Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68

Announcement

• Please feel free to point out where exactly this unblock was contrary to any policy. It wasn't an ArbCom block. There is nothing in policy to say that an OS block may not be undone, especially when it is obvious what was suppressed and the editor has given an understaking not to persist. The current conversation at WT:BLOCK makes it clear that no such wording exists (which is why there is a suggestion to add it). In other words, the committee just made this "infraction" up on the spot, which is extremely concerning. I see NYB voted against. First rule of ArbCom, when something passes with NYB against, it's pretty much always a stupid idea, or something dubious is going on. One or both may apply here. Still, for the rest of us admins, could you give us a list of other things we might be desysopped for that don't exist in any policy? I'm sure it'd be helpful when we're deciding whether to block, unblock, revdel material, etc. Black Kite (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Sure.
    • "An exception is made for administrators holding Checkuser or Oversight privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or edits of the blocked user deleted via oversight. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversight or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee." = WP:BLOCK#Confidential evidence
    • "Administrators reviewing a block should consider that some historical context may not be immediately obvious. Cases involving sockpuppets, harassment, or privacy concerns are particularly difficult to judge. At times such issues have led to contentious unblocks. Where an uninformed unblock may be problematic, the blocking administrator may also wish to note as part of the block notice that there are specific circumstances, and that a reviewing administrator should not unblock without discussing the case with the blocking admin (or possibly ArbCom) to fully understand the matter." - WP:BLOCK#Block reviews
    • Also, while WP:CUBL obviously doesn't apply directly, the same logic explains why this block was clearly marked with "contact an oversighter".
  • That aside, this action demonstrated clearly poor judgment, "inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions", as required for Level II desysoppings. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Shall I presume that my emailed explanation was so woefully inadequate as to not warrant a response? Kevin (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The unblock isn't so problematic that it could not have been dealt with by reversing it and warning Kevin not to repeat the issue. You know as well as I do that Level 2 removal is designed to stop immediate and pressing problems involving damage to Wikipedia (i.e. compromised admin accounts, mass wheel wars etc.)Doh. See below. This unblock had stood for a number of hours with no issues arising. It is fairly clear that whatever is going on in the background here goes further than that, though. Black Kite (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That's Level I. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec) Uh, if it's immediate, it's probably Level 1 (and not Level 2). Level 1 requires 3+ Arbs and no dissension, whereas Level 2 requires discussion and majority of Active Arbitrators. There is discussion; Kevin emailed ArbCom; there's a significant difference. Also, the number of hours is just shy of 9 hours (compare unblock timestamp and Hersfold posting on Kevin's talk page), which is rather short considering part of those hours were late night in the western hemisphere. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • It's Level II, for crying out loud ;) It says so in the motion.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I didn't say that that this is a Level I. I am saying that Black Kite's description of what a level II is for is actually the description of what a level I is for :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I know ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I got it back to front as well. I still don't see what's so desperate about this case that it requires immediate desysopping. If Cla68's block was restored, what did the ArbCom expect Kevin to do? Undo it? Then you would have had a case for desysop, which currently is very shaky. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The block log has a note by the two Oversight members: "malicious WP:OUTING, please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team." Ignoring that request shows extremely poor judgement. Non-wikipedians are encouraged to contact oversighters to remove information that potentially exposes WP to liability. Admins that unilaterally override that judgement by unblocking the offender they deemed it necessary to block should expect a very quick and intolerant response. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This isn't rocket science... Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'd like to thank ArbCom for jumping in front of the bullet for me and taking one for the team. I'll tell your wife and family that you died honorably. It's a bold decision, I'll certainly give it that, but it's about to get very loud in here so I believe I'll just leave it up to you all to take it from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• This feels a lot like policy wank for little gain. The oversighter caveat does not give carte blanche to stop the community of admins from overturning decisions if the problem is addressed. The evidence that was only accessible to OS was discussed in detail and the blocked user undertook not to post it again, this is a perfectly legitimate use of the process and not something arbcom should be involved in. This is a matter for the community. But as usual we have nods and winks suggesting "sekret" evidence (oh how many times have we heard that...); but in reality it's just a power trip. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It has occurred to me that Timotheus Canens, on behalf of Arbcom, has violated the brightline of WP:WHEEL. This is probably the most serious issue at hand (aside from the initial incident) and I am unsure how to address it? The normal route would be for an arbcom case, but in this case most of the committee is involved in the wheel warring. Off hand maybe temporary suspension of the committee pending an investigation by a group of admins/editors/WMF reps seems the logical step forward. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • ErrantX surely understands that Timotheus Canens reinstated the block on behalf of arbcom, following their joint decision made off-wiki. Presumably he also meant to write "wonkery". Even before his unblock, Cla68 was actively questioning Beeblebrox's original block. Cla68's postings, copied from wikipediocracy by me at his request just before the unblock, did not suggest that Cla68 had fully understood how he had violated WP:OUTING. When unblocked he demanded to know who had originally contacted Beeblebrox,[1][2] later revealing his hunch that it was the object of the (initially join-the-dots) WP:OUTING.[3] Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Go ahead and overturn it if you feel that strongly about it. You obviously have all the evidence you need to make that call. You might want to block Timotheus Canens while you're at it to make a point. Or just block all the Arbcom members (except NYB, of course). Your vision obviously exceeds all of theirs just like this incident highlighted the vision of a single admin in lieu of two oversight member and the oversight and arbcom mailing lists. Put your tools to good use for the community and the result of that action will undoubtedly benefit us all. --DHeyward (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh my word. Could I get some answers to two very simple questions? 1) "Do we believe Kevin unblocked in bad faith?" 2) "Do we believe Kevin will continue to unblock this user or to reverse other arbcom blocks persistently?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to know what their beliefs are, however I did email an explanation that seemed reasonable (to me), and I haven't been asked what I might do in the future. Kevin (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this. It looks like he believed he was reversing a bad block after community discussion. Considering the number of blocks that have been reversed with no discussion, or against the current discussion consensus, with no action taken against the reversing admins, this action really appears problematic to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the desysop. It needs to happen more frequently, especially for those that only use the tools to increase drama, like in this case. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's bring out the banhammer and show how important we all are. *sigh* Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a silly comment. Having the admin toolset isn't about being important. It is not necessary to be an admin to constructively contribute to the project. I did not say he should be banned. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a more serious comment. By "banhammer" I mean any process where a user's privileges are revoked for reasons not apparently connected with preventing the encyclopedia from damage and disruption. Since you advocate more desyssoppings, that implies that you are concerned that a substantial proportion of admins are damaging Wikipedia by their actions and urgent sanctions need to be taken towards them to prevent this. Is that really what you're supporting? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am for less stringent requirements for desysops. It does not logically follow that I am "concerned that a substantial proportion of admins are damaging Wikipedia by their actions." -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hmm? The user's privileges were revoked because of concern with damage and disruption. We have an elected committee to do that sort of thing. So, yes there is the potential that an individual admin is damaging things, especially when they are acting alone, with only their own claim that 'they know what's best'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

One more Instant Justice "solution" in search of a problem - I am bemused by the finding that one admin "unilaterally" reversed a block - as any action by one admin is always "unilateral." The issue should be whether that admin presented reasoning behind the unblock, not whether he did it by himself, folks. Kevin is entitled to far better treatment than presented here, and this precedent is quite ill-suited to Wikipedia's long-term interests. Heck, desysops generally are given a fairly long period of discussion, which seems to be quite missing here - even where the acts are far more egregious. Restore Kevin's mop. Discuss this in an orderly fashion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It will be discussed according to the process laid out, but why does the user need the mop while discussing it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If his only use of the mop for the last 3 years was this ill-considered unblock, why does he need to keep while arbcom discusses it further? His answer to the question was obviously unsatisfactory to ArbCom yet we haven't seen it so how can you makes the judgement that he deserves better treatment? Or that this precedent is "ill-suited to Wikipedia's long-term interests." The de-sysop is not permanent unless the future decision is to make it permanent. This is the beginning of the process, not the end. --DHeyward (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If his only use of the mop for the last 3 years was this ill-considered unblock It wasn't. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My take on this situation is that many people behaved badly. The members of our oversight team are an exception.

The first and worst instance of bad behavior was by the Wikipediocracy contributors who chose to create and post an obnoxious and entirely unnecessary article that included identifying information and some poorly sourced gossip against a Wikimedia contributor. This article was not a form of useful Wikipedia criticism. Several regular contributors to Wikipediocracy opined on that site that this piece should not have been published. Those contributors were correct.

The second instance of bad behavior was Cla68's linking to and publicizing the article. This was not necessary for Cla68 to illustrate any point that he was making. Even assuming that Cla68 believed the link did not violate the "outing" policy, once it was suppressed the firsttime, there was no reason to post the same editor's name on-wiki again. And once he was blocked for that and this edit was also suppressed, he certainly should have known better than to post it a third time. Cla68, a longstanding Wikipedian and Wikipedia critic (the two are not exclusive), has been cautioned more than once before about either violating or skirting the edges of our policy against posting editors' identifying information. He needs to heed the caution.

Cla68's defense based on the fact that identifying information is relevant in addressing conflict-of-interest allegations points to a tension in our policies and practices that does exist, as this Committee has long acknowledged. But this is irrelevant here, as the editing in question was not (and could not have been) the subject of an ongoing COI discussion. Cla68's contention that the editor has posted his own identifying information elsewhere is also unconvincing. Our policy against identifying editors by real name applies unless the editor has either deliberately posted his or her name on-wiki, or perhaps where the identification is such a matter of common knowledge that it would be frivolous to pretend we don't know who someone is. Neither exception applied in this case. Cla68's hectoring of the oversighters while he was unblocked, demanding that they cite the pages of the policy manual that they applied, suggests that he still does not understand the valid reasons for their actions.

Regarding Kevin's unblock, while up to a point I can sympathize with Kevin's desire to resolve the situation, I cannot agree with his action. Because the edits were suppressed, an non-oversighter administrator could not fully evaluate them (although there was some description of them on-wiki). Kevin knew that the block was tagged as one that should not be reversed without consulting with the oversight team, which also implies that it should not be overturned unilaterally, and should have respected that request. Kevin also was not privy to the correspondence taking place between Cla68 and the arbitrators.

Despite these concerns, I did not support the motion to desyop Kevin under "Level II" and to reblock Cla68. The tone of Cla68's posts while he was unblocked was strident and unhelpful, and he has declined to make an unambiguous commitment that would have put the remaining concerns to bed, but I still do not expect that he would violate the "outing" policy again. As for Kevin, I generally do not support desysopping an administrator for a single episode.

I have supported the pending motion to formalize that "oversighter blocks" are on the same level as "checkuser blocks," i.e. that blocks designated as such by an oversighter should only be reviewed by other oversighters or by the arbitrators. This is not because administrators who hold the oversight right "outrank" those who do not, but because only those who do can fully assess the circumstances of the block. (These may include the contents of the oversighted edits, the contents of any previous oversighted edits, and any relevant discussion on the oversighters' or functionaries' mailing lists.) As with checkuser blocks, it is important to realize that this policy does not apply to every block made by an administrator who happens to also be an oversighter, but only to blocks based on private information and expressly flagged as "oversighter blocks." It will be comparatively rare that such a notation will be made, but when it is, it should be respected.

I urge everyone to respect the good faith and legitimate concerns of the arbitrators who supported this motion, even though I opposed it, and to join me in again thanking our oversighters for their contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse Brad's comments on this matter. Worm^TT(talk) 13:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, good faith or not, this is an instance of arbs merely increasing drama rather than decreasing it. What exactly was at stake here? And, since we're delving into chaos anyway, I'm still wondering why the initial block of Cla68 was made with an explicit please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team? Hopefully, since we're now in a "no actions left unexplored" world, we'll get some clarity on when oversight needs to be mandatorily consulted and when it doesn't. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll suggest what's at stake—when a highly controversial situation exists, and there is evidence that it is being reviewed actively by arbcom, and functionaries, one doesn't barge in and make an unblock without understanding what is going on. That was the drama increase. Ignoring it would send a message that admins are perfectly free to take actions with incomplete information and actively decline to talk to those who know what is going on. That is not what we want admins to do.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Why exactly do we need functionaries discussing things in private when there was no private information being discussed any longer? Kevin unblocked someone, cla68 wasn't outing any more, what's all this behind the scenes "functionaries" (makes it sound like something out of a bad soviet novel) activity for anyway? Sounds to me like a lot of people being authoritative because they can. (I still want to know why Beeblebrox felt it necessary to state that oversight approval was required for unblocking in the first place.) --regentspark (comment) 18:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• The community should (temporarly) suspend ArbCom. What we see here is yet another example of how problems are "solved" by granting ArbCom more powers. The fundamental issue is that Wikipedia is subject to social pressures and that it hasn't insulated itself from that in an effective way. Off-site campaigns can then affect Wikipedia and you then need to take emergency actions (banning editors, but then because that's done for non-standard reasons, that may lead to conflicts at the Admin level etc.). If we look back at the cases against Cirt and Fae, then its clear that we have moved away from Wikipedia only being about editing this online encyclpedia, that arguments can be brought in against an editor that have nothing to do with editing here. By simply not allowing any such arguments to be considered relevant, we can deal with off-site harrassment in a much more effective way. If digging up dirt against an editor isn't going to be effective, people with stop doing that. And if not, an editor here would be allowed to deny anything, even if that would constitute not telling the truth. Count Iblis (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Brad has once again demonstrated why he is the model Arb. The Arb's voting to desysop Kevin should take note. And yes, I am particularly speaking to those Arbs I have come to have great respect for.--v/r - TP 13:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• (1) Is it necessary for Cla68 to be blocked right now? I don't think he is actively engaged in outing. (2) Kevin did engage in discussions with the blocking admins at User talk:Cla68. While he did not receive consensus to unblock, it was clear that the situation had de-escalated to the point that a block probably wasn't needed. If the process is wrong, but the result is correct, just leave things be. The re-block and de-sysop are just adding needless drama. What we need now is (3) a clear, unequivocal statement from Cla68 that he understands the WP:DOX policy, and a statement from User:Kevin that he will never reverse and Oversight or Checkuser block again. Failing receipt of either of those assurances, further non-emergency steps may be needed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that the arbcomm had previously warned Cla about the issue and instructed to avoid "any form of harassing or threatening comments". Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether this would have made a difference, but perhaps in the future a representative of Arbcom might weigh in with a "just so you know, we're actively discussing this" when a big messy discussion is going on on a user talk page about a block. I got the impression that at least some of the people commenting on cla's page (including cla) weren't sure if it was just being ignored. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree 100% 94.8% with Newyorkbrad above. Some of you guys really like your drama way too much. This escalation was completely and utterly pointless. Actually, worse than pointless, since pointlessness implies a sort of "doesn't matter" neutrality. This is just going to poison the atmosphere further and waste a whole lot of time and energy. If this isn't simply dropped, I can see not just one person leaving the project, but quite a few, shaking their heads and muttering under their breath about how childish and dysfunctional this place is.Volunteer Marek 14:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• For the record, a discussion regarding the unblock's appropriateness was held on the Functionaries email list, which includes many more folks than just ArbCom, and I did not see a single email from a person who believed that the unblock was appropriate. So, while it may be all the vogue to hate on ArbCom, they did not take this action in a vacuum, nor without input from the other advanced permission holders vetted by the community. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your argument supports an Arbcom opinion that the unblock was unjustified. That none of those on the list approved of an unblock does not justify the desysop, though. 100 people polled in Texas believe that the state has a legal right to secede, does that mean that California should develop it's own space station? Your logic and the conclusion are mismatched.--v/r - TP 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The level of inappropriateness of the unblock (bad, admonishably bad, desysopably bad...) and the feedback of the functionaries to the committee on the topic are quite a bit more connected to their handling of the situation than the items in your example. I may have been unclear--are you aware that the entire arbitration committee is subscribed to the functionaries list by default? Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Well-said Brad. As someone who does makes mistakes, I am sympathetic to the notion that we do not desysop for a single mistake, but this was extremely poor judgement. I am trying to comprehend how one could read that one ought to contact the oversighter and decide, unilaterally, that this wasn't needed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I fully support ArbCom's actions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Since in my fantasyland Wikipedia blocks are preventative, not punitive, can anyone provide a diff of a contribution Cla68 made after Kevin unblocked them that violated the doxing policy? NE Ent 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ummm....what makes you think that Cla68 wasn't going to do this again? If not with this editor, with another? We don't give second chances to editors who don't understand what they did wrong. Nor do we give second chances to editors who fail to indicate that they won't do it again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. Sometimes we do when we think someone's pride is getting in the way. If we think they get the point, we do unblock sometimes. But only for folks who show obvious clue like Cla68. I'm not judging on the merits of the original or reblock here, only pointing out that your comment isn't 100% accurate.--v/r - TP 15:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Third chance. Cla was warned by the arbcomm in 2008. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think they got the point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • (ec) Fourth chance, arguably. Cla68's RfA in 2007 was derailed by his linking to an off-wiki attack site that attempted to out editors and posted negative information about them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not allowed to think about Cla68 -- I don't have access to the all important oversighted information, right? In any event, I don't particularly care about Cla68 (in either a positive or negative), I just don't like to see the all too common blood in the Wiki-water, to wit: How does desysoping Kevin make improving Wikipedia?? All the committee had to do part of what they did -- reblock with the explicitly clear {{ArbComBlock}} template. If an admin unblocked after that then they're clearly an idiot deserving of desyopping. NE Ent 16:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • And why does an admin deliberately ignoring the request to consult with oversight get a pass? What message does that send? (and I'll argue this is all about sending messages - what message should be sent to an editor who has been warned and continued to do something, and what message ought to be sent to an admin who jumped into a complicated situation and made it worse?) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • It was already a fracas, based on the Cla68 talk page churn; there was long conversation on the page, including the input of a couple oversighters, it's not as if the block was overturned hours after being placed or anything. The discussion had gotten down to the point of haggling over whether Cla68's promise was good enough or not, or too lawyering, or whatever. Wiki drama is like a fire triangle, no one editor can cause it by itself. Revert block, ArbComBlock stamp, done. Drama over. NE Ent 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • "All the committee had to do part of what they did -- reblock with the explicitly clear {{ArbComBlock}} template." No, that wouldn't have made a difference. People would now be saying the same things with only minor variations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know what anyone else would be doing, but I wouldn't be saying the same things. NE Ent 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly it was appropriate to block Cla68 in the first instance. I don't think anybody seriously disputes that. The problem arose when the block message was drafted in such a way as to prohibit unlocking by anybody other than oversighters (if I were wearing my cynical hat, I might say mere mortals, but I seem to be wearing my pragmatic hat). That doesn't have a basis in policy, despite Hersfold's cherry-picked quotes above which misrepresents policy in an attempt to justify this unjust and grossly disproportionate sanction (that policy subsection covers the circumstances in which it is appropriate for an admin to make a block based on evidence other admins can't see; it does not say that blocks by oversighters cannot be reversed by non-oversighters). That's not to say that actions following it were not problematic, but that's what started this absurd chain reaction. Of course Kevin exercised poor judgement in unblocking; he should have known that doing so would, at the very least, likely cause a lot of drama and that no harm would have been done by waiting a few more hours for more opinions. He deserves a bollocking for that, but I think most admins would consider having one of their action reversed by ArbCom to be a strong rebuke; the desysop was completely out of proportion. It was a hasty, ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction and it has served only to create more drama and draw more attention to the suppressed edits (which sort of defeats the point of all this, but that's far too subtle-a-point for a committee of hardliners and hotheads to grasp).

