why this particular instance seems to be generating such a dramastorm. GlassCobra 05:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I do appreciate your honesty in coming clean here. But do you not see how misguided your nomination was, and antithetical to the notion of governing Wikipedia through policies and consensus rather than personalities, connections, and aggression? Do Arbcom members and popular admins have a special privilege to ignore blocks and policies to "mentor" their online and real-life buddies? What you "want" is not the issue. We all want things. The whole "net positive" stuff is unconvincing, the last defense of an editor's indefensible conduct. What about us regular editors who muck in the article trenches month after month dealing with socks, trolls, vandals, and other disruptive editors without the benefit of patrons to rescue us when we get ourselves in trouble? I've created 120+ articles and there are plenty of things I want too. I want not to have to deal with long-term sockpuppeteers in some weid spooky mental war dragging me through procedure after procedure in a game to add fringe nonsense content to the encyclopedia. I want not to be viewed as some drama queen content warrior and scolded everytime I sincerely bring a editing problem to the attention of administrators. I really want an assumption of good faith. We normal editors get rather short treatment, and we have to deal with the aftermath of the stuff that goes on here. Why do you get what you want, and I don't? It's not giving away much to say that I am a mature adult with some measure of respect and success in real life. Why should I try my best to respect teenagers playing cop, policies even when they're an obstacle, or administrators even when they're wrong, Arbcom sanctions even when Arbcom was out to lunch when they decided them, if others in privileged positions do not share those compunctions? You enabled a sock admin, who just wheel warred to countermand Arbcom sanctions in a case that took many months to resolve (if it is indeed resolved). This generated drama because the sock you helped create just improperly unblocked an editor under Arbcom restrictions for his fourth or fifth violation those restrictions, and wasted perhaps several full days of time collectively of some of Wikipedia's most senior editors, pretty much guaranteeing that we will go through this whole thing again in another week or two. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I generally agree w/ wikidemon here. You fucked up big time on that one GC. Nothing that can't be looked past or accepted, but it was a big mistake. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I appreciate that GlassCobra is now being honest, but I am very disappointed that a WP admin would actively help a blocked editor circumvent his block and nominate him for admin. That activity shows no respect for the community and its policies. I don't understand how Casliber, GlassCobra, Jennavecia, et al. can feel comfortable blocking some editors for block evasion while aiding another editor in evading his block. Any of these editors could have initiated an appeal or a request for the block to be lifted. Instead they all engaged in subterfuge. That isn't what we should expect from people in positions of trust.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with you that we need to reach some kind of community consensus on whether or not it is acceptable for administrators especially to ignore disruptive socking (and per WP:SOCK, this case was disruptive). I'm frankly appalled that so many of those who knew about this case think there was nothing wrong with either their socking or their silence. At least Cas was trying to resolve the situation in the background. Karanacs (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, I find that amazing too. A stack of administrators knew about this the whole time - some supported his RfA as if he were entirely new to them, one nominated him, others either remained silent or participated as though he were new... That many people find this to be completely acceptable... I just find that hard to understand. Nathan ^T 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is up to Casliber to decide based solely on the dictates of his own conscience. The decision should not be based on views of the small cross-section of editors who will respond here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, hopefully it is larger than a smidgen of the community. My conscience feels bad but I still feel I have a lot to offer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• First we must demand integrity of ourselves then we must demand from our friends and then we can demand from the community. That is demand not ask. Casliber if the primary reason behind this tardy revelation is because you were unable bite the bullet and place the demands of integrity over those of friendship, then you should resign. If you had real reason to believe the issue was being taken care of and were blind-sided when those plans fell through, then stick around but calibrate your judgment accordingly. Only you can honestly judge yourself in this, we don't have good enough information to decide for you.--BirgitteSB 02:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Fff! Gah! Alt accounts should be piled in the Marianna Trench and nuked. Even the joke ones. Wasted time not spent improving content. Name changes too unless in cases of stalking or some such. This stupid online skulduggery that is employed just because it can be has repercussions. It is inherently dishonest and allows users to manipulate the good faith of users while promoting confusion to perennially clueless editors like me. This site can't go a week without someone being de-masked as a sock of someone else. Christ. Do what you want to do Casliber. You'll catch shit either way. Either learn how to edit without being an ArbCom member or suck up the guilt and own your mistake and say "Yeah, I did that. Won't do it again. So what?" You'll be Wikipedia Review's punching bag for a while til the next sock is uncovered and they move on to something else tawdry. --Moni3 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  I share Moni3's concern about socks and user renames in general. We've recently socks playing WP:BADHAND and others artificially inflating an apparent consensus on various dicsussions. I suggest all alternate accounts of all editors should be banned, except that ArbCom should be able to authorise specific alternates for specific reason, with reviews of these cases at intervals of a year or less. Changes of name are can sometimes be an attempt to walk away from consequences of previous behaviour, and I suggest we discuss possible situations to see if we can work out some principles - possibly at WP:VPP. --Philcha (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is this behavior to be chastised, or commended? We have a long history of problem users reforming and returning (not the rule, but there are plenty of exceptions who were indef'ed or banned for a year who are now productive cooperative editors). We have tended to look the other way if the returned user self-identified. In this case they were outed by someone else, and not given the chance to come to that decision on their own. Casliber has admitted to working with them to convince them to make the admission. I don't know what the right answers are here - but resignation is premature. I think I would have done something different, but I think I want an arbcom whose members balance protecting the community and in the rare case where it's actually possible, rehabilitating those who were abusers in the past. I don't know that this was entirely the right thing to do, but it clearly wasn't wrong (morally, corrupt, failure of judgement) either. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• To SV, the deletion was by request for a RL concern voiced by The Undertow (actually) unrelated to Wikipedia. I had not thought of it in relation to this until yesterday, when yeah it didn't look good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you know when you deleted those pages that he was back as Law? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Yes. As I have said, I was hoping he'd resign the Law account or come clean himself at some point. I was not thinking about the trail WRT onwiki investigations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that, as a member of the ArbCom, you deleted the user and talk page of an editor under an ArbCom ban, who you knew was not only back editing, but who had gained another admin account? Cas, please resign and save everyone a lot of trouble. This can't be justified. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that user talk pages were not normally deleted. The user in this case certainly didn't vanish. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be undeleted?   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not supposed to delete talk pages, as I understand it, so it should be undeleted. I see that Lara has also deleted Law's pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