  The right thing to do now would be to hold your hands up and admit you over-reacted, but just giving Kevin his tools back and moving on would allow everyone to save face. The worst thing you could possibly do if you want to de-escalate the situation is to attempt to shoehorn through a new policy in the guise of a motion (which is ultra vires according to your own policy), and I would urge you to re-think what you are trying to achieve here and how best to achieve it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the general tenor of this with three notable exceptions:

1. Most of the blog post consisted of indisputably legitimate Wikipedia criticism with only the first sections being of debatable legitimacy.
2. Beeblebrox was wrong to characterize and treat the initial comment by Cla68 as "deliberate and malicious" outing because it clearly was not either.
3. Kevin, and basically anyone who has looked at WO, knows exactly what this block concerned and Cla68's statements about it were posted publicly there so the main reason for demanding an "oversighter-approved" unblock is not present as the alleged offense was plainly known.

Beyond that I do agree that the seven Arbs concerned have only inflamed the situation, injecting nitro into the Streisand Effect as now we have an Arb making no real secret about where the blog post was at in a discussion that is being read even more widely than the previous discussion. By the time this is done the number of people who know this editor's identity will have grown exponentially. Something that probably wouldn't have happened if Beebs had just oversighted the edit and gave Cla68 a clear, reasonable advisement about posting such information rather than stirring up a hornet's nest by assuming bad faith to justify an indefinite block of an extremely productive content creator who far outclasses him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur completely: it is OUTRAGEOUS that a user can be blocked for posting links to one of those beyond-evil "badsite", then castigated further on his own talk page for "doing it again" in his own defense ... and now no less than an arbitrator repeats the essentially the same information. If the oversight team is as good and professional as NYB claims, they should be going to work on NYB's comments right here, followed up with a indefinite block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.195.229 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say I've been pretty disgusted by the melodramatic farce that the Arbs have set in motion today, and with a small number of honourable exceptions, my respect for you has been significantly diminished. You lot couldn't have caused a bigger explosion of drama and brought the "secret" to more people's attention if you'd put full-page ads in the fucking newspapers. I applaud Newyorkbrad for being, once again, the voice of sanity, and I concur with HJ Mitchell's assessment - just reverse your appalling de-sysop of Kevin and try to rescue what little respect you can for yourselves. (And seeing the way honourable, if misguided, admins are treated here makes me less and less likely to request the return of my own mop). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward (if possible)

The motion says Kevin is temporarily desysopped ... what's he gotta do to get the bit back? NE Ent 16:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• To start with, Kevin can begin to restore the community's trust by:
  • 1. Explaining what they did wrong.
    2. Explaining they can do to prevent the same problems from happening again.
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on the committee, but if I heard something along the line of "I now realize I should have gotten better informed before taking an action, and in view of the fact that the situation had many eyes on it, there was no need for my precipitous action, and I'll never make that mistake again..." I've be inclined to resysop.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AQFK - You do not speak for the community. So "Kevin can begin to restore the community's trust by..." is outside of your authority. Kevin never lost the trust of the community.--v/r - TP 17:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You're speaking for yourself there, bub, so it's a bit rich to proclaim that AQFK is not doing so himself. Kevin has has certainly lost my trust.--Calton | Talk 21:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If Kevin wishes to contest the desysopping, he may request a full case to examine the matter. If not, then the desysopping effectively becomes permanent pending another RfA. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So it seems the temporarily is superfluous? NE Ent 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It would appear so. He now has to request a case, presumably with arbcom as party, to explain why he unblocked - despite the fact that he already claims to have explained that to the committee via e-mail, said explanation having been ignored or disregarded as insufficient. It would have been more honest of the committee to say that "Kevin is permanently desysopped, pending appeal of this decision or a new RFA". UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of honesty, it's a matter of clarity or haste in formulating the sanction. NE Ent 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You see the problem, then. I wonder, idly, if the members who voted for this sort-of-temporary-but-really-permanent desysopping would have done so if it actually said "permanently desysopped pending a new RFA" or some such. Arbcom's remit was specifically to avoid hasty decisions, was it not? I seem to remember reading that somewhere, back in the day. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An admin acted in good faith in a contentious situation, and yes, several questioned the action on Cla68. If the admin, Kevin, made a mistake talk to him about it. He doesn't have a history of this kind of action. Otherwise what we have is an action based on a punitive construct instead of a teaching learning construct which is how we keep and extend the abilities of our editors. Human beings in Western society are so infused with the punitive way of "teaching" we don't even know we're doing it. What a waste of human resources and time to have a case built around an editor who made a mistake as Kevin might have, is happy to fix the mistake, and with a few words could learn and move on.(olive (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Thing is, he didn't do anything worthy of an unblock. The block he overturned wasn't an arb block, it was Beeb's original unblock, which was done in his capcity as a sysop (he's not an Arb, therefore, he can't issue an Arb block). _{Self Trout applied liberally} Removing his bit over this is hasty...there's no proof it was done in bad faith. Looks like he used IAR here. Give it back, his actions didn't merit this.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Requiring him to open a case is bureaucracy run amok. The committee made a decision, not in the context of a full case, but as a stand-alone decision. The committee should be willing to read a statement form Kevin, decide privately if it is sufficient in itself to persuade the committee to re sysop, and if not, inform him that a full case is needed. It is possible that exactly that has happened, but if the committee refuses to review a request from Kevin on the basis that they can only review in the context of a case, that would be wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I think the paragraph "Return of permissions" in the relevant section of AC Procedure page sums up the probable reason: Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances. - My reading is that AC doesn't feel a routine reinstatement is appropriate?

@KoshVorlon: I think you're confusing something in your opinion: Beeb's original block was done under capacity as OverSighter - this is what is leading to the motion being considered right now (to treat OS blocks like CU blocks and not to be reversed w/o discussion w/ blocking admin) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The desysop's temporary in the sense that it's temporary pending the receipt of a satisfactory response. The ball is in Kevin's court: he can send in a response that convinces a majority of arbitrators, in which case he'll be resysopped; he can request that a case be opened, in which case we'll open one and proceed from there, and he will be resysopped at the end of the case unless we pass a desysopping remedy; he can skip us entirely and go directly to RFA, in which case he'll be resysopped if he passes, and remain desysopped if he fails (although he can theoretically come back to us if his RFA is unsuccessful, the committee would be highly unlikely to resysop him in that situation); if he does none of these three, then the desysop is effectively permanent. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With that logic, all desysops are temporary. The definition of temporary, "Lasting for only a limited period of time", would seem to suggest that once a time period has elapsed then the situation automatically reverts back to the status quo. That's not the case here. In this case, there is no time period. It is permenant. The status quo has changed until action is taken. It's not an automatic process and so it is not temporary.--v/r - TP 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, your wikilawyering notwithstanding, a "temporary desysop" means "provisional", before a full consideration/judgment has been made. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, had I found myself in the position Kevin was in, I would have assumed that an unblock would have carried a non-trivial of being de-adminned. To begin with, when you encounter a block that say "don't undo without discussing with X", you take that as a big red flag. But more importantly, you don't make your first edit in a month (and sixth for the year) a controversial unblock. There's precedent for de-adminning for that. Combine the two, and all I can say is that either Kevin should have expected this outcome, or he's more than 5 years out of date with how to use the tools. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I take the opposite position, I was close to doing the same thing myself. I'm not at all surprised to find out someone else got there first. Tons of respect for Beebs, but we don't do ex post facto law here and there is no reason not to unblock a user after they commit to not doing something again. Similarly, there is no reason to desysop Kevin after Arbcom warns him not to do it again. You're basically punishing Kevin for offending the almighty here.--v/r - TP 17:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just to make things clear: the procedure here is that the block is temporary until some final disposition of the matter removes it for good or restores it. By default, if Kevin does not appeal the removal or request a case, the bit will stay removed until he passes a RfA since we don't have a 'timeout' for the time during which he can appeal (although I think that there have been some cases where the committee made such a removal permanent by motion after some months with no appeal forthcoming, but this is neither systematic nor required). — Coren ^(talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You should automatically restore it once Kevin commits to not unblocking Cla68 again. Demanding that he bow at your feet and swear fealty is pathetic. That is the equivalent of what Arbcom is saying. "Kevin must appeal to us" is another way of saying he must submit to your authority. Arbcom should have a bit more decency. When you start rewriting the rules to justify punishments you've already issued, you lose faith of those you govern. This doesn't sit well with me. This is ex post facto changes to policy to justify a desysop. What's next?--v/r - TP 17:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly right. Normally in a situation like this Kevin would bring a case against party X to ArbCom. Here "party X" is ArbCom. How exactly is this appeal or case going to be decided? All the arbs who made the decision recuse themselves and the inactive arbs inactively decide the case? We have a public coin flip or something? Coren (and Hersfold), you're making ridiculous proposals.Volunteer Marek 18:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Similar to how Louis XVI convened the Estates-General to hear their grievances. Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, arbcom case is clearly a way forward. Maybe there is still someone on wikipedia who hasn't heard of this outing case, even though it has been mentioned in numerous highly watched talk pages (including Jimbo's). Gotta fix that and make sure that everyone knows, right? Or do people really think that anyone who is interested can't do 2+2 with information freely posted on various talk pages and figure out where outing took place? Whole focus seems to be on finding sufficiently harsh punishments and rewriting rules, then in practice focus should have been solving situation as discreetly as possible to avoid drawing further attention to off-wiki outing, even if that meant someone receiving mere warning instead of "proper" punishment.--Staberinde (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here's an idea (only half tongue in cheek) of how to move forward: do what happens in the real world, at least in parliamentary systems. Usually in a situation like this the government resigns and we have early elections.Volunteer Marek 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that often requires a motion of no confidence first. How about we have one? — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• In other words, effectively ArbCom have extended their middle finger to the community, said "we know best, and we're quite happy to ignore reasonable objections without explaining why", and at the same time multiplied the amount of drama exponentially. I can't say I didn't expect ir given some of the makeup of the committee, though I must admit to being disappointed by a couple of people. So, well done people, way to demonstrate the encyclopedia is in good hands. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my feelings.--v/r - TP 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully. We have to get past the mentality which blames. I see this page as a discussion with thoughts, ideas and ways to deal with the situation. We don't have to attack the arbs or anyone else. We are looking for solutions as a community. Must we side track that into once again hounding the arbs or any specific arbs? Can we make this simple and dignified.(olive (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

It's not an attack to be greatly disappointed and feel like your being given the middle finger. I'd like to see the Arbs acknowledge the community's feelings and consider they may have erred. I hold respect for almost all of them, a few I dont know well, but I can still be disappointed and confused by their decision.--v/r - TP 18:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a very unpleasant feeling to think that someone is discounting your opinion or knowledge. Consider, for instance, the person who was outed in the original drama. They were probably very upset that Kevin and Cla68 "gave the middle finger" to their privacy by behaving as they did. Consider, for instance, the oversighter who made the original block based on a consensus of people who were able to see the suppressed evidence. He is, we know, displeased that Kevin "gave the middle finger" to the fact that Kevin was not equipped to review the block in any way due to the fact that he couldn't see the evidence, and that Kevin nevertheless proceeded to unblock someone who had not committed to stopping the harassment of another editor. Consider as well Arbcom, who were presented with a situation where only they had the capacity to fix either the erroneous unblock or the admin who didn't understand unblock policy. They are probably somewhat unhappy to see some people giving privacy protection (and enforcement thereof) "the middle finger" in this discussion. At every step along this path, the "middle finger giving" that you perceive as happening against Cla68, Kevin, and the people arguing for them could have been immediately blocked by Cla68 or Kevin saying "You know, you're right. I made a poor choice, even if I thought - and still think - it was the right one, and I won't be doing that again." They have apparently chosen not to do that, preferring instead to force Arbcom to prevent them from doing the "that"s again; in my mind this is a problem of Kevin and Cla68 failing to acknowledge error, not one of Arbcom being somehow abusive by taking steps to prevent further error. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wrong in so many ways. False association, false dichotomies, black and white thinking. Saying Kevin shouldn't have been desysoped ≠ support unblock ≠ support Cla68's action ≠ don't care about privacy. Since (hopefully) you don't know the contents of the discussion between email and ArbCom you have no idea what Kevin has or has not said to them. NE Ent 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 had made some commitment; whether it was sufficient is a matter of opinion, not fact. NE Ent 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall making any of those equivalencies, NE Ent. I was pointing out to Tparis that while he perceives the discounting of feelings as going from Arbcom to Kevin/community, many others involved could equally perceive it as going from Cla68 or Kevin to the outed user, or from Kevin to the people charged with protecting that user's privacy, or from Kevin/Cla68 to Arbcom, or from critics to Arbcom. That is to say, there seems to have been a whole lot of discounting of other knowledge all around here, and from the perspective of an oversighter, I see it as having started with Cla68's choice, not with Arbcom's cleaning up the resulting mess. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your right that it was Cla68's choice and you are right to describe it as giving the middle finger to the 'anonymous user' outed. But I wouldn't call Arbcom's actions as cleaning up the resulting mess. I've remained quiet until the desysop of Kevin. There has been a whole lot of discounting and Arbcom should not have continued the trend. Previous failures on the part of others doesn't excuse Arbcom's. And nothing excuses ex post facto rule changes.--v/r - TP 19:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Last I knew, I was charged with protecting user's privacy -- at least, that's what I thought I was doing every time I filled out that oversight form. Not agreeing with someone doesn't necessarily mean "discounting" their knowledge. Should the community simply abandon all discussion on checkuser and privacy issues and the like? I don't see starting point analysis as the most useful way to resolve disputes. NE Ent 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that disappointment has a place and no one says any of the actions all the way along were in the best interests of anyone, but I'm not judging anyone, either. We've had a couple of arbs recently who were lynched, basically. Its such a waste of time and so "wrong". These talk pages can deteriorate into an attack mentality quickly. I'd hate to see that happen.(olive (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

(ec) Undo the re-block, undo the de-sysop, then we can have a respectful conversation. Otherwise it's like being pushed and kicked on the ground then being told by a bystander "you should have a respectful conversation". Why should the messed up situation we're currently in, because of the ArbCom, define the "tyranny of the status quo"? Volunteer Marek 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Marek, I disagree. WO discredited themselves by posting the article they did, and Cla68 deliberately and repeatedly discredited himself by repeating this information, three times. The block is, was, and will be valid until Cla agrees A) what he did was beyond the pale, and B)that he will not do it again. I said this back when I was an arb. There's a right way and a wrong way to criticize. This was the wrong way. And then Kevin went in and knew that this was an oversight block, and that unilaterally undoing the block would be a bad idea, but did it anyway. I have no problem with the action taken. (Fair disclosure: I was a member of WR and am currently a member of WO.) SirFozzie (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you just explain how an "oversight block" any different than an "admin block" when a user promises not to do it again?--v/r - TP 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it was made on the basis of oversighted evidence that admins can't see? Plus there is the whole BASC / oversight list thing. There's more going on behind the scenes with oversighting than there is with regular admin matters. Prioryman (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that in this case it was pretty obvious to anyone who knew the situation what the oversighted material was. For those who weren't, it's certainly been made completely obvious now... Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Prioryman: The evidence justifies the block and blocks an unblock on the basis of "no visible evidence." I'll grant that fact all day long. However, it does not prevent an unblock on the basis of "user reformed" or "user committed to not doing it again." Please explain what evidence there is that once a user commits not to out anymore that Oversight could still posses. What ace do they still have up their sleeve? They arn't CU, the block doesn't have to stand because of some connection that we can't speak of. We know what action led to the block, they posted public information. Once they commit to not doing so again, there is no longer "evidence" that needs to be reviewed. The evidence is moot and that puts oversighters on the same footing as any regular admin. So again, what is the difference?--v/r - TP 20:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• To some: Please don't say you speak for the community. On the other hand, a volunteer committee was elected by the community. If you disagree with something that committee did fine, but don't pretend to such moral high-ground. The high-dudgeon (talk of "chaos" and "blood" and whatnot) is especially unconvincing coming in comments that plead "no-drama." It seems some would benefit by really re-reading all of New York Brad's comment -- including his conclusion. It just appears that some of you cannot accept that the Committee's judgement is different from your own -- but that should not be a real surprise (sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Brad gave the other Arb's an out because Brad's just that upstanding of a guy. Don't read anymore into that one-liner than there is. Brad was mostly critical of the desysop which most folks here are. Most folks are not arguing about the reblock or the original block. Nor does arguing about the desysop equate to arguing about the reblock.--v/r - TP 19:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? Have you not noted that the dissatisfied always talk the most about their dissatisfaction? And Brad was not at all disingenuous, imo, he meant every word. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion is a perfect example of the impossible position ArbCom is in. All day, every day, there is somebody bitching somewhere about an admin running off the rails and doing something stupid and there are no consequences. I've slept on this and I can say without ego that I agree with the desyopping. Not because he overturned me, but because Kevin himself was in a conflicted situation due to his own participation as a moderator at the very website making these cowardly outing postings, and also because he had not performed any blocking or unblocking actions since April of 2010. I don't recall any significant previous interactions with Kevin and bear him no ill will, but this is the sort of adminning the community has been saying they don't want, an admin who is largely inactive, who hasn't used the block tool in years and from what I can see never used it in complicated situations like this, just blocking vandals and so forth, comes in to a situation and just says "bang-unblocked, because I am personally satisfied" even though he knows full well that at the very least BASC and the suppression team are involved in the situation. No. Not ok. Not what we expect from admins, and admins who don't use a tool for years should ease back into using it, not go straight into the most volatile situation they can find and start getting all cowboy about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Re "Kevin himself was in a conflicted situation due to his own participation as a moderator at the very website making these cowardly outing postings". Beeb, either you don't know what you're talking about (in which case it's usually a good idea to keep quiet), someone's been feeding you nonsense (ditto) or you're purposefully misrepresenting the situation. I'll AGF and assume it's one of the first two. Specifically Kevin is most certainly NOT a moderator on Wikipediocracy. He's a "Commentator" and a very infrequent at that. Actually in that he's no different than, say, Newyorkbrad, or Sir Fozzie, or a number of admins and arbs (past and present) who've are also "Commentators" on Wikipediocracy. Please correct your comment.Volunteer Marek 20:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox is confusing Kevin's status with that of Cla68, who is a moderator. However, Kevin and Cla68 are both participants in the thread in which Cla68's block is being discussed. Prioryman (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and so is Sir Fozzie and (I think) Newyorkbrad. What's your point? Volunteer Marek 20:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Somebody else said that yesterday, and Kevin did not challenge it. I don't have the energy to wade through all the diffs, but fine he's not a moderator there. Thanks for your lovely comments about me over there as well Marek. The rest of what I said still stands and I have nothing to add. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If you don't "have the energy" to do some basic fact checking then don't make claims which you don't know are true but which have a pretty significant importance.Volunteer Marek 20:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Better question: if he doesn't have the energy for basic fact checking, why does he have oversight powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.195.229 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, unless Kevin has falsely posted on Wikipedia that he is a moderator at bad site, -- Beeblebrox just doxed Kevin? NE Ent 20:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no, don't be silly. Kevin hasn't made any secret that he is a contributor over there. That's not remotely doxing. Prioryman (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Policy is policy, so: where are the Wikipedia diffs re: Kevin "making no secret" re: his status at The Website That Can Not Be Named? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.195.229 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Moderator, not contributor. NE Ent 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Any admins suggesting that Kevin was in the right to undo the block without the consultation requested in the block notice should remind themselves of WP:TOOLMISUSE, "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation", and WP:RAAA – "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." Even if there had not been the block notice "malicious WP:OUTING, please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team" Kevin should have first consulted with the blocking admin. In the context of that note, Kevin's action is clearly tool misuse.
  It should be remembered that in 2007 Cla68 was made well aware that outing on third party sites is unacceptable, and in 2008 Cla68 was admonished and instructed by Arbcom to follow principles including Harassment and threats: "It is completely unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment", which specifically includes WP:OUTING. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Later addition: WP:BLOCK#Block reviews is more specific that "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• There were days of discussion on the blocked users' talk page, in which the blocking admin participated. NE Ent 21:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Days in which it was made clear that unblocking would be, to say the least, controversial. Kevin joined in after a fortnight not editing with a comment at 01:19 on 1 March, said he had a mind to unblock at 05:36 on 4 March, unblocked at 07:40 that day and at 07:47 announced he had unblocked – with no intervening reply by the blocking admin, let alone any consultation with the oversight team. At 07:51 he thought to tell Beeblebrox. Very poor judgment. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Also - Kevin did not 'reverse' another admins block. He lifted an 'Indef Block' on the basis of Cla committing to not reposting the info that caused him to be blocked. Which is within the remit and authority of any administrator answering an unblock request. Its one of the duties required of an admin. And at the time Kevin lifted the block, he was not 'required' to seek permission from the oversight team. Arbcom are now passing motions to make changes to wikipedia policy to cover this gap. But you dont punish people for actions in the past that were acceptable under policy at that time. The request to speak to the oversight team was no more binding on Kevin than any other request from a blocking administrator to speak to them before lifting a block they have placed. That situation has been at ANI/AN in enough situations and the admin corps (let alone mere editors) have generally fallen in line with 'Its a courtesy, but its not required'.

As added above, WP:BLOCK#Block reviews requires discussion with the blocking admin and if that fails, recommends discussion at AN. . dave souza, talk 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that Arbcom have now confirmed it is in fact a perm de-sysop and not a temporary as the 'Level II procedures' require, could Arbcom please explain a)what part of Kevin's explanation was 'unsatisfactory', b)given that Kevin is unlikely to go on an oversight-block-lifting spree, what part of the situation is unresolved regarding his advanced permission, and finally c)given that they have already decided its not being returned, when you will be opening an arbitration case on the issue? I look forward to seeing who is left after all the recusals... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On the first part, "except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." The notice was a clear red flag that care was needed in unblocking. As for Arbcom's decision on this, they'll have to answer that. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point, he was not reversing a block. He was declaring it no longer needed and lifting it. As indef blocks are generally placed to prevent immediate disruption to the project. Its one thing to say 'I dont agree with why this block was placed, I am lifting it' (which is covered by wheel war), its completely another to say 'the danger has passed, the block no longer serves its purpose and the editor has said they wont do it again'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK#Block reviews. . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to T. Canens and Hersfold above, saying the ball is now in my court, and that I have a choice to open a case or send in a satisfactory explanation. I sent an explanation in response to AGK's email, CCd to arbcom-l 24 hours ago. AGK's email was a single question, no mention of 'get this right or your desysopped permanently'. Since then I've heard nothing. No discussion, nada, except for Hersfold asking if I'd noticed being desysopped. So to my thinking the ball is firmly in your court. It would be courteous to respond to my explanation, indicating the committee's position on it. I already know it really, as the desysop came later, however it would still be polite. Kevin (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh and one other thing, if Arbcom or Oversight are actively discussing a block then tell somebody. It takes a minute to drop a note onto a talk page saying "we are dealing with this". Kevin (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