@SV I wouldn't say it is entirely unjustifiable. I know of at least five incidents in the past when arbcom members knew of improper alt account usage and did nothing. All five cases are long since resolved, but I can't exactly hold Casliber to a higher standard than the community has held members in the past, at least without saying "we are raising the standard for future actions". MBisanz ^talk 04:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If we let this one go too, then standards have fallen even further. Rather than defend Cas because it has happened with other cases, please tell us what the other cases were instead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure the first case I name will scream outing, the second will scream revenge, and the third will scream drama mongering; you will forgive me for not being motivated to flop my head down on the chopping block I hope. MBisanz ^talk 05:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Lots of people are worried about speaking up, which is one of the things we elect ArbCom members for. Then we find they're also involved, and to make matters worse won't automatically resign when caught. That we're even having to discuss this is astonishing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Those of us who work or have worked in management positions know that if you give people over whom you exercise some authority leeway with regards to the rules, sooner or later it will come back to bite you. The lesson here is, if you're in a management position, and en.Wikipedia arbitrators are in "management", then it's probably safer to abide by the letter of the law in all cases. That's not a very pleasant position to have to be in, but it is safer. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) yeah, big time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• For several months, you were aware that an editor was directly violating an ArbCom-imposed ban. You did not report the issue to the community as a whole, nor to your fellow Arbitrators, on the assumption that you might be able to encourage the editor to reform. You remained silent – for months – even after you found that the account had been granted adminship on the basis of an RfA containing a number of barefaced lies. You only came clean to your fellow Arbitrators after the matter had been reported to them by someone else. In the Abd/WMC case, you (along with your fellow Arbs) endorsed a principle about the importance of administrators "avoiding apparent impropriety" in their actions. Can you reconcile your own conduct with that principle? How does it reflect on the role and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee if one of its members unilaterally and secretly opts to disregard the Committee's own remedies? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to work something out with minimum drama, which unfortunately wasn't successful. I was trying to be pragmatic. I was also aware of the circumstances behind the sanctions (and some of the factors at the time) and was satisfied then they wouldn't recur. Juggling pragmatism and principles can be tricky. Nonetheless, I have made the statement indicating my apology for the slip-up and noting the feedback. (hence the options above) We're all human and we've all made mistakes, expecting anyone to be perfect is an unattainable ideal. I have taken this view in cases and ban appeals as well. As I said, if the consensus is I should go, I will go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it speaks volumes that you either didn't think to, or felt you were unable to, trust your fellow Arbitrators to assist you with this situation. It's not entirely clear to me why a minimum-drama, pragmatic solution could not be arrived at through consultation with the Committee, nor why you chose to go it alone and ignore the Committee's remedy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It may speak to something, but it certainly doesn't speak to Casilber alone. Perhaps is we assumed (for a moment) that a minimum drama pragmatic solution would not have been forthcoming from the committee or the community, would that make Cas's actions more understandable? Protonk (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that this doesn't reflect solely on Casliber's judgement. The community should find it very worrying that a sitting Arbitrator didn't feel comfortable raising the issue of an editor who gained a position of trust and responsibility on Wikipedia through deception, largely on the basis of activities carried out in direct violation of a clear-cut Arbitration-imposed remedy. If the Committee couldn't be relied upon to treat the testimony of one of its own with restraint and discretion, what message does that send? If this situation is representative of an overall lack of mutual trust and respect among Arbitrators, the Committee is seriously dysfunctional.