One tends to get crickets from ArbCom for a while concerning e-mails. At least, that has usually been my experience. Certain Arbs are very good at responding promptly. I would personally think something of this nature would get a little bit more consideration with regards to keeping someone posted, but I guess not. Surely someone will say something about "thankless positions" or whatever, but it goes just as much for the other side.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyond pathetic. How can it be possible to become an arbitrator without realizing that not responding to emails about live situations will only make things worse? ArbCom's performance during all this has been utter crap. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kevin, is "if Arbcom or Oversight are actively discussing a block then tell somebody" meant seriously? You mean you didn't even read the talkpage of the editor you unblocked where active ongoing discussion with at least one arbitrator was ongoing? — Coren ^(talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Of course I read it. There are a couple of comments from Arbs about how a promise not to repeat the edits might be worded. Do you not understand that posting something more definitive is actually helpful, and may even have helped in this case? Kevin (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So had you noticed the wording "I'll draw this colloquy to the Arbitration Committee's attention"? Perhaps you thought that meant you were free to decide for Arbcom? . . dave souza, talk 22:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What I thought was that several days had gone by, that the immediate need for the block was gone, and that Arbcom would decide what to do with Cla68 for the longer term. The first lines of the blocking policy read "blocks are preventative". Once the risk that the disruptive behaviour or whatever is removed, then the block becomes punitive. I made an assessment that Cla68 was unlikely to violate the outing policy again, and I think NYB agrees with that assessment, and then followed policy in removing a block that was no longer preventative. People keep harping on about it, but it is not necessary to know the content of those edits to know that they are not likely to be repeated. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not even counting the discussion already in progress between the functionaries (which you couldn't have known about and part of the reason the block was not open to unilateral reversal), did you also take into account that this is not the first time that Cla68 has used off-wiki information in such a manner, or that he had been warned previously when making that assessment? — Coren ^(talk) 23:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many ways I can write the same thing. He promised to stop. In deciding whether or not to believe him I used the information on his talk page, and on what I had seen of him here over the years. On that basis I determined that he was not likely to repeat the edits. At least one arbitrator agrees with that determination, if not my actions overall. That at least puts my decision into the realms of being reasonable. I always understood that Arbcom may wish to take further action regarding Cla68, noting I did prejudices that. Kevin (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm confused -- is it Kevin wasn't supposed to unblock because he didn't even read the talkpage of the editor you unblocked where active ongoing discussion with at least one arbitrator was ongoing'", or because of the discussion already in progress between the functionaries (which you couldn't have known about and part of the reason the block was not open to unilateral reversal)? NE Ent 00:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that a subset of ArbCom have backed themselves into a corner by their hasty and unjustified action, which means that the only way that your bit is going to be returned (or for that matter, Cla68 unblocked again) is by them effectively saying "we fucked up". Even if those things do happen through further assurances by both parties, we're still at the point we were before ArbCom stuck its oar in (which again, is effectively "we fucked up"). I wouldn't hold my breath. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be jumping to conclusions before the arbiters review and respond to Kevin's reasons. . dave souza, talk 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say, I'm completely shocked by this. Beeblebrox (an oversighter) said on Cla68's talk page, "Cla needs to tel [sic] BASC they will abide by WP:OUTING. We don't need a drama fest to accomplish that, Cla just needs to send an email. They don't need to apologize or even say they agree with the policy, just that they will respect it in the future." Cla68 didn't use those particular words, but he promised in the emails posted on his talk page not to link to the real name of the user in question nor to link to the offending blog post. Whether unblocking him was a good idea or a bad idea, this message would seem to be a reasonable basis for Kevin's actions. The idea of arbcom using an emergency process in a non-emergency seems rather absurd - you've just prevented yourselves from being neutral arbiters in any case that arises from this matter. An emergency process makes sense if someone is flagrantly disregarding the rules or if they refuse to stop with the disputed behavior long enough for a case to be heard. It doesn't make sense in response to what almost certainly is a one-time event. There would have been no harm done by Arbcom deferring its judgment until after a case is heard - there's an inordinate harm (in terms of lack of confidence in the process) that comes from carrying out the sentence before the case. --B (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Not that my opinion will make a huge difference, but here goes: The administrator who has now been desysopped reverted an action made by an OS/admin in their role not as an administrator but as an oversighter. If a steward who is also a local admin and 'crat here desysops someone, nobody would revert it if they said "this is as a steward, contact stewards first". The blocking message clearly stated "do not unblock without contacting OS first" (or something along those lines). This administrator specifically went against the functionary who made the block in their role as a functionary. All this talk of "oh it was just an administrator action" is bollocks to borrow a word. Functionaries make some blocks as functionaries, with their access to non-public data in mind. Those actions are not to be reversed by non-functionaries under any circumstances without prior contact with the functionary in question, and the likely contact with the list as well. That didn't happen here. The desysopped user should've known that going against a functionary action like this would result in a desysopping, and that's what happened. If the user thought otherwise, I question whether they should've had the bit in the first place. Just my two cents, if anyone want's further clarification just ping me here, my talk, or on IRC or something. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are a couple of problems with this. Sure, if someone unilaterally overturns an ArbCom block , then they know exactly what the result is likely to be. However, there's nothing in policy about an "oversight block" (despite the very quick scramble to change the wording now going on at WT:BLOCK.) "Those actions are not to be reversed by non-functionaries under any circumstances without prior contact with the functionary in question" does not exist. In this case, the material that was suppressed was fairly obvious, and indeed if Cla68 had been unblocked on a promise not to repeat the "outing" (there's still a dispute about whether it was actually one) and had done so, then the drama is averted. Frankly (and I said so at the time on Cla68's talkpage) I would have also unblocked given a valid unblock appeal. What we now have, thanks to ArbCom and persons unknown, is an almighty clusterfuck where Cla68 is still blocked despite having given that assurance, an admin is desysopped despite having given that assurance to ArbCom, and everyone who can work Google now knows exactly was the oversighted material was. The one thing you're right about is that it was a complete load of bollocks, although I suspect I am not using that analogy in the way you are. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• You saying that because no exact words say that an OS block is equivalent to a CU block or ArbCom block is a load of hooey. Sure there's no exact words, but any block made by a functionary based on nonpublic information is automatically a block that cannot be overturned by an administrator, as a normal administrator does not have access to the information that led to the block, or the mailing list discussion that inevitably took place before the block. I don't care how much promises there were, the OS team felt the need to indef block with a provision to contact prior to unblocking. This user failed to do that. They were desysopped. That's not our problem, ArbCom did the right thing. If you would've unblocked when specifically instructed by functionaries with access to non-public data not to before contacting, I question whether you should be an administrator or not. Knowing that there is non-public information involved, this is immediately an issue that is only able to be dealt with by functionaries and ArbCom. This user (Kevin) stepping in when he is not a functionary is unacceptable, and grounds for desysopping. Regardless that there's no policy, the spirit of current policies, as well as the functionaries instructions in blocking to not unblock, make it clear that this was unacceptable. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• "any block made by a functionary based on nonpublic information is automatically a block that cannot be overturned by an administrator" Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• What you're saying that an administrator can overturn a block made based on non-public information that the administrator does not have access to without contacting those who do? That is absurd. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Except that in this case it was utterly obvious to anyone who knew the relevant issues what the suppressed material was. There are clearly situations where that is not the case, but this was not one. Indeed, a number of editors who agreed with the block managed to mention the relevant website on-wiki even before the unblock. Since the desysop/re-block drama, pretty much anyone who can work a search engine can now view that suppressed material off-wiki. Is that a good result? Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• There are 2 scenarios that could play out for an outing type block involving oversight. One, the editor could say "I never outed such and such", in which case the random admin couldn't know enough to unblock. The other is where the editor says "OK, I won't do that again", in which case the random admin does have enough to know that it won't happen again. This of course supposes that the block was for the one incident, not for a course of action. Kevin (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, your interpretation of the second one isn't right. Just because I say I won't out again doesn't mean that the functionaries have given permission for you to unblock me. Nor does it mean that BASC has recieved an e-mail and evidence that the block should be lifted. The issue here is that you unilaterally undid a functionary block based on private data after being told to contact functionaries FIRST, and BASC will unblock after recieving an email. Neither of those things occurred. I sure hope you don't hope to get your bit back anytime soon, as you clearly don't even understand what you did wrong. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• • It is exactly what I said before you did, but it was removed. Wikipedia is going to be destroyed by stupidity of its administrators. 76.126.174.119 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• No matter how utterly obvious, the functionaries may have had extra information in email that was never ever onwiki or internet to begin with. That's why they said contact them first. It should be assumed that there was something extra that precluded a regular admin from making a decision, otherwise there wouldn't have been a "functionary block, do not revert" message. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• A functionary said this: "Cla needs to tel [sic] BASC they will abide by WP:OUTING. We don't need a drama fest to accomplish that, Cla just needs to send an email. They don't need to apologize or even say they agree with the policy, just that they will respect it in the future." If Kevin believed that those conditions had been met, then he may have interpreted this as permission to unblock. --B (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but afaik Kevin is not a member of BASC, nor would he have access to the list the e-mail would've been sent to. He should've known that that meant that BASC could unblock after they see the e-mail, not after he sees a "promise" onwiki to do so. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Non-functionary administrators are not privy to the same information as oversighters, and so I can not understand why any non-func would unilaterally undo the block in any circumstance. With lesson hopefully learned, he could just reapply at RfA after the incident, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I hope this and every other user understands that supporting someone who is openly willing to flaunt instructions from functionaries and/or ArbCom should not be an administrator. That's part of why his bit was removed most likely. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• • While that's a very good argument that could be used in an request for arbitration (referring to "He should've known that that meant that BASC could unblock after they see the e-mail, not after he sees a "promise" onwiki to do so"), it doesn't justify an emergency removal of permissions. Arbcom cannot be a neutral arbiter if they have already judged him to be guilty. Sometimes, an emergency action is necessary - if an account intends to continue causing disruption and cannot be trusted not to repeat the offending behavior pending an arbitration, but that's obviously not the case here. --B (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • This user has expressed a willingness to blatantly go against ArbCom/OS/BASC, and a refusal to realize and admit he was wrong. Therefore, it cannot be expected for him to not repeat it, as he doesn't realize it was wrong. Therefore, a desysopping is in order until such time as he can assure the community and ArbCom that he understands what is wrong and that he will not do it again. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Er, no that's not true. I haven't expressed that at all, that's your interpretation of my action. There's a difference. And I'm quite happy not to unblock anyone related to Oversight while they sort out clearer rules. If Arbcom have a question about what I might do in the future, they need only ask. Kevin (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
        • You expressed that willingness when you actioned against ArbComer..the OS team and the BASC message. If you weren't willing to action, you wouldn't have done it. Also, until you admit that what you did was wrong, I wouldn't support a resysopping in any way, ArbCom, case, or RfA. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
          • That's absurd. Do you seriously believe that Kevin is on the verge of going on an unblock spree? By your logic, anyone who makes any mistake should be summarily and permanently desysopped and that's not what the actual rule says. The policy says, "Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place." There is no actual evidence of danger of continued harm, just your assumption of bad faith. --B (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

((edit conflict) obviously) Several observations (all IMO)

• The entire conversation on Cla68's talk page should have been held elsewhere - WP:AN perhaps. A person's talk page will draw their "friends" and "enemies", where more "neutral" eyes are often better.
• I very much appreciate NYB stepping in and noting there that he would bring it to the committee's attention.
• Beeblebox did an exceptional job at communicating throughout the entire situation, and he should be commended for that part of it. No view on things I can't see. Although I don't think that feuds on commons are relevant here, and items off wiki (WO) have even less relevance.
• Cla68 should have a voice in his own editing future; he's been a valued member of this community for over 7 years with over 24 thousand edits to articles. Perhaps that requires a "full case" (and yes I can hear the groans from here), and it's understood that there will be material that we of the plebeian masses wouldn't be privy to certain information. Still, 1 or 2 OS admins. silencing an editor of such tenure deserves some review to allow collaboration and consideration. Perhaps the wheels of justice move slowly, but it doesn't hurt to grease those wheels once in a while.
• I most certainly empathize with Kevin here and feel the desysop (especially if it is not "temporary" as originally stated) is OTT. Although going beyond granting "talk page access only" may have been a bit bold, I can understand the desire to get things back to normal (so to speak). The way these things snowball at times causes collateral damage that can have lasting ramifications, and I suspect that Kevin's attitude will be changed for quite some time. Hopefully some time, communication, and "a word to the wise" will result in things being returned to the status-quo in the very near future.
• Being defrocked of "da bits" can be an emotional turmoil, and Kevin has remained calm throughout the past hours. He is not however blocked from editing, and his communication deserves consideration and reply. Personally I think he also deserves to be commended for his demeanor during difficult times, and I would fully support him as an administrator in the future.
• Wikipedia often goes to extremes. With copy-vio, I think that's usually a good thing. With outing (or doxing if you prefer), it can go a bit far. If editor A states by his own choice (in a blog) on the internet that he is this and that; to expect it to somehow remain private is absolutely absurd. This site has no problem posting that some barely notable athlete, politician, entertainer or whatever had a DUI 20 years ago so long as we can put some footnote to it referencing some small town newspaper. And that is in article space where the bulk of our readership is.
• That's not to say there aren't some "WP:BATTLEGROUND" issues that need to be resolved, indeed they do in this case.
• I also fully endorse our efforts to protect young editors and the disclosure of private information. (which is not the case here, but I'm sure someone would have mentioned it.)
• (Again, IMO), The first Arb to notice the situation should have instituted an "Arb block" with the appropriate template and severity, and then with the {{YGM}} template informed Kevin as to whatever needed to be said. In fairness, I do know that they (the arbs) have a HUGE amount on their plates to chew through at the moment though .. and that's just what I can see on their related pages - I am SOOOOOO glad I don't have to deal with their email at the moment.
• As is our wont, there will be dickering over particular wording in motions, policy, and whatnot - but at some point "common-sense" really should play a factor; and I hope this is found soon. There's discussions to be had with Kevin. There's discussions to be had with Cla68. And there's all that other "stuff" you Arbs do, so I shall leave you to that, and wish you the best. We'll all go try to tweak the wording on policies, guidelines, and I'm sure multiple essay entries. Perhaps shortly, even some article work. — Ched :  ?  01:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well said, in general. On the specific idea of tagging it as an "Arb block", the uncommon circumstances were already flagged up, and even the standard procedure in WP:BLOCK#Block reviews would have meant taking it to AN before unblocking. . . . . . dave souza, talk 11:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Insightful post. The problem however that what we have here is stupidity upon stupidity upon stupidity upon stupidity. Wikipedia usually does ok at unwinding one level of stupidity, and most of the time it fails if it's two levels. Here there is so much iterations that I'm not sure one can hope for "common sense" being found anytime soon.Volunteer Marek 02:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Cla acted like a idiot and probably shouldn't have been unblocked in that manner, but the kneejerk desysop was way too severe. It reiterates the point that ArbCom is too quick to remove the bit when an admin makes a mistake. Arbcom needs to cut back with the one-issue desysops and needs to stop interfering in situations to get their point across. This was an issue that needed to be hashed out by the community, somewhere like ANI. This was not an issue for the ArbCom to come down with the mallet and shoo the bystanders away. Their scope of power grows every year.... ThemFromSpace 02:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Much as I sympathise with an admin making a mistake, and losing the bit is clearly a dreadful shock, temporary removal of the tools for an obvious misjudgment needs a measured response making it clear that lessons have been learnt. . dave souza, talk 11:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Voting procedure

I am curious, the Level II procedure says any motion needs to be passed by a "majority of active Arbitrators", period. Nowhere does it exclude recusals from this count. Does that mean it would have to be a majority of all Arbitrators, even those who are recused? Should that be the case then the majority wasn't met because a majority of fourteen would require eight votes and there are only seven.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No. An arbitrator who is recused on a given matter is not active on that matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not according to the procedures page:

Arbitrators are presumed active unless they are on a wikibreak, have not participated in arbitration within the past week, or have informed the Committee of their absence. An inactive arbitrator may become active by voting on any aspect of a proceeding. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case their votes will be struck through and discounted.

It does not mention recusal among the things that would cause them to be seen as inactive. Everywhere else, including in the section DHeyward mentions below, they are specifically stated as "active, non-recused", suggesting "recused" and "inactive" are not the same. The Level II procedure only says "active" and nothing more. It suggests that recusals are counted when calculating a majority in such cases.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything was followed.

Calculation of votes

Adopted on 5 April 2011

Arbitrator votes are calculated on the following basis:

1. Each active, non-recused arbitrator may cast one vote; and
2. Recused, abstaining, and inactive arbitrators are discounted.

The following expressions are used, with the following meanings:

• "Four net votes": the number of votes to support or accept is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline.
• "Absolute majority": the number of votes to support or accept is greater than 50% of the total number of arbitrators, not including any arbitrators who are recused, abstaining, or inactive.

--DHeyward (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I'm also curious about a point. Given that Hersfold has stated that the desysop is permanent, can I take it that the Arbitration Committee has determined that "a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate", and that the Committee will be opening a case to investigate the removal of permissions etc? Arbitrators above have said the next move is up to me, but your rules say otherwise. Kevin (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's what they've said Kevin (someone please correct me if this is inaccurate). They temporarily desysopped you under L2 rules. If you wish to get your bit back, you will open an arbitration case yourself about this whole blocking and unblocking incident. If that fails, or you fail to open it, it will be seen as a resignation of your bit under a cloud, at which time you will be required to re-pass an RfA before re-obtaining the bit. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you read those L2 procedures? They are quite clear. Either they accept my explanation and restore sysop tools to me, or they don't, in which case arbitration proceedings will be opened. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you from WP:A/R/C or WP:RFA, if you so choose. --Rschen7754 01:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Proceedings will be opened by Arbcom, unless my reading skills have let me down, or the rules are changed. I don't have a choice whether a case is opened, I can only make it sooner. Kevin (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess something I'm not quite understanding is how this works if a case is started. Does that mean that Kevin has to present evidence and all the rest of it, with other editors joining in? Because if that's what's envisaged, it's pretty much certain to be a massive drama-fest. Would it not be more satisfactory for the ArbCom and Kevin to work out some kind of resolution, perhaps with Kevin providing assurances on future conduct, without putting the community through potentially weeks of aggravation? Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × with Prioryman) so this isn't chronologically following, but here: I'll quote it here for those that don't know it:

The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b) send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue, providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and (c) recommending removal of permissions. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators. Once removal has been approved, an arbitrator will post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of arbitrators endorsing it, to the Meta-Wiki permissions page, the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the user's talk page.