On the other side of that, though, is the lack of judgement (or at least foresight) that Casliber showed over a long period of time. The ArbCom has regularly handed out penalties (from simple cautions and admonishments ranging up to desysopping) to editors who have attempted to resolve messy situations but not known when they were in over their heads. At the point where Casliber's months of entreaties failed to result in any openness on the part of the banned editor and that editor assumed a position of trust within the community, Casliber should have been able to see where this was all headed. Once Casliber was aware of Law's adminship, the matter needed to be addressed – discreetly, in camera, as necessary – by the Committee. It was only a matter of time before everything exploded. (As the old saying goes — three can keep a secret...if two of them are dead.) While I sincerely doubt that Casliber ever sat down and said to himself, Today I will arrogate the authority of the Committee, and instead modify and suspend their sanctions without discussion or consultation, that is nevertheless the effect of his actions. It is not the role of individual Arbitrators to rewrite the decisions of the Committee.

One final thought — Casliber was running for (and elected to) ArbCom while this ban evasion started taking place. While I do not and cannot know at exactly what time Casliber first made contact with Law and knew about the alternate account, does he think that his candidacy for ArbCom would have been successful if the community had known at the time about his ongoing activities with respect to this banned user? If he were to run for reelection this year, would he be successful? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is pragmatic to take care of things immediately before they blow out of all proportion rather and than stalling for a easier option. Stop digging.--BirgitteSB 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Casliber, could you share what lessons you've learned from this, and how you'd handle the same situation if it came up again in the future, both in your own editing and in cases that might come to the ArbCom?   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Birgitte writes a good summary on the other page - it did snowball (eventually) and didn't go away. I would have ensured it didn't remain secret like it did, and should have taken steps before the RfA especially. Rootology's readminning has been a good example to others that editors can come back from sanctions and win the community's trust. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Rootology did not come back and win the community's trust by creating a sock account. We've now learned that there was an entire group of people who knew about this block evasion and helped it along. This calls into question whether rules are applied consistently, and is not behavior that Wikipedia should expect from its volunteers in trusted positions. If that's all you have to say then I'm not sure that you've learned from this episode after all. If you'd like to think about it more and respond more fuilly that would be helpful. I'd like to know your opinion of admins who aid their frineds in block evasion. Should that be condoned?   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean...is there anyone else you guys want to tell us about? I notice GC copped to nominating law and ommitting his prior account...which just leaves me gobsmacked. People protesting the sock policy talk a big game about how you can't technically enforce it...but that doesn't seem to matter if we can't socially enforce it. I said above that I don't think cas should resign, but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Protonk, comment is to Casliber) You made mistakes, but as I suggested above one thing you can do now, at the very least, is clean house on the committee. That is, if there are any other committee members who are aware of similar situations, they should come forward about it and do so right now (in a semi-discrete fashion if necessary). The point being made above by MBisanz, GlassCobra, and others that these kind of things happen with some frequency is ridiculously problematic—not all of us are party to whatever open secrets certain editors seem to have access to. Either banned editors are actually banned until the community or the ArbCom decides otherwise on Wikipedia, or else we just admit that certain segments of the community have decided it's okay for certain users to come back when they are friendly with them and for these kind of decisions to be made off-wiki wherever it is y'alls make these decisions (and, if you happen to learn about this kind of thing, well just relish that knowledge but don't say anything about it). I'd say let's go with the former option, but some confidence restoring exercises are needed here, and I suggest you start with ArbCom coming clean about any other situations like this one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I suspect this is actually more difficult than may appear. If Casliber aided in all of this, then most likely he should resign. If he only was aware of the situation, however, then in fact I am not sure that it was his obligation to report such information. To pose the question: are arbitrators obligated to report all perceived misconduct of which they are aware (to the rest of the committee, or to the community), even if known only due to personal confidences? It may be tempting to say yes, but I think the obligations are more specific, and require additional context. Perhaps, if you are aware of a specific type of misconduct by friends, then you should be able to account for this with regard to your actions toward others. E.g., if Casliber is aware of this then one would hope his actions and his public statements were consistent with such knowledge. Moreover, I can certainly see problems if Casliber was being used for cover, or if Casliber disregarded routine enforcement for a friend. But all of these require additional information. If he only knew about this because a friend told him, then the idea that arbitrators actually have to report individual malfeasance as they personally see it (but their friends may not, for whatever reasons), in all instances, may go beyond what is good policy. This doesn't answer the question as to Casliber, of course, but suggests only that the initial revelation may not be enough to go by. Mackan79 (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Casliber acted extremely foolishly, but perhaps understandably and not necessarily dishonestly. I do largely agree with SV's comments above, but the one I feel contempt for is GlassCobra, for nominating a known sock at RfA. It makes a mockey of an already discredited process, and I find that unforgivable. I don't demand Casliber's resignation, after all to err is human, but I do demand that the entire ArbCom now come clean about all their other dirty little secrets. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• You'd have better luck demanding that Coke divulge their recipe for Coca-Cola. Badger Drink (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to demand anyone's head, nothing good will come of that, but I would like to express my extreme disappointment with everyone who allowed this RfA to run its course without disclosing what they knew. GlassCobra, I find it particularly disheartening that you are unwilling to acknowledge the iniquitousness of your actions. Your deceit only serves to strengthen the notion that contributors are treated far from equally, and the only thing that matters is who your friends are. decltype (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• is it really the place of an arb to act as a therapist and try to persuade an offender to do the right thing through personal argument for "many months" while keeping the sock secret from arcom even ?[17] —mattisse (Talk) 12:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm really on the fence about this one. On one hand, we have someone who I see as an excellent arb in general. On the other, we have a user who, knowing the policies on the matter, did not disclose the evasion of an ArbCom-imposed ban, and further, allowed the user to become a sysop again without disclosing his past. The correct procedure would have been for The undertow to appeal his ban to arbcom and have it lifted, and then abandon the account. Even then, he probably should have been required to disclose the account before standing for adminship. I think we can all agree that this inaction was a betrayal of the community's trust. Whether it warrants resignation, though, is a trickier question, especially given that we can't see the off-wiki communication that took place to prove that Casliber actually did repeatedly urge Law to come clean. I think that if we had that evidence, we could better examine what really took place. I request that Law and Casliber agree to post the content of the emails for the community's benefit.