"schedule deliberations" in this case refers to the inter-arbitrator discussion that comes before the removal. Note that the removal is the last step. Therefore, ArbCom has to do nothing more. The burden is on you to open a case and prove yourself innocent. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin has also taken this to my talkpage to tell me I missed something: That the page also says "If the user in question requests it"... That means the user must initiate the case. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• To Kevin. Procedures state that you can request a case to be opened. Then, the result of the case will be the final desicion, although you can still go through an RFA after the case closes if the desicion does not involve a restriction from running for adminship, which, in my opinion, is very unlikely. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So, clarification needed. If an ArbCom case is opened, since it involves a decision made by some of the Arbs, are the Arbs that voted on this decision going to recuse themselves? It's their actions which are under scrutiny as much as Kevin's.Volunteer Marek 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I have not seen this type of procedures in action in the past. I think that the case would study the whole Cla68 thing, including the unblock, and then reach a conslusion whether to restore the bit, or to remove it as a remedy of the case; I don't think that the arbitrators need to recuse themselves, mostly because they are not active parties in the dispute; they just performed an action that falls within their boundaries while desysopping Kevin, but that does not make them involved. That's what I think. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. Part of the question is whether their actions fall within their boundaries. Hence they are a party to the case. Which makes them involved. How do we decide that anyway? Volunteer Marek 03:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee desysopping a user under Level II procedures is not an action that can automatically make the whole Committee involved. That would leave us in an empty space where nobody could then solve the issue. What the case would discuss would be if the desysopping really fell under such procedures, or whether the situation was dangerous enough to warrant such procedures to be followed. Then, a permanent removal (e.g. pending of a fresh RfA) or a restoration of the userrights will be the remedy of such case. (Disclosure: This is purely hypothetical. I have never seen this type of procedures in action in the past, and what I'm saying wouldn't be 100% accurate). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the "whole" committee. Just the folks who, perhaps inappropriately invoked "Level II procedures" and voted on the damn thing. There might be a few recused/inactive/didnt vote ArbComs left but even there it's sketchy. Also, quit it with the faux-lawyer talk. This ain't TV.Volunteer Marek 03:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am just trying to, as a clerk, explain what is my understanding of the matter, or what may be ArbCom's understanding of the matter. This does not mean that I agree (or not) with the desysopping or the block. I am sorry if the way I express myself comes to as faux-lawyer; that is the way I am used to speak everywhere. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough and sorry for being irritable, there's just too much "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on Wikipedia" in all of this commentary overall. Your comment wasn't actually that bad and I think it just broke some annoyance threshold. Cheers.Volunteer Marek 03:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. I understand that this is an irritable situation that should not have happened, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that not a bureaucracy is still a pillar (unless the committee's gonna clarify that by motion, too) I've filed the darn case, so we can stop haggling over whether it's Kevin's thing or arbcom's thing. NE Ent 03:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification questions

Hi. It's unclear to me what exactly is disallowed here. It seems like a link to wikipediocracy.com is currently allowed. And links to other non-Russavia-related posts are seemingly currently allowed. Is that correct? It seems wikipediocracy.com is linked a fair amount around here. But don't all of these links constitute outing currently (given the dynamic sidebar content)? Or does this only apply to new links? Clarification would be great. We don't want to leave tripwires laying around for editors, surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Kinda makes ya wish that Larry were still around huh? :-) — Ched :  ?  02:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

He's certainly missed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Speak of the Devil. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Link was surpressed, I was not thinking clearly, this is pretty common... *trout self* and don't continue this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Possible continued outside harassment I've been made aware of <removed> posting, and just wanted anyone else to know that there's possibly going to be some off-wiki coordination/canvassing/discussion/whatever about this case and the result. Just a notice to anyone involved, don't be surprised to be called a "dipshit" and be linked to for others to do the same. gwickwiretalkediting 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Somebody block gwickwire for WP:OUTING please. Or just for making comments which are just too silly.Volunteer Marek 01:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I linked to one specific comment, not to anything meant to be outing. Regardless, removed... Sorry for the confusion. gwickwiretalkediting 01:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Also, are you not going to request that the link above be removed? It links to basically the same thing... gwickwiretalkediting 02:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Don't take it personally - this silliness is par for the course. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC) closes the other things he's doing before posting on anything ever again* gwickwiretalkediting 02:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, who oversighted gwickwire's edits? Volunteer Marek 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still here. That "link" I mean.Volunteer Marek 04:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

MZMcBride is blocked now. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If only. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, who oversighted gwickwire's edits? You've had the time to block MZMcbride, surely you've had time to consider this question?Volunteer Marek 04:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoever oversighted the edits cannot be revealed unless they voluntarily give up that information. And considering the amount of offwiki harassment a lot of people here are being subjected to, I doubt they will. --Rschen7754 04:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened to all the promises of "Transparency" that a lot of these candidates ran on? Considering the amount of overisighting of what may be relevant information (hard to tell with all the oversightin') that is going on it's certainly pertinent. And honestly, there's no "offwiki harassment a lot of people here are being subjected to". You. 're. Full. Of. Shit. All that's going on is that outside critics are discussing the situation without the ability of certain parties to silence them. Please keep the discussion honest at least.Volunteer Marek 04:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Transparency can only happen if there is trust. When the threat of being doxed yourself hangs in the air, all trust dissolves. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you should keep your statements honest, and to show you that I'm definitely aware, I will say that I am quite proud of the topic area that I edit, and I will proudly display plenty of road-related items on my userpage for the rest of the time that I edit this site. --Rschen7754 04:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would personally recommend for your own sake that being over-proud of your work, alienating an entire community seemingly without any awareness of it whatsoever, has been your achilles heel, not to mention what on earth it has to do with the current situation (ie: nothing at all). Once again, everyone needs to calm down, take a deep breath, and go back to improving the encyclopedia. If it needs to go up to an ArbCom case or an RfA to make a definitive decision on whether or not Kevin keeps his tools, then so be it, but in the meantime, everything else is bunk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754, I have no idea of what you're talking about now. Guerillero, you're basically saying that we have no right to now who oversighted the edits because whoever did so is under some great threat? Are you freakin' serious? It's a simple question and AFAIK who oversighted some edit has never been "kept secret". Also, the depreciation of trust runs the other way here.Volunteer Marek 04:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You realize I can't be more specific at risk of getting oversighted myself, righ[[t? All I can say is that I am very aware of what is going on. --Rschen7754 05:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Who does what OS actions is considered private data. There are times when an OSer who did that action gives up that information but it does not need to be released. If it were public information, anyone would be able to see the OS log. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? plz. I might very well be wrong. Regardless it still seems relevant here.Volunteer Marek 05:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The suppression log is private. If you want to email the functionaries-en mailing list in case the oversighter in question is not watching this discussion, they might be willing to reveal themselves. NW (Talk) 05:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT it's not "private", just "not readily available". If the information is requested then shouldn't it be provided? If there is some relevant policy I don't know about somewhere, I'll happily drop this.Volunteer Marek 05:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

only oversighters have the suppressionlog permission, which allows them to view suppressed log entries made by oversighters. Similarly, CheckUser logs can also only be viewed by CheckUsers (see the above user rights link). The actions listed in those logs, and who made them, are therefore private. Graham87 06:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's necessary just as a practical matter that the log be hidden from public view for at least two reasons (1) an oversighter might say something that needs to be private in their deletion summary and (2) if someone's privacy is being violated, you don't want to violate it further by calling attention to it. But just because the log is hidden from public view doesn't mean that the fact of who performed the oversight is secret information that cannot be revealed if there is a reason to reveal it. (I don't know that such a reason exists in this case - the link in question obviously needed to be oversighted and whatever oversighter saw it first was going to remove it.) --B (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I'm not asking for the log to be made public. I'm just curious: who oversighted those edits? Volunteer Marek 16:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the most blatant lies i've ever seen, Marek. You posted in the same Wikipediocracy thread after Rschen was doxed, so unless you don't read anyone else's posts, you know perfectly well what he's talking about. Thus far, there's been at least two people who have been involved in the discussion on this page that have been doxed by banned sockpuppeteer User:Vigilant in that Wikipediocracy thread. And now you're asking for more people to be named essentially so they can get doxed too? Silverseren^C 04:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No SS, you're wrong. Yes, I posted in the same thread. No, I usually don't read the whole thread. While there's a lot of substantial criticism on Wikipediocracy it's true there's also a lot of noise. Same thing is true of Wikipedia. What's your point? Now. What exactly is a "blatant lie"? I'm confused. All I see is people like you or Demiurge1000 going after, attacking, and blatantly lying about anyone who's ever posted on Wikipediocracy. Oh wait. Not everyone. Not the admins and arbitrators who post there, because you still have to: kiss. their. fucking. ass. to try and get what you want, which most of the time you don't get, because, best I can tell, they respect these evil Wikipediocracy folks (at least some of them) more than plain ol' wastes of time like you (and a few others). Dweeb.Volunteer Marek 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The lie is saying that you don't know what Rschen is talking about, when you know perfectly well that he was doxed. And the comment in which he was doxed also criticized the fact that he works on road articles.

How am I lying about what is said on Wikipediocracy? Demiurge's comment was also verified by the subject he was talking about. This is also discussed in the Wikipediocracy thread. The only person I respect on Wikipediocracy is Zoloft and that's because he isn't a jerk.

The real wastes of space are the people on Wikipediocracy who spend all of their time trawling through Wikipedia looking for stuff they can criticize. And they say Wikipedians don't have a life? Then what do you call the people who spend all their time reading the talk pages and noticeboards that Wikipedians post on? Silverseren^C 04:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still have no idea of what you're talking about. I don't know who Rschen is, aside from his posts in these relevant on Wiki discussions. Is s/he the minor? Then s/he probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia anyway, but that's beside the point. I've never read any articles on roads ... probably. Maybe some road in Poland or... Gibraltar? Is this what you are talking about? I seem to recall some controversy about some non-notable road in Gibraltar being rammed through DYK and thinking "this is sort of dumb" at the time but I can't remember if I actually commented on it. You seem to have constructed some paranoid alter-reality and are blaming me for not actually conforming to that alter-reality. And you call that "lying". Sorry bud, that's your own wackiness, not mine. You act like a person in need of a few days in the equivalent of a Wiki detox tank.Volunteer Marek 05:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Either you actually didn't read Vigilant's comments in the thread, which is highly unlikely considering your comments there and your comment right here or you're basically trolling and attempting to get me to be more specific so the comment will get oversighted. Nice try at bringing up the unrelated Gibraltar thing though. It's sad that you're actually supporting people like Vigilant and their actions. Silverseren^C 05:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I read some of Vigilant's comments. Maybe I missed some others. Which I guess are the one's you're obsessing about. Ok dude, it's pretty obvious that you follow Wikipediocracy a lot more obsessively than I do. I guess I'm surprised - though didn't you start some black list page on Wikipediocracy contributors or something? But don't project your own compulsive behavior onto others. There's a Commandment which says that, you know (the 11.5 one). Obey.Volunteer Marek 05:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So you know what other editors were commenting about Demiurge, but not about Rschen? Very selective reading you've got going on there. And, again, nice use of logical fallacies like poisoning the well in order to avoid the actual subject of discussion. Silverseren^C 05:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

[4]--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Like you have room to talk. :P Silverseren^C 05:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should stop the nastiness. Silver seren, I am aware of demiurge's complaints because he has complained at ANI and made weird accusations against Marek. Demiurge has been criticized enough on wiki that nobody with a life needs to go elsewhere to complain about him. I assume that Marek has a similar history. He is aware that bizarre comments were made about demiurge at Wikipediocracy, which led to Demi making much less bizarre comments here, which were enough to get him blocked. Marek didn't have to read or remember any Wikipediocracy thread about demi. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Special NewSpeak Award

Goes to "The burden is on you to open a case and prove yourself innocent." Collect (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Speech! Speech! — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no proving innocent to be done. It was an Oversighter block and was clearly labeled as such, saying not to unblock without consulting Arbcom. Unblocking is thus a violation of policy. No, what he needs to do is "open a case and explain why you are trusted enough to be given back the tools". Silverseren^C 04:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Oversight-related blocks

Announcement

Under which Scope and responsibility does the committee see this action falling? It seems to me the motion is inconsistent with (the committee) does not exist to subvert community consensus, adjudicate matters of article content (Wikipedia has no "content committee"), or to decide matters of editorial or site policy. (emphasis mine) NE Ent 14:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This was addressed in the long discussion during adoption of the decision see eg. [5], including power to issue binding decisions that interpret policy and create procedure re privacy related issues and User conduct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please provide link to policy which supports "create procedure re privacy related issues." The arbcom scope explicitly states "resolve," but resolve ≠ create. NE Ent 15:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As was already quoted in the prior discussion, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy and precedent: "The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced." That's how issues regarding privacy and user conduct are resolved. The plain language of the decision interprets, recognises and calls attention to standards, and involves procedure for enforcement in those areas. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So what I understand ASW is saying is Privacy is an existing community approved (or WMF required) policy -- and arbcom prohibiting non-oversight admins from unblocking is not writing new policy but providing a clearer procedure for enforcement thereof? That's the best justification I've read yet (I don't recall seeing it in the prior discussion; either I just missed or it wasn't worded quite so crisply.) NE Ent 19:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the best justification I've read yet - it's really not, he just used a bunch of fancy talk to make it sound important. It is what you originally said it was - a power grab outside the Committee's scope.Volunteer Marek 03:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't always, but on this occasion I agree with Marek. ArbCom has clearly acted ultra vires and invented a new policy. If ArbCom can pass a motion that effectively creates new policy despite the objections of several respected members of the community (including some who are not normally known for cynicism of ArbCom), then it seems its powers are whatever it says they are. After all, if it doesn't have a particular power, it can just pass a motion granting itself the power, and the community is powerless to do anything (because the committee obviously knows best, and will just over-rule the plebs). So we now have a fully fledged GovCom and we can abandon the pretence of being a self-governing community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Am I missing something or does that link to the motion go to nothing about oversight blocks? I get something about Armenia-Azerbaijan and a ctrl+F doesn't find anything about oversight. Aside from that, does the wording of this motion irritate anyone else? A "reminder" for something that we actually haven't been told in the past. Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed link. NE Ent 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• WIthout entering into debate about the rights and wrongs of all this, I presume (but would appreciate confirmation) that blocks by checkuser/oversighters should be treated in the same way as blocks by any other administrator unless expressly stated to be checkuser/oversight based blocks? WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. Unless you have reason to presume that non-public information was involved in making the block, you can reasonably assume that a block by an oversighter was done in their capacity as an administrator. NW (Talk) 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motions with respect to functionaries

Announcement

• I agree with the general principle, but why is it only "community" appointees who are discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool? Especially considering a lot of these appointees already hold OS/CU, then why are they different from the arbs? If it's just the lack of manpower for these tools, it would make sense (to me at least) to appoint more CU/OSers so that those on the subcommittee only need to audit for the time they're on there. Jenks24 (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose the difference is that arbitrators need to use their tools to review ordinary (ie non-AUSC) arbitration matters. This doesn't apply to cmmunity members. But the principle you propose holds; it would be great to have more CU/OS and we have an appointment round starting in the next week or so to address this.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it is the AUSC appointment round starting very shortly. We'll get to CU/OS after that. Risker (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf education not listed as a discretionary sanctions area

Hi, I noticed this because of an ANI, I've only limited experience with arbcom workings but I believe it's a mistake and this is perhaps the best place to note it. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Amendments by motion amended the case in January to authorise 'Standard Discretionary sanctions' 'for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed'. However it's not listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Affected areas. The discussion on the announcement is now archived so I had to start a new one. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that {{Dsindex}} ahould be updated as well as WP:AC/DS to add Waldorf. The Dsindex template is used by {{uw-sanctions}} which issues the standard (forceful) warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message -  Doing... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram closed

Announcement

Regarding point #2 — does this basically mean anyone other than Sarek? Specifically, let's say that I notice something he's written in userspace, AFCspace, etc.; am I allowed to move it to mainspace as if it had been created by someone who'd never interacted with him before? Nyttend (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this not a question of "wait and see"? The process of review was not described, but couldn't that happen on a dedicated subpage of WP:NRHP? (If there were problems with new articles or redirects changed to stubs in article space, they would presumably be reported at WP:AE.) Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No clue regarding your question, but I like the idea of a dedicated subpage — as long as we don't attempt to restrict it to there. Surely any uninvolved editor should be able to move pages, even without having heard of WP:NRHP. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right that the scope has to be larger, for example to cover List of Anglican churches, List of Other Backward Classes, etc. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning — I meant that we mustn't restrict the group of potential page-movers to people who are going to know about WP:NRHP. We have to give others the opportunity to review his creations by listing them elsewhere, too. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But other topics, like the ones I mentioned, beyond NRHP have arisen. Perhaps a page in Doncram's user space? Or Doncram himself could post links to the proposed new articles on relevant project pages. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question about who can move Doncram's pages to article space. At first glance, one would think that it would be helpful for other parties to this case to move his content out of article space. However, I can see one problem that could result if I reviewed his stuff and decided it was OK. That is, if someone else then proposed to delete the page, he could complain that I deliberately set him up for the AFD by moving the page before it was ready. (Similar accusations arose in the past.) Accordingly, I think it's best if I refrain from that activity, even if I think he's doing wonderful work. --Orlady (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I would suggest that if you think he's doing wonderful work, that you refrain from doing anything other than telling him so. It looks like he's been going down the Afc route which while cumbersome, is ensuring uninvolved people are reviewing. dm (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The intent of the remedy, at least as I voted on it, was that some third party would communicate with Doncram and ask whether he thinks a draft is ready to be moved, or vice versa. NW (Talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What if we suggest to Doncram that a page be created in his userspace at which he would add links to pages that were ready to go? Anyone could review a page that was linked there and move it, since his action of adding a link would mean that he believed that the linked page was ready. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait, Mathsci already suggested that. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of Fæ

Announcement

Following an email, and my comment on Fæ's talk page, I should confirm that Remedy 2: Fæ limited to one account remains in place. Worm^TT(talk) 14:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Remedy 2 states:

Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username. Fæ must provide a list of all accounts they have controlled to the Committee, with any objections to making the accounts publicly listed. The Committee will then advise Fæ of whether they will need to list the objected to account(s) publicly.