If anyone clearly and unambiguously needs to resign, it is Glasscobra, for knowingly and willfully nominating an undisclosed sockpuppet of a desysopped/banned user at RFA. Whether he had the trust of GC is entirely irrelevant, as he should have appealed his ban or disclosed the account. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This committee was elected because people were tired of what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as the inconsistent ethical standards of the previous one. The December 2008 election was a vote for change. Each and every committee member who is protecting friends while desysopping others for the same offences; or who has himself been banned or desysopped in the past; or who is hiding anything else they know the community would regard as substantive, is making a mockery of that election and of everyone's faith in you.

Please ask Casliber to resign as an Arb and functionary, and ask anyone else on the committee with similar secrets to step down. The community wants and needs an honest ArbCom. No one should be allowed to compromise its integrity in this way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is the not remote possibility that we will cease to have a committee if that happens. Also, in our infinite wisdom, the Wikipedia community decided that the problem with arbcom was that there was too little secrecy, so when we go to vote for a new set of arbs, we will do so with secret ballots. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose if the Committee wanted to get started, it could act on my emails of 08/31/2009, 07/04/2009, and 04/26/2009 and the current members of AUSC could act on the email I sent to them individually on 12/22/2008 and of course there are the one or two other admin abuse matters I've privately communicated to certain arbs that haven't seen the light of day in months and years as well. MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Aren't we about to have another election? Why don't we simply ask all candidates to agree to a pledge of conduct and agree to resign should they violate it? Things like -- Arbcom decisions apply to all editors, there are no free passes for friends; no acting in COI situations, etc. If they won't agree to reasonable restrictions then people can make their own conclusions when they vote. At the same time we should acknowledge that being an Arbcom member is a thankless task that does not result in any real power, riches, or respect in life, it's service more than honor, so let's not make it less attractive to be a committee member, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• A code of conduct would be great. Please, write one. I doubt the committee will have the time to do so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt the committee will even have the time to enforce it, or even uphold it in the first place. Badger Drink (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• MBisanz, I can't see an email from you on Dec 22, 2008. If I have found the right email from April 26 and July 4, they are problems of various degrees of wrongness, many of which have been dealt with in arbitration cases; the rest have not been brought to arbitration publicly, and they are not the type of issue that the committee privately deals with. The email from September 1 was a matter that would normally be dealt with privately, but is a long way from conclusive - we did drop the ball on that one by not replying to you or investigating it further. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• A code of conduct is a good idea, but it's a little sad that we'd have to include, "Do not cover up for your friends if they gain adminship while under an ArbCom ban." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A secret ballot will at least prevent people from being elected just because editors are reluctant to vote against whichever clique they belong to. It's a step in the right direction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the features. It will also prevent auditing of the results by anyone distant from the committee. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Addendum) I should probably stop pressing the point, it is a little off topic. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Following the suggestion above, I've created a tentative proposal for a code of conduct. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct. All input is welcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• John Vandenberg: you say "I doubt the committee will have the time to do so." I say the Committee would have more time for such if it streamlined some of the time-wasting parts of its hearings process (like restating policy and pillars and expecting arbs to pace through with the scroller ticking yes to them, time and time again). And kept to a decent timetable in its hearings. Tony (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, the basic principles at the top of each case are not a time sink; trying to eradicate them to save time is a massive red herring. But that isn't to say that there are a lot of areas where stream-lining our processes will result in time and effort savings. The biggest time saver for this committee has been appointing more checkusers and oversighters.

Back on topic, I am stunned and pleased that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct has existed for years; I've only just seen it now. The committee has talked about a code of conduct on and off for a while now, but we have unseen backlogs across the board to work on, and we are expected to participate in the community as well. The committee doesn't need to write arbitration related policies; the community can, and should, do it. (Thanks SlimVirgin) Also the Arbitration policy improvements havent been rolled into policy yet. If necessary, the committee can ratify them once the community is done updating it.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Something is seriously wrong if an arbitrator (which John V. is, I believe) is stunned to learn that there exists an Arbitration Committee code of conduct! Has ArbCom no institutional memory? There needs to be, apparently, a standard message sent 2 or 3 times a year to all arbitrators which says that the following pages (several, including the code of conduct) are required reading. - Hordaland (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The code of conduct is not policy, it's a long-dormant proposal (well, at least it was dormant until yesterday). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What he said↑ See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_code_of_conduct&oldid=287519830 What part of "failed to gain consensus" do you not understand? The page was only revived today [18]. *mumbles something about people who make accusations without doing any research whatsoever* J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Humbly beg your pardon. Although Boris' info was sufficient and not judgemental. Thank you, Boris.

(I did do some looking, tho clearly not enuff.) --Hordaland (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure what I think of this incident, but I appreciate Casliber's candor and thank him for it. In view of the discussion above, I've proposed to write up what I believe the community's expectations are in such cases at WP:SOCK#Disclosure of inappropriate alternative accounts by trusted editors:

Editors who hold advanced permissions (administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser) and members or clerks of the Arbitration Committee hold positions of particular community trust. When applying for and at any time while holding such a position, they are required:

• to disclose any own alternative account that could reasonably be considered inappropriate;
• to make public, in an appropriate venue, any knowledge they have about such accounts of other active editors, except if the alternative account is already disclosed on the editor's user page.

Failure to do so in a timely manner is grounds for removal from their position of trust by decision of the Arbitration Committee.

Discussion of this should probably take place at WT:SOCK.  Sandstein  09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm thinking of above, and I'll say that I tentatively disagree with such a policy. To state one issue among many, there is a fair amount of gray area in socking, as evident in the double standards that many perceive. Arbitrators also weren't always arbitrators, and come with knowledge that preceded their positions on the Committee. If someone indicates to an arbitrator as a friend that they are using another account, and besides that there is no indication of disruption, should the arbitrator automatically involve himself and disclose it to the rest of the Committee? Even if this disclosure to the arbitrator preceded his or her election? A competing principle would be that of recusal, that an arbitrator who is not impartial with regard to an editor should avoid decision making with regard to that editor. Similarly there is the principle of avoiding rules which can in almost all cases be enforced only through honest personal disclosure, and the principle of avoiding rules that would isolate arbitrators from the realities of the community. Just a few thoughts on this for here. Mackan79 (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, are you saying, that if anyone wishes to run for RFA, they must disclose if they have any socks, or tell the community if they know of anyone else who has socks (like Law for example). This would be both unenforcable and gameable. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any inappropriate socks. I don't see how this is unenforceable or gameable. It just tells our officials that we expect them to behave ethically, and that they ought not to have any undisclosed affiliations that might impede their ability to act neutrally. Knowing of an inappropriate sock and not doing anything about it is such an impediment.  Sandstein  09:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily could be used for disruptive purposes, at least in theory. I could run for RFA, and "disclose" that Joe Bloggs has sock John Citizen (which could be a serious allegation), and it could be investigated to no avail, but it'd still cause disruption. This might be faulty logic but I still see a potential issue. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When, oh when, is en.WP going to get tough on alt accounts. I huffed and puffed at WT:SOCKPUPPET a few months ago to have the policy significantly strengthened, without much success. I'm sick of seeing ArbCom and other parts of en.WP's structure weakened by the little sock scandals that dribble out regularly. How many resignations? How much distrust? Just make it exceptional for a user to be allowed to operate more than one account, and give the information to the CUs. Tony (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would see no problem with requiring those running for such positions to disclose their own socks. But we should make no requirement that they disclose the socks of others. There is no gain to be made in turning everyone into informants on other Wikipedians. --Jayron32 05:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Then let's get rid of all the noticeboards, because that's what everyone who posts at a noticeboard is. Let's get rid of WP:SPI also. "Turning informants on other Wikipedians" is the first step to enforcement, if people are reluctant to "tattle-tale" on other editors then we have chaos. -- Atama頭 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Q1: You state the following in your statement "...confessed to the committee a day ago, after the committee became alerted to the identities by another incident." Could you please release a copy of your "confession?" Were you aware that you had been accused of knowing the identities early in the public disclosure? Do you know if covering up your knowledge of the identities was the counter-factual statement to which CHL refers here? Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) I cut and pasted much of my statement to the committee onto that which is on the flip side of this page. Other bits pertain to material it is not up to me to release. (b) Yes, I saw my name come up. I had already disclosed to the committee by that point and was considering posting something openly (c) Yes. He was trying to protect me, however I had told the committee before this (which he didn't know). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have modified my opinion above based on these answers, specifically b. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The kicker is looking now at moving on sock discussions. I have always edited under my real name and have hated the idea of socking. I'd like to participate in this but realise my credibility on the topic is busted, so I am resigning. I'll leave it to y'all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: the other reason is really that upon thinking about it, I have been a passenger for much of the year, and I think the current team have done a great job really, and I think it will be fine without me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh fuck. Please don't. I told half of the project because I was tired of lying to people I knew. I regretted lying to the other half. Fuck me. This is all my fault, and not anyone else's. I just should have either kept my mouth shut or kept with my resignation. Fuck. I promised I wouldn't comment as the_undertow, but look what the fuck I've done. Admonish me. Ban me. CU me. Fuck this. This is all my fault. Fuck. If I just walked away quietly and let AC do what they do. Fuck. Fuck Fuck. Just ban me. I fucked up. You, (AC) promised me if I went along with our deal that nobody would be hurt. Fuck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The undertow (talk • contribs)

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Yours were particularly idiotic, but others also acted inappropriately and must answer for that. At least Casliber has recognized his mistake and is trying to do the right thing now; I wish others would do the same. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed your fault, and it appears its your friends who will be punished because of your actions. Thats the risk of friendship i guess. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "deal?" What deal? Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