The wording suggests that it was ArbCom's intention to list the accounts used unless Fæ could supply reasonable objections to listing certain accounts. Will ArbCom be publishing the list of accounts? If ArbCom has agreed with Fæ that certain accounts will not be publicly listed, can the other alternate accounts be listed, along with a statement from either Fæ or ArbCom identifying the number of accounts that Fæ has supplied to ArbCom that will not be listed? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Delicious carbuncle. I can confirm that the committee received Fæ's declarations of alternate accounts and comments regarding their publishing. These factors were taken into account when the unblock was agreed, and I don't see any further comment from Arbcom as a whole necessary. Worm^TT(talk) 09:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but the problem was the community felt the situation with the accounts was widespread and there was a lot more below the surface. Hence arbcoms wording that DC has quoted. Given that, does this mean Fae objected to ALL of his alt-accounts being listed in public? Or only a couple and that arbcom have not felt the need to release the ones that he didnt object to? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A just outcome. Fae's block was an unwelcome twist in a case that was otherwise handled very well. ThemFromSpace 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the findings was Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others; was this addressed in the discussions with Fae? NE Ent 13:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, whilst the specific finding wasn't mentioned, it was addressed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It is important to remember that Fae was subject to years of ongoing harassment, mainly by Delicious Carbuncle, backed up by others who were prepared to break policy to smear him in any way they could. In this context, Fae's intemperate comments to other editors who were not part of this harassment, while still wrong, was perhaps understandable. I find it fairly disturbing that we are still allowing this persecution to continue. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

No, Rich, it is important to remember that Fæ made unsupported claims of harassment for years (as both User:Ash and User:Fæ). It is also important to remember that Fæ and his supporters made great efforts to associate me with and blame me for the actions of others, both on- and off-wiki. It is important to note, as I did in the ArbCom case, that Ash accused me of homophobia in our very first interaction. It is important to note that I tried for years, unsuccessfully, to follow dispute resolution processes so that I wouldn't have to deal with Ash's accusations of harassment. It is important to note that Fæ abandoned his Ash account and made a very unclean "clean start" during a dispute resolution process that would almost undoubtedly have seen him sanctioned. It is important to note that while I hoped that the ArbCom case would put an end to this, Fæ has continued to act in ways that lead to his ban, including unnecessarily incorporating misleading and inflammatory statements into his statement as out-going Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association just weeks ago. It is especially important to note that I am fed up with defending myself against these types of allegations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights

Original announcement

• *slow clap*--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Buncha putzes. Thanks for finally undoing your stupid and short-sighted mistake. Perhaps the next motion can be dissolving this mess of a committee. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The mistake was made by Cla, by Kevin, and then by you. In my opinion, you got off easy with a 72 hour block. SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on MZ's suicide-by-admin to make a point, that's a rose-tinted view, Fozzie. This was a chain of fuck ups, and there can be no reasonable doubt that Beeblebrox should have used a clearer log summary or referred the matter to ArbCom (but he was unwise or overly hasty and acting in good faith, a lot like Kevin, but Kevin was the last one standing in this game of musical chairs). Nor can there be any doubt that ArbCom's actions entirely unnecessarily escalated the situation, and created so much drama that Beeb's oversighting and block were rendered moot. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in escalating a situation while trying to remove what started it from public view, you should resign. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, please keep current, I haven't been an arb for about 10 weeks now :). Could the message have been a little clearer? Sure. But the block of Cla (and later removal of talk page access) was extremely well-founded in policy. Kevin's action was in no shape or form well-founded. As I stated in my statement during the just removed case, it was a binary set, either he realized what he did was wrong and pledged not to do it again, and get the tools back with an admonishment, or if he decided to stand by his action, make the removal permanent. Thankfully, he took the former action, and it was all resolved, until this new "suicide by admin" action by MzMcBride (who has a history of such forcing actions). So I'd say that the escalations rely far heavily on the other side of the issue, then with ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies; I guess I thought you were part of the furniture! I'm sure MZ's suicide by admin will be resolved when this all blows over. You seem to have missed my point above—I don't think Kevin's action was a good idea (I don't think it was malicious or intended to make a point about "oversighter blocks", but it was pretty stupid), but it was more-or-less resolved at that point, until ArbCom seems to have decided that putting Kevin in the stocks was more important than drawing attention away from what was suppressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[–] --MZMcBride (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh snap. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'm considering the best way to bring this ArbCom up for full community review. If anyone else is interested in working on that, please drop me a line.

AGK, WP:BADSITES is a rejected policy.Volunteer Marek 18:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

While I've been on the side of defusing drama, I must admit that MZM's link points to a page that names (no idea if the names are correct or not) two editors. Definitely not up there on the list of good moves (I mean that MZM's post was not wise and AGK seems to have had no choice). --regentspark (comment) 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations by MZMcBride, as above. Please block his account accordingly. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible to convey how petty and picayune this entire dispute appears to anyone outside the immediately relevant wikipolitical bubble, so I'm not going to try. You know, as we speak there are active efforts on Wikipedia to remove relevant safety information about dangerous dietary supplements, and to promote false and defamatory accusations that a U.S. Senator consorted with underage Dominican prostitutes, among other things (remember when people cared about BLP?) Seriously - you people line up to edit-war over a link to wikipediocracy.com, but I can't buy a clueful or experienced outside opinion for serious medical misinformation or BLP issues. But please, go back to fighting the good fight over that wikipediocracy link. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet this is where policy is made. I do find it interesting/illuminating in that regard at least. Intothatdarkness 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the link publicises the identities of our contributors (or at least it does at the time of my writing this). MZ probably knew that. Previously, people have allowed there to be a good ol' fight about links to that site, but I wasn't really minded to engage in a protracted wiki-drama. I asked MZ, quite plainly, to not re-post the link. When he did, I blocked him. Minimal drama, and minimal time wasted. AGK [•] 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So, AGK, given that you haven't molested modified MastCell's comment, it's okay to say "wikipediocracy.com". Just not to type "http://" before that. What does that even mean? — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It means the standard for action here is that it be just a few steps removed from something resembling good sense.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hex, there's always WP:POINT. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, editing other people's comments to enforce an arbitrary rule that you've made up is certainly disruptive. Thanks for pointing that out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think that MzMcBride's actions are anything but a blatant POINT violation, then you've lost the forest for the tress. SirFozzie (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The irony of your describing his actions as disruptive while being part of a former-member-of-turned-apologist-for a group that's unilaterally assigned policy-writing powers to itself in violation of its own constitution is pretty good. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing how many people think I'm still an arbitrator. I'm not. So your Irony Meter needs a good hard whack. And I think your opinion, while shared by some, is still far in the minority here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's right. Fixed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the recent incidents are a good reason for editors to suggest approaches to clarifying the outing policy. Perhaps there exists a consensus that linking to editor's real-life identities when well established everywhere save Wikipedia is not, in fact, harassment. There's also the practical matter of what is the exact point where links or references to outing material become impermissible. That, however, is a discussion that doesn't take place here, and is not instigated by repeatedly and deliberately posting links for the sole purpose to produce drama. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Given MZM was able to post links of a similar nature on his talk page with you and another Arb not raising the same objections despite commenting in the same section, it certainly makes it seem like he had every reason to believe it would be acceptable here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's this totally inconsistent, cavalier attitude that's one of the major problems with the current ArbCom. Arbitrary enforcement is no kind of enforcement at all. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I just don't get that argument. What's "inconsistent"? We don't link to outing or harassment of editors because it hurts the project (I still miss Katefan0). What's "inconsistent" and "cavalier" about that? Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The part where Arbitrators are explicitly telling people where to go to get the information, but somehow don't get in trouble because they didn't provide a link.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to form an opinion on which of MZM or AGK is being more ridiculous. While MZM's edit warring is obviously pointy, this noticeboard has only 650 watchers. The committee of which AGK is a member has contributed to this fiasco being covered on Signpost, with at least 980 bot subscribers, 1676 template subscribers, plus I don't know how many to count RSS and direct page watchers. The concept that, in 2013, adding .com to the end of the name of a website somehow makes it more visible than the plain website name is absurd. I had foolishly hoped with the motion passing there'd be a drama wind down ... feeling much more like a Fool of Took than an Ent today. Is their a prohibition on starting a pool on how many more days of free publicity for "evil website" this nonsense will generate? NE Ent 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Far better to be an Ent, a Fay, a Gnome or a Hobgoblin than a Troll. Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I was hoping for the same thing (for things to die down). With Kevin's tools restored, it should have been a chance for all sides to take a step back and review things. Instead, MzMcBride decided to throw gasoline on the dying embers of the drama-fire. SirFozzie (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The MZM gasoline did not have to ignite; the AGK spark was unnecessary and counterproductive. NE Ent 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bingo.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So we shouldn't restrict posts that have a direct link to OUTING information because it's going to spark drama? I'm sorry, it's a no win situation for folks. Someone above said that MzMcBride's actions were "Suicide by Admin".. he was TRYING to get blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of this sorry exercise was to protect the identity of an editor who arguably hasn't done a right lot to protect his identity. Thanks in no small part to the actions of Arbcom in going for the (almost) full drama option, even the little girl in Africa now knows who Russavia is. And 2 good editors are blocked indefinitely. It feels like you lost sight of what the actual goal was. Kevin (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(deindent)

Honestly, most of this effort should be aimed at amending the policy rather then this drama. The rules as they are make things clear. If you don't like it, let's form a RfC or even an informal discussion about changing the policy. But violating a rule just because you don't like it is not a good idea. The Committee is getting heat above for "making policy" with regards to your action. Wouldn't they be "making policy" if they decided to ignore the policy as it stands (a de facto if not quite de jure change to the policy). So, if the policy needs fixing, then work to get it fixed. It'd be a hell of a lot more productive then killing millions of helpless electrons to record our scribbles here ;) SirFozzie (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you and AGK seem to think it is ok to completely circumvent any sort of community process to black list the site to retroactively back up your recent actions and threats.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, TDA: the reason I placed a request to blacklist the site is two fold, One, people are using it a way to violate the OUTING policy as it stands, rather than work to change the policy as they should. And the Second reason is, people were saying "Well, if we shouldn't be linking to the Outing, why isn't it on the blacklist"? So, I heeded their wish. Can't have it both ways. `SirFozzie (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This one is for all the Arbs, admins, and editors, who have insured with their officious nonsense on multiple drama-boards that everyone and their mother now knows Russavia's real name:

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, all due trouting should go to Cla, who laid on this disruptive pantomime with a very pointy performance. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but posting a link on a page with a few hundred watchers is not even close to the level of nonsense others have now thrust upon us.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's two good calls in a day. Arbcom's on a roll! Funny how these are both reversals of past decisions... ThemFromSpace 22:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly hope that this Amazing Perpetual Drama Engine^TM you folks have invented will be patented under a free license so that whoever invents the drama-to-electricity converter^TM will be able to provide cheap energy to power That Girl in Africa^TM's $100 Laptop^TM. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is actually surprisingly difficult for a committee of 15, not all of whom are around all the time, to move expeditiously enough to contain drama once it gets going (drama is its own perpetual motion machine). It is far easier for individuals and admins to avoid actions that start or stoke or restart the drama (and I include the recent block of MZMcBride in that). And before anyone jumps up and down in faux or actual rage at the actions of the committee that magnified the drama, yes, our actions did magnify and publicise the drama, and yes, a fair number of us (me included) now regret that. I apologise for my part in that, but the only way to calm things down is if everyone takes a deep breath and takes a step back and looks at what they are really trying to achieve here. It is patently obvious that multiple people are piggy-backing on this with their own agendas. At this point, all we can really do is just try and stay reasonable and keep trying to calm things down. The core business of the committee is dealing with cases, and we have a few of those to deal with right now (two have been or are about to be closed). Plus some appeals which are slowly working their way through as we wait for enough arbitrators to be available to vote (actually, I see some have been published now). What we have learnt (I hope) is that where something involves private and personally identifying information, a less public course of action is better. But simply because an action may provoke drama is not a reason to avoid it. ArbCom is here to take the tough and difficult decisions that no-one else is prepared to handle. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There were very easy ways to avoid drama on this matter. First, Beeblebrox could have oversighted the edits and simply advised Cla68 not to post those links again. Instead he blocked Cla68 indefinitely for "deliberate, malicious" outing. When Kevin unblocked Cla68, the Arbs could have admonished Kevin, made their motion on oversight blocks, and avoid further drama. Instead, the choice was made to take the most ham-fisted and disruptive course, defeating the whole purpose of all these actions by effectively disseminating the original editor's identity throughout the project. It does not elude me that those responsible for these actions tend to be the admins who identify themselves proudly as hardliners who show little mercy to violators, but they are giving authority priority over fairness. As one good man said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying here. Hopefully lessons have been learned on all sides on how best to handle matters like this. It won't help if the next time a blog post like the one that started this is linked to in the same way as it was here. Just as there are ways for oversighters and ArbCom to do things without drawing excessive attention to something, so there must be ways for critics to raise their concerns (I say this as someone who does read various off-wiki criticism sites, and am broadly sympathetic to some of the concerns raised, if not the manner in which they are raised). What I've suggested in the past is if people have concerns based on something that they don't think they should link to (if they think it goes too far, for example), they should summarise their concerns in their own words. It is harder to do that, but probably more effective in the long run. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting arbcom avoid action. I simply encourage the committee to be more prudent going forward. Specifically:

• Observe the principal of minimal action; consider the least that can be done to resolve a situation (e.g. in this case the desysop was counterproductive)
• Don't be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: if you're addressing something that has partial onwiki exposure, have a friendly neighborhood clerk or arb drop a note in the applicable location.
• No more fiats, if a policy is unclear, just edit it; if it gets reverted, we can talk (it's a wiki, ya know?)
• Be "lazy" -- don't be too eager to accept cases (e.g. tea party); uninvolved editors are not going to spend time on resolving issues if it appears the committee is about to preempt them. NE Ent 02:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is one of the wisest posts yet in this entire event. I sincerely hope that ArbCom takes the advice to heart. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent news! While at times known to act unilaterally, Kevin is one of our very best — a man of principle and integrity, who has long stood in the way of cumbersome bureaucracy to do what's right. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, please, that's utter propagandistic bullshit. He's barely been an admin for the past couple of years, and then he steps in and fucks up royally. Try the Big Lie somewhere else, please, it doesn't work here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed: Kevin's public logs are very sparse. There's nothing at all wrong with this as there's no requirement for admins to ever use the tools, but it clearly doesn't support claims that Kevin has been doing anything in particular in his admin role. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So we shouldn't restrict posts that have a direct link to OUTING information because it's going to spark drama? SirFozzie (talk) 5:03 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

• That's the wrong question. The right question is: should we do everything we can to protect the privacy of our editors? Yes. Absolutely. I'm sorry a fellow editor got totally outed. If there was a way I could undo that, I would. I can't, nor can anyone else now. We can't control the context of the entire internet. We don't, and are highly unlikely to get anytime soon, a consensus that mere participation on any external website is banned. Unfortunately, due to the aggregate actions of the community -- many well intended, others not-so-much, we've arrived at the place where the only place not mentioning the W-word is Did you know on the main page. Wiktionary tells us a link is "A connection between places, persons, events, or things." Whether or not that connection consists a noun description of a website, or that website prefixed with an internet protocol and suffixed with top-level domain isn't particularly relevant. The best response to the obviously provocative url insertion would have been to ignore it. Virtually every editor halfway aware of the Wikipedia dispute resolution forums has already decided to go look or not by now, and robots.txt excludes it, so a school-marm revert with the edit summary No and indef threats acted much more like a neon sign Look here! Look here! More drama!! than a de-escalatory tactic -- resulting in yet another thread on ANI, yet another battlefield for the pro and anti forces to do battle.
  