By "deal," I think he means the unbanning arrangement (rather than any back-room scheming). AGK 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree that we must all take responsibility for our own actions, I think it is also important that we approach matters in a mature, dignified, and civilized fashion. Part of that includes not kicking people when they are down. No offense Karanacs, but there are positive ways to bring about a desired outcome, and I don't consider calling anyone "idiotic" one of them. — Ched :  ?  15:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand your position. To clarify, I don't believe that the_undertow is an idiot, I believe he did idiotic things (there actually is a big difference there). His actions can't and shouldn't be justified. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. This recent bout of finger-pointing and fault-finding is sickening. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Julian, I don't understand. When policies are broken, is the community expected to stand by and pretend it didn't happen? When we don't enforce policies consistently we make mockeries of them and implicitely encourage everyone else to ignore them. If the problem is that the policy is unreasonable and unenforceable, then we need to fix the policy. If the policy is unclear enough that users can't tell whether or not they are in compliance, then we need to fix the policy. If the community thinks the policy is appropriate and users X, Y, and Z decide they don't feel like following it that day, then users X, Y, and Z need to be sanctioned, because they broke the rules. The community can't determine which path to take (amend the policy or sanction those who broke it) unless we at least talk about it. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • No, but we must deal with the issue responsibly and like adults, without having a petty argument about whose "fault" it was. The recent events regarding Law, Casliber, et al. are certainly serious; that I don't doubt. However, as a community we need to find the best possible solution and work together to that end to resolve the dispute without singling out anybody. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the lack of foresight on the_undertow's part is mind-boggling. How does someone not anticipate this would happen in a blame-happy finger-pointing drama-laden-causing-orgasm culture like this one? Reminds me of Mafia hit men characters who beg for their lives and cry when someone threatens to kill them. --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Julian, your position is not something I can comprehend. It's more important to fix the problem than to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt. Sometimes people do stupid things. They should be singled out for it, insofar as doing so is useful in solving the problem at hand. Friday (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts are basically identical to Ched's ↓ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• My own perception is this: We have a website backed by many policies and guidelines - and yet we also have the oft pointed to WP:IAR - to me that speaks volumes. We are here to build an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. We're not here to point to any individuals shortcomings, we're not here to find the faults in others, we're not here to play USENET flamewar games - we're here to build the best online collection of knowledge that we can. Those who are doing so should be applauded, those who aren't should be directed in a more positive direction. — Ched :  ?  16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's why we should be here, but in truth not the reason why many are here. Particularly those administrators who wouldn't even know where to find an article, much less write one, who are apparently motivated entirely by an obsession to punish those who do while bending over backwards to welcome an never-ending flood of IP vandals and pov warriors. I don't particularly blame either Casliber or Law, but I do think that GlassCobra has much to answer for. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • IAR is not some kind of shield against making mistakes. IAR is best applied when you don't invoke it. Invoking it in fact shows that you know something is wrong with the situation and now you want a get out of jail free card. People who have been here this long should know much better. IAR is best applied to newbies or people getting involved in things they're not familiar with and making mistakes. It means we're happy to let them edit in those situations without requiring them to spend hours and hours reading up on rules before hand. But Casliber is an arbcom member and there is no excuse for being ignorant of the way things work around here. IAR should be completely done away with and replaced with "Don't worry if you didn't read the fine print before you started editing, we won't hold honest mistakes against you". There was no honest mistake here. An honest mistake would have been a day or two, a weekend maybe. Heck I'd even extend it to a week if it took him that long to have a conversation with undertow. But beyond that honest is gone.--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Resignation not accepted by me at least. Anyone is free to walk away, and nobody can make anyone stay. But Casliber, please don't be hasty or get discouraged. Let's see where things go from here. We don't know how this is all going to shake out. I have a feeling this issue - admins and arbcom members socking - goes well beyond this current case. We already know there are several others. The real damage is not the occasional disruption we know about from the socks who, it turns out, should have been banned and stayed banned. It's loss of faith in Arcom and the administrative process, something that won't be cured by the resignations of individuals as they are uncovered and hounded out. If the issue is important enough for Arbcom members to resign, it's imortant enough for Arbcom members to stay and overcome. The past is done. If the community cares enough about the issue, it will demand that we deal with illegitimate accounts. I don't think punishment for past behavior is really helpful, but rather drawing the line going forward, if that's what people want. Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Reminder: December is only two months away.--Tznkai (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm in favour of the resignation (shame on those admins who also knew and did nothing, and now refuse to do the decent thing)- but I also agree with Wikidemon that there is a much wider problem of admins socking and condoning block and ban evasion by their friends. Every attempt to do something systematic against this problem is howled down by a collection of admins. Arbcom needs to set a good example - so do admins, but I doubt the ability or inclination of many of them to do so. Long ago the particularly idiotic decision to appoint admins for life, and to make it virtually impossible for the community to effectively scrutinize their actions was made - and now any attempt to do so is met by howls of indignation from many admins, who clearly do not regard honesty, openness, or integrity as being beneficial to the building of an encyclopædia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I wish you the best - and we get you back editing more articles :) Here's to your next FA. (Personally speaking I would have supported your continuance but I believe your resignation is a fair and noble resolution that avoids drama. I particularly appreciated your personal willingness to engage the community during the whole Advisory Council debacle and your votes and contributions on ArbCom decisions have in my view always been reasonable and well thought out.) Orderinchaos 09:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Crap, you shouldn't have resigned. Arbcom is turning into a wanker enablement squad and it will be worse without you. The WMC case was ridiculous and you were in the ever-shrinking group of arbs that had any sense in the matter. 67.119.3.190 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an ArbCom member (or ex-Arbcom member) please shed some light on the_undertow's statement above? Specifically, ". . . You, (AC) promised me if I went along with our deal that nobody would be hurt" (bolding mine). I think it goes without saying that remaining silent with regards to some sort of "backroom buddy deal" and letting Casliber throw himself under the bus would be utterly slimey and reprehensibly cowardly - not exactly out of character for ArbCom, but still rather breathtakingly unabashed in its reprehensibility. Badger Drink (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that "deal" as the terms of his original arbcom sanction - 9 month block, followed by no shenanigans. He failed to abide by the deal when he edited during the block. Turn it around; had he complied with the "deal", everything would have worked out - he would have been editing for proper in mid-March, would not have been involved in the late unpleasantness, and wouldn't have given casliber cause to contemplate resignation. So, in context, that's my best guess. If there was some other arrangement, then yes I'd like to know about it as well, but I don't see evidence of one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This question is for me to respond to, as I managed this "case". The Arbitration Committee received an IRC log where User:Law was having a dispute with another editor, and confirmed that he had previously edited as User:The undertow, early on Tuesday. (As an aside, someone had mentioned to me a "rumour" that the two accounts were the same editor shortly before I logged off in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, and I did not press or do any investigation at that time.) As a group, various members of the Committee investigated and collected information that supported the IRC log. There were more than sufficient votes to perform a Level I desysopping; however, it was agreed that an effort to communicate directly with User:Law should be made prior to desysopping, as there did not appear to be an emergency situation. (Neither account was currently editing, and any member of the Committee could immediately activate the temporary desysopping if required.) As I am one of the few members of the current Arbitration Committee who uses IRC to communicate, I agreed to make an attempt to "speak" with Law directly through that medium. Prior to this event, I had never had personal communications with either of the accounts, to my knowledge or recollection. Through intermediaries (whom I thank), Law was advised that I was seeking him, and he contacted me via personal message. I made it clear at the beginning of our discussion that the resolution would be that the User:Law account would be desysopped and that he would be restricted to one account, and that further sanctions may follow, initiated by another member of Arbcom; the discussion was focused on how to accomplish this, with various options considered. As a result of our discussion, User:Law requested desysopping from a steward, which I facilitated, as this account was not SUL and could not post to Meta; the editor elected to return to the User:The undertow account as his single account; the motion was posted; and I blocked the User:Law account. From the time of the receipt of the IRC logs by the Committee to the motion acknowledging Law's resignation of the administrator tools was less than 24 hours.