• In general, direct links to doxing info should be oversighted; if the editor persists in reposting they should be oversighted again and, pending community taking control of policy back from the committee, the {{OversightBlock}} template applied. But here, yesterday -- wrong answer: a screaming match at the stable door long after the horse had bolted into the field only attracted more onlookers. NE Ent 15:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What about this one and this one, both of which link to the-site-that-shall-not-be-named. AGK indef'd MZMcBride for posting the link, but left them in the history of the page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• It seems to me that, given that there was significant disagreement among the community over whether Kevin's actions were appropriate or not, making him go through RFA again might have been the better solution here. But I can't blame ArbCom for wanting to draw a line under this dispute and choosing the lower-drama option of resysopping him. IMO, though, this is the sort of case that suggests desysoppings ought to be handled by the community rather than ArbCom. Given that Kevin wasn't posing any urgent threat that demanded an immediate desysop, it would have been better to have a WP:Requests for de-adminship discussion of him, so that the outcome would have been approved by community consensus, rather than ArbCom taking its own action in his case which proved extremely controversial. Robofish (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) closed

Announcement

Resignation

Announcement

I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be sorry to see you go. Thanks for your service, and best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your service on the arbcomm, and as an arbcomm clerk before that (especially during the climate change case). Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your service to Wikipedia. NE Ent 01:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sad to see you go. Having just completed my first experience with an arbcom case, I am particularly appreciative of your work here -- and fear that I may have somehow contributed to your disillusionment. Here's hoping that we will meet again -- don't know where, don't know when. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, Orlady. Both of the recently closed cases actually went very well for arbitration - the Richard Arthur Norton case exceptionally so - and neither had anything to do with this decision. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To everyone, thanks for the support. I hope to see you all again in the future. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this as well. My apologies if I've added to your stress level at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the work you and all the other arbs have been doing to improve the editing environment at Wikipedia in the most stressful areas. I realise it's a struggle against dramaz exploiting poorly informed opinion, and have said little to avoid inflaming the drama unnecessarily, but you should be assured that your work is very much appreciated by less vocal editors. All the best for the future, and hopefully your continuing contributions to the project will be more peaceful and rewarding. Regards from a Wikisloth; dave souza, talk 05:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your resignation is very regrettable, as I have always appreciated your work here, and I thank you for it. It is very unfortunate that we do not have better mechanisms to protect dispute resolution volunteers who make unpopular decisions (as they must sooner or later) from the resulting shitstorm (pardon my French).  Sandstein  06:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I realize that it will have no effect whatsoever on your resignation, but I do have to say that I'm very, very sorry to see you go. Maybe there are personal reasons why you must leave, but if not, it seems to me to be yet another another case of a good person being ground down by the drama-mongering which is endemic in the administrative levels of Wikipedia. I wish I could come up with a way to reduce it that would be accepted by the community, but I'm afraid that this may be impossible. Many thanks to you for your service. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also from me for your service to the community, and I concur with your reasoning; I considered standing for ArbCom in the most recent election (though I doubt I would have been elected), and concerns over being 'outed' by some malicious idiot were one of the reasons I decided against doing so. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• @everybody, there are a lot of decisions by ArbCom I disagree with. There are also decisions by individual Arbitrators I disagree with. When there's a decision I feel is damaging the community I will say something and hope the Arbitrators will listen and adjust the decisions accordingly. The same is true for the community at large, so I hope everybody will listen. Wikipedia is eating its own. This latest kerfuffle has really shown why Wikipedia is losing editors. The Arbitrators go through a grueling election process in order to volunteer to help fix Wikipedia's biggest problems with the most upset people. And what do they get in return? They are treated worse than the people who vandalize the project. Yes, there are times when we need to say something is wrong and try to fix it, but we don't need to be aggressively hostile to do so. OK?
  @Hersfold, sorry your time on the committee was so distressing. Please accept my humble apologies for any stress I have caused you. Although I may not always agree with your positions, I still have a huge amount of respect for you for taking on the responsibilities of an Arbitrator. I hope your time off will allay your concerns and I hope to see you back contributing the project you've supported for so many years. Thanks for volunteering at Wikipedia.
  @Arbitrators, being an Arbitrator is the most difficult position a person can volunteer for on Wikipedia. It takes a person of great restraint and wisdom, which all of you have shown by being elected to your positions. And when everything works properly, Wikipedia runs a little more smoothly because of your efforts. Sometimes things don't go as planned, but I am certain that all of you have the best intentions of the project at heart and I am very thankful that all of you have taken on this most difficult task. I would never attempt it, so thanks very much for taking on this responsibility. All the best. 64.40.54.205 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC) my contribs for those with WP:ABF in their hearts.
• Thank you. In the old days they gave a gold watch for time served (or was that a suit and bus fair). At any rate, here's yours

  

  Good luck and best wishes

  -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hersfold, I disagreed with you as an arb, but I am genuinely sorry to hear that you no longer find your time on Wikipedia enjoyable. From what I've seen and heard, you were an excellent functionary and administrator and you have technical skills that are in short supply. I only hope that taking a break, especially from the more acrimonious parts of the project, will help you rediscover the things that made you enthusiatic about Wikipedia in the first place. And I apologise for any part I may have played in making your experience unpleasant—much as I might disagree with you or the committee, I would never wish anybody to take personal offence from my comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• I am grateful to you for taking time out of your life to work for the Wikipedia community. Thank you.(olive (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC))
• Was good as a clerk, as an arbitrator in both stints and has left as a legacy his clerk bot, which is very, very polite. Mathsci (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Who shall take the responsibility of blocking Alexandria in Hersfold's absence? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Although I disagreed with Hersfold more often than not while he was an arbitrator (in fact, I'd developed the impression that he had fallen out of touch with the community), I am still sorry to see him go. He has always been an excellent administrator (among all the other positions he's held), one of the nicest people around, and a dedicated volunteer. I wish him luck in any of his future endeavours. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How we treat our arbitrators

For heaven's sake, this community has to stop attacking arbs because we don't like decisions they make. We have a group of arbs, many people with many backgrounds and points of view who sit as arbs together, collaborative, and relying on consensus rather than unilateral actions to make decisions. This helps to creates balance. We have no right to wear them out with personal attacks, with attempts at every turn in the road to drag them from their positions. As a community we have to be able to agree or disagree with the arbs and their positions, but our civility policy applys to them too. True incivility is disregarding other human beings and thinking that because we disagree we have the right to demand resignations, to treat other people with disrespect and disdain. We are Wikipedia, and we are responsible for its easy function, or lack there of, for its success or downfall. Wikipedia will not rise or fall based on any single arb's position, but It will rise or fall if its community behaves like a mob with a mob mentality. We will chase away, not only arbs, but anyone in a right mind. Who could possibly want to work, or could work productively in such an environment? I hope also that in the background the arbs are treating each other with respect. I assume they are. We have as a community become permissive in our poor treatment of our own people, allowing the online environment to be a place where we can treat others as we might never in real life. This won't change by punishing people. I can only see change by assuming dignity within ourselves and extending that to the others we meet in this or any environment. There is no dignity in how we are treating arbs and often each other. This isn't the beginning of a discussion, but must be the end of tolerating some non productive behaviours. End of rant.(olive (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC))

I agree. I think that it's important that people remember that this is only a website, and not to get so worked up over what are always minor issues in the scheme of things. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Respect, etc, is a two-way street. Nobody questions that arbiters have a thankless job. But when the arbitration committee has taken upon itself the job of ruling council, making sua sponte decisions in which it acts as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, I'm not going to smile and pretend that's okay. --B (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK's edit filter

Sorry if this has been raised elsewhere, but I would like to get some clarity on a couple of AGK's recent actions in the Wikipediocracy debacle. AGK added "wikipediaforum.com" and "wikipediocracy.com" to the spam blacklist with an edit summary of "added wikipediaforum". This may have been in response to a request filed by Sir Fozzie, but it is unlikely since there had been no discussion at that point and the domain wikipediaforum.com is not mentioned. When I pointed out that there had been a very recent proposal to blacklist wikipediocracy.com which had not been supported, AGK removed the links and stated that he was unaware of the earlier discussion. In a related ANI discussion, AGK said: "...nobody had [drawn] my attention to the VP discussion. When I was made aware of it a few moments ago, I removed WO from the Spam Blacklist (pending a decision on the blacklist talk page)". AGK did remove the domains from the spam blacklist, but despite being aware of the community's wishes, he subsequently created failed to delete an edit filter which (apparently) disallowed any mention of the word "wikipediocracy". That filter has been deleted with the comment "use the spam blacklist if necessary".

Were these actions done at the behest of ArbCom or was AGK acting on his own? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a subpage of WP:ANI devoted to these issues. Please transfer these additional questions there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/ExternalSites. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• No. This needs to be discussed here, not at an invisible subpage of ANI, because this is tool abuse by an Arb. (1) He created a filter to do a job equivalent to something that had been decided by community discussion was not to be done. (2) He created an edit filter despite clearly not having the ability to write one. (3) Which was quite lucky, because if written properly that edit filter would have disallowed any editor from making any edit to a page where the word "wikipediocracy" already existed close to that edit ... which recently, is a hell of a lot of pages. "Added_Lines" does not equal "stuff you've just added", it is anything that would appear in such a diff - i.e. anyone trying to make any edit to a page close to where the word "wikipediocracy" currently exists would be rejected. This is disruption, pure and simple. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • As I understand it the listing was undone upon discussion, so it's difficult to see this as "pure and simple" disruption. More like a minor mistake undone. With respect to the undone listing: no articles harmed; no users harmed; no living people harmed, nor individuals attempted to be disparaged. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Please read the above comments. We're not talking about the spam blacklisting here, but the edit filter, which AGK created to replicate the functionality of the blacklist after he had undone that because the community consensus was against it, and which was deleted by another edit filter manager because it didn't work. In other words (a) AGK edits blacklist (b) AGK is told that previous community discussion is against including that website on blacklist (c) AGK undoes blacklist edit (d) AGK creates edit filter which would have the same effect. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• So, it was deleted because it didn't work sounds like a mistake rectified. Also, was it not created to prevent linking per the outing or doxing policy? User's try different approaches to serving policy and sometimes they don't work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're not understanding. AGK was told that he could not add wikipediocracy.com to the blacklist because there had previously been a community discussion that it should not be added. He then (correctly) undid that edit. But then he used his edit filter manager tools to create an edit filter to do exactly the same thing against community consensus - in other words, circumventing community consensus via tool use. The fact it was badly written and did not work is irrelevant. Also, the filter would not only have prevented linking, but would have prevented anyone from even mentioning the word "wikipediocracy", even in plain text, anywhere on Wikipedia. That's not preventing doxing, that's simply censorship. (Also, had it actually worked, it would have disrupted any page where the word already existed). Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• So, and without commenting on the above, what measures do we put in place to prevent doxing? Or - despite the harassment and BLP policies, despite the WMF Terms of Use, despite legal restrictions in various jurisdictions, despite the opportunities it provides for malicious payback and score-settling, despite the possibilities for real life harm, despite the inability of the doxee to respond - should we just accept it as a fact of life?  Roger Davies ^talk 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's begging the question, Roger. What we don't do is use our toolset to say to the community "OK, you've had that discussion, there's a consensus, but I'm an Arbitrator and I'm going to use my tools to ignore it". If a "normal" admin did that they'd lose their bit in a second (as we've found out recently). As an actual answer to your question, though - we block people. Ask MZMcBride. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• In fairness, AGK didn't actually say that and, from the timetable below, that may not have been his intention. But to get to the substantive point, we are skirting the substantive issue and until that one is resolved, this series of dramas will just continue to run.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• It certainly will do if Arbitrators believe they can happily ignore both community consensus and policy. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Arbitrator's believe what? These allegations are just unsubstantiated. Such, reckless claims should just stop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's been pointed out above where AGK did exactly that by not removing his edit-filter. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• It has not been pointed out, because to begin with it appears the allged timeline is patently incorrect, as shown below. Moreover, trying a little code-work to deal with conflicting policy concerns is not at all the crime your charges claim. Granted, not removing an unworking edit filter is poor mopping, but that deserves, at most, a doc in pay, nothing more, and certainly not a cause celebre, of high crimes and misdemeanors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, "trying a little code-work to deal with conflicting policy concerns" isn't a crime. It's bungling of the first water. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Except the water did not even reach the bilge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely the edit filter was created 12 minutes before the the links were added to the spam blacklist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. But in that case, AGK should have deleted the edit filter when he reverted the spam blacklist entry, since they were designed to do the same thing. It would probably have been noticed earlier if it had actually worked. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Does the site in question meet our requirements for a reliable source or external links? If not... Guettarda (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's for articles. We're talking plain text, anywhere on Wikipedia here. Look at how many times that website was mentioned - not linked, just mentioned - (even by Arbs) during the recent Kevin Case at ArbCom. If AGK's edit-filter had been in place and working, no-one could have even mentioned the name of the site. Their edits would have been disallowed, How ridiculous would that have been? What if the website had been something more mainstream than the one it was? Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Though BLP of course applies anywhere on Wikipedia. I really don't understand how people can support a strong BLP policy on Wikipedia and simultaneously condone doxing,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I get where this is going, because people are conveniently ignoring the main point to make their own points about other things. No-one is condoning doxing. No-one disgrees with the BLP policy. But there had already been a community discussion on this point, which was ignored, and tools were used to circumvent it. You can not then use your tools to override that decision, it doesn't matter what it is. That's tool misuse. If tools misuse is allowed now, so be it. But don't expect it not to be brought up the next time we have an admin desysop or similar Arbitration case. And as another point, please, Arbs, do not start fucking about with such a powerful tool as the edit-filter when clearly not understanding how it works. We've already had one episode of someone doing that and ending up disallowing every edit to Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's for articles... - the rest of Wikipedia only exists to support article writing. If it doesn't support article writing (or categorisation, or indexing, or...), we don't need it. Guettarda (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Quite right. But no, I mean the spam blacklist is only for clickable links (usually, those that get added to articles). The edit-filter is a completely different beast... not designed for this. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected my original statement to reflect the comments made here that the edit filter was actually created before the domains were added to the spam blacklist. It does not change anything, since once AGK was aware that the community did not support blacklisting the site, he chose not to remove or disable the filter. My question remains unanswered - ArbCom, did AGK add those domains to the blacklist or create that edit filter on behalf of ArbCom? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one to notice that the filter has never been enabled? This is what an enabled filter's history looks like. Note the "Enabled" flag? Now compare the history of the filter at issue. T. Canens (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens, are you asking a question or stating that the filter was never enabled? In either case, my question remains unanswered. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Any more Arbs willing to try half-arsed attempts to deflect from the actual issue here, or is that it now? Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy had the link needed to a report on ArbCom: "Unlike the Supreme Court, their robes are their bathrobes. Their appointments are lifetime, in that they last until they get a life." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the "actual issue" you want to talk about? You started from the premise that AGK created the filter after he reverted the edit to the blacklist, supposedly to circumvent the discussion; as it turns out, he created it before the addition of the links to the black list, which he reverted when he heard about the discussion. Then the claim is that he didn't delete it when he reverted his addition, except that deleting or not deleting a disabled filter makes zero difference. Then the argument seems to be "arbs should not be messing with filters that they don't know about", which actually has some force, except that the filter here was never enabled and could not have done any damage. So, what exactly are you complaining about with respect to the filter? T. Canens (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope AGK will, at some point soon, let us know his intentions when he created the filter and if the filter was not activated due to a mistake on his part or if it was deliberate. In either case, he apparently created a filter to prevent anyone from writing "wikipediocracy". Whether or not it was enabled, are you not curious as to why he would do this? And why he would not delete such a filter when he learned that the community did not support adding that site to the spam blacklist? Given AGK's other actions in relation to this debacle, I would think that ArbCom would be more interested in an episode that seems to have damaged their reputation within the community. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom's rather astonishing reaction to Wikipediocracy's blog post almost justifies the post. I strongly suggest that those of you who have spent enormous amounts of hours and effort trying to figure out how to hermetically circle your wagons over the past 2 weeks take a breather from it all, because you seem to have hermetically sealed out the fresh air. You've somehow managed to recast a tempest in a teapot as the sequel to the Cuban missile crisis, which I suppose speaks well about the power of crowdsourcing, but doesn't seem healthy otherwise. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; when you decide to construct a massive steel hammer to smash a small glass jar, and are then surprised when a genie escapes from it, you shouldn't be surprised that trying to glue the pieces back together is a difficult job. The best thing to do is say "OK, we can't put that jar back tgoether, but how can we learn for the next glass jar we encounter"? Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I kind of said that in one of the sections above (in the bit where I said critics need to examine their approach as well, and everyone needs to learn something from this), but sensible comments get missed in all this. It is much easier for people to argue over the more strident comments. I'm hoping people calm down eventually, but getting from here to there is not easy. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