Subsequent to the posting of the motion, several other related activities have occurred. Former arbitrator Casliber acknowledged that he had prior information, discussed this with the community and elected to resign; that was not known or anticipated at the time of my discussion with The undertow. Some members of the community have initiated a request for arbitration that is related to the actions of other administrators who had knowledge of the two accounts. Other members of the community have initiated policy discussions on several pages. The Committee has also continued to review the information relating to this matter and to consider whether further sanction is appropriate under the circumstances.

I will note that, as part of the review of this situation, it became clear that User:The undertow did make a request to Arbcom to have his block lifted in August/September of 2008, and it does not appear that a formal decision on that request was ever made or communicated to The undertow, based on the records available to this year's Committee. As we are all well aware, last year's iteration of the Arbitration Committee found itself exceedingly short-staffed and in disarray by that time; this year's Committee has drawn lessons from their difficult experience and has established processes to try to prevent such matters from slipping through the cracks, as it appears happened in this case. Risker (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Lara's statement, the_undertow had already attempted to appeal his block to the ArbCom earlier, but the request was ignored. As Lara put it: "He attempted to appeal, and from what I'm told there was general agreement among the ArbCom of 2008 to accept his request, but the thread went silent and was apparently forgotten. I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too. [...] AC was silent, though." This seems like a considerable piece of the puzzle. I'm not going to accuse ArbCom over this, but if the undertow first tried appealing in the proper method, only to be (perhaps unintentionally) ignored although never told "no", this seems like breeding grounds for him wanting to go ahead and create the Law account. Some clarification about this would be appreciated. JamieS93 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On the motions page Carcharoth said The other aspect of this is that the_undertow started using the Law account at least two weeks before he appealed the block to ArbCom (according to the records we have).[19] Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The registration date of the Law account: 4/9/2008 Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I suspected I was missing something, which was the fact that he created the account before appealing the block. I'm still curious to know why the AC (which were a different set of people, besides 3 members) didn't come to a conclusive result with the appeal, why it somehow got ignored. JamieS93 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, a lot of stuff just gets dropped by the ArbCom (I've had this experience repeatedly). This years ArbCom is a bit better than last years but it still occurs. I doubt there's any malice or such, simply a lack of organization. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)