@Carbuncle: No. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The question wasn't a yes/no question, it was an either/or question. I wouldn't have done or endorsed the actions taken here, though some arbitrators might. Certainly the actions were not a formal action on behalf of the committee as a whole. Most actions by individual arbitrators rarely are, so you have to ask them in what capacity they were acting. Those actions that are "for the committee" tend to get formally voted on and signed off on. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, silly me, I was reading Delicious carbuncle's original question in his first post, when I see you were almost certainly answering his bolded question in his later post.

Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: it's generally considered courteous to raise an issue with the editor at question before bringing it to a noticeboard. Given no edits were harmed, it's unclear why this couldn't have been raised on AGK's talk page. NE Ent 01:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To be frank, when dealing with ArbCom I have much more faith in the answers I get in public than on individual talk pages. You may note how difficult it was to get an answer to my question despite the participation of multiple Arbs here. And note also that I have not suggested that AGK needs to step down as an Arb, resign his tools, or anything of the sort. I'm just trying to ascertain what happened and who made it happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

On this whole point, I don't consider the VPP discussion to be indicative of a consensus against the spam listing as most of the opposition came from people such as myself who happen to post there. That said, no consensus was clear among non-WO participants and that an editor thought there needed to be a discussion on a major noticeboard before any action takes place speaks volumes in itself. Did AGK really think this was an uncontroversial action? Seems unlikely to me that any admin with a smidgen of understanding of the situation could have had such an impression and certainly not an arbitrator. Regardless of whether there was an ongoing discussion or not, such an action seems to be something that demands an attempt to garner consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• DC drew my attention to this thread, and I offered the following response. I don't think I have anything to add to it at this point in time:

  Hi there. I see quite a lot of misunderstanding about the AbuseFilter situation. The filter was never enabled; I created it to see what edits it would have blocked had it been active. I would not have enabled such a far-reaching filter without community permission (because, unlike with the Spam Blacklist, administrators aren't allowed to unilaterally build hyperlinks into an AbuseFilter).

  BlackKite seems to be under the impression that I was shopping around for ways to block WO after I removed it from the Blacklist; this is both incorrect on the face of it, and also derives from the mistaken belief that I created the Filter after I edited the Blacklist. The other conclusions he comes to are also incorrect. Also, the Filter was never active, and it has since been deleted by another administrator. I think your accusations have been adequately rebutted by other members of the community, so I will not engage in protracted discussion on this issue unless there is some undiscussed point that you need me to clarify. I also do not wish to edit the noticeboard talk page thread at this point, because this issue has nothing to do with my work as an arbitrator. Thank you for having the courtesy to draw my attention to the thread; I appreciate that.

  Thanks, AGK [•] 09:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

PROTIP: Getting community permission before starting work on "far-reaching" tools means nobody will have reason to question your actions and you won't have wasted your time. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are talking about the edit filter, then I wonder if you are deliberately misunderstanding my actions, because it seems like you are. I did not enable the filter. I simply wanted to see if it was feasible, given that several administrators had suggested a filter could supersede a block in the case of MZ. AGK [•] 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know you didn't enable it. What I'm trying to get you to understand here is that preemptively programming unapproved site-wide tools (especially ones as little-understood as edit filters), just to see what they would do, during a highly contentious debate, as a serving arbitrator (and thus inevitably having your actions subject to intense scrutiny), was a very naïve thing of you to do. Not least because you didn't make it crystal clear exactly what you were doing and why - the result being the kind of reaction you've received here, above. I hope you will be much more careful in future. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that is unfair. A lot has been boiling around, and surely there was some discussion about whether we would be better off if certain locations weren't mentioned. There might be several technical ways of implementing such a prohibition, including policy, and software. Within software, there's blacklist and edit filters, maybe others. It is easy to imagine someone wondering - could this be accomplished with an edit filter? One does not invoke the mechanism of a community wide discussion to debate the merits of such a filter, taking thousands of man-hours of debate, then if approved, try it an a few minutes later realize it isn't even feasible. That would be a monumental waste of time. Instead, one tries to see if one can write one, test it on a test wiki, to see if the concept is even feasible before considering whether to go tot he trouble of getting it approved. This is pretty standard stuff, you do proof of concepts before you make major proposals. Arbcom has taken a lot of heat, much of it deserved, for locking the barn door after the horse has bolted. So now the plan is to blast Arbcom for trying to be pro active? Not fair.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As a point of technical information, is there any sort of sandbox or test environment which AGK could have used instead? If I understand the coding issue properly, AGK was working with a "live" set of rules in general, but the particular BADSITES rule here was both buggily coded and not enabled itself. If it was an experiment, isn't there a better way of going about that? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

http://test.wikipedia.org, but nobody knows about it (I presume AGK didn't) and he would have to become an admin there (which would mean flagging down a testwiki bureaucrat on their home wiki since people only go there to test and don't patrol it on a daily basis). --Rschen7754 03:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, the point of this section was to ask if AGK was undertaking these actions on his own initiative or if he was acting for ArbCom. AGK has stated that he was not acting on behalf of ArbCom. Both of the actions under discussion here appear to have been undertaken without the benefit of community or expert input. One was actually against community consensus. AGK states that he was not aware of the consensus, but that does not excuse adding a site to the spam blacklist before the community has had a chance to discuss that addition. AGK says that he created the edit filter to see what would have been blocked if it were enabled, but the obvious answer is that if the filter were correctly written, it would have blocked all mentions of Wikipediocracy. If he simply wanted to know that this could be done with an edit filter, he could more productively have asked any number of people. I think it is perfectly fair to question such actions (and I think Arbs expect their actions may be questioned far more often than other admins). I am not "blasting ArbCom for being proactive", I am wondering aloud if AGK understands that being on ArbCom means he should stay away from these kinds of actions, not rush into them half-cocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK's actions were not so much locking the barn door as loading a gun and doing some target practice, even though everyone had already agreed that shooting the horse was totally unnecessary. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@AGK. The filter you created, here, has as a setting "Prevent the user from performing the action in question" enabled. That is not the standard setting of a (new) filter, so you intentionally enabled it. But you say "... 'I created it to see what edits it would have blocked had it been active' (my bolding). If your intention, or ArbCom's intention, was to monitor, you would have enabled the filter, without enabling the block (which is actually a very common practice for blocking-intended filters). Moreover, you would have monitored the filter's output and see what was blocked - you could even have used the output of the filter to see who used it, and possibly when some edit triggered the filter, used that to assess whether the mentioning of the site in that case was a form of outing and take appropriate action. I would have found that a very legitimate use of the filter, even if it was never set to blocking in the end, I think no-one here would have complained excessively (at least, about the monitoring, they might have complained about the blocks). But the way that filter was created, even if it was not enabled, does not suggest that that was the intention of the filter (but please, correct me if I am wrong), that filter was intended to block, not to monitor, and that is perfectly in line with your unilateral blacklisting of the site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement regarding Malleus Fatuorum and George Ponderevo

Original announcement

Following up here with some additional notes: notifications of the motion have been placed on the user talk pages of the users concerned, and courtesy notifications were sent by e-mail earlier today (around 00:20 UTC) prior to the motion being published. The template intended to be used is {{User shared IP address}}. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy? Really? I find that an odd word to utter under the circumstances. — Ched :  ?  12:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched. The word 'courtesy' is being used in a formal sense here. As in a head's-up notification that goes out just before something happens, so it doesn't come completely out of the blue. It would have been rude to post the statement without notifying Malleus first, hence the use of the term 'courtesy'. For what it is worth, these notifications were sent through the Wikipedia e-mailer system, and I got a reply to the e-mail sent to the Malleus Fatuorum account (a brief note thanking me for the notification among other things), but no reply to the one sent to the George Ponderevo account. It is the fact that I got a reply from the note sent to the Malleus Fatuorum account that makes me think that Malleus still technically has access to that account (I mention this in my other comment below). Even if the password has been scrambled, a password reset via e-mail is probably still possible. Anyway, I've proposed some steps below to tie up some loose ends. Hopefully that will help. Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of admins, does the editing restriction which has been imposed on Malleus also apply to the George Ponderevo account, and should these accounts be assumed to share the same overall editing history if any issues arise? (though I note that George has responded to this by saying that he will cease editing). I appreciate that the Committee probably needs to word things very carefully here and the situation may not be entirely clear. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Risker (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? If George is indeed a sockpuppet of Malleus, then the same restrictions should most certainly apply. Sanctions apply to people, not just individual accounts. That said, I am in favour of editors making a clean start regardless of their editing history, even if they do have active sanctions against them, so long as they do not return to their previous disruptive editing patterns. If that's what was intended here, then I couldn't care less. What's the issue? Why does this warrant an ArbCom statement? Kurtis ^(talk) 02:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And if George Ponderevo is not a a sock, this motion publicly connected a relatively low profile editor to a controversial one, leading to the prior's retirement, all without apparent good reason. Monty₈₄₅ 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suffice to say, ArbCom is reminding everyone why they don't get a lot of respect. It apparently took them a month and a half to do what any other process would have resolved much more quickly and probably more appropriately, yet they still managed to achieve the least desirable result at the end of the process.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• What is ArbCom setting out to achieve with this announcement, and is it achieving it? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I assume by the answer of "No" by Risker, that the editing restriction placed on Malleus does not apply to George. If that is the case, I'm lost as to why it was necessary to make this public.--MONGO 04:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm assuming it's to make other CU's life easier? Public declaration that accounts have shared IP but are different people would help in certain situations. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Per WP::SHARE, the restrictions would apply if they have editing overlap, but not general restrictions. It appears they have the same IP but it wasn't proved they were the same person. They can be treated as one if WP::SHARE is violated. I am awaiting the tag that links them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

*Sigh* This does tend to reinforce what's been said about process for process' sake. If George were not Malleus, then ArbCom have made him an innocent target of all the stalkers who hounded Malleus. If George were Malleus, then everyone can see that the editor was able to avoid controversy - proving Malleus' oft-repeated complaint that he was incivil only to those who were incivil to him. Either way, you can't blame George for retiring. Who actually benefited from this statement? Certainly not the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

First, it certainly does appear that George is Malleus, considering the topics of the articles edited, being mostly a copyeditor and associating himself loosely with the same editors (whether or not they knew, of course). If the ArbCom statement is correct and they are sharing an IP, it would certainly make it harder to believe they are two separate people who didn't know of each other. On the off-chance these two are different accounts from two different people, then I don't know if the ArbCom statement was really necessary unless there was some kind of misconduct. Secondly, if George is Malleus, then I think Malleus actually made himself look worse, not better. Malleus and George make the same kind of good contributions to Wikipedia. George remained relatively low profile, made his contributions and avoided any major drama (with a clean block log). Malleus did the same thing, but reacted with incivility and repeatedly got himself involved in incident after incident, and chose not to modify his behavior after threads, topic bans, ArbCom cases, blocks, and a ton of drama. Were some of the people opposing Malleus uncivil? Yes, but if Malleus can contain himself for nearly two years editing as George, then why were we wasting time trying to get him to modify his behavior when it was fully within his ability to not be uncivil, and he continued to be? It'd be nice to know straight from Malleus/George, but since George has apparently retired, we may not here from him directly on it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• This statement was written and passed as is after several previous motions failed to gain agreement among a voting majority of the Arbitration Committee. It does not say that the users are definitively different people; it only says that a majority of the Committee has concluded that a) there is at minimum a close association between the two accounts and b)at minimum, at a particular point in time, the user who uses the MF account used GP's account. It is not the motion I would have preferred (the one I proposed had the line "The Committee has analyzed the evidence as well as statements from Malleus and George and has concluded that [the assertion in the first sentence] is accurate.") but it was the only one that a majority of the Committee would agree to after it was decided that referring the matter to WP:SPI would be counterproductive. NW (Talk) 05:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • As I recall, this is within the normal shared IP policy and even if they are not definitively "sockpuppets" they can be treated as a single account per WP::SHARE which seems to be the finding here. I have not seen the {{User shared IP address}} tag added to either account, though as stated in the notice. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• You folks are WAY out of line with this. Overreach much? WTH? You bitch about editors and the WP:OUTING policy, and you pull this kind of crap? You folks simply have no ethics at all do ya? How about you disclose your OWN undisclosed ALT. accounts huh? I'd do it for you, but I'm sure it would be the next "Shhhh .. OS" drama. You have not a second thought about walking all over the policies at all do ya? Sign me out as "User:thoroughly disgusted" — Ched :  ?  05:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about ArbCom, Ched, or about the rest of us? I would like to know why ArbCom didn't leave this matter alone, since what was happening before they interfered was entirely positive and and productive. Did they act this way just because they could? What constructive outcome does ArbCom imagine is going to result from their interference? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, No - my apologies if anything I've said was inferred to be an individual personal judgement. My post was merely to note what I perceive to be a severe lacking of common sense, common decency, and an outright violation of of rules in regards to wp:outing that they (the management) have recently dictated. — Ched :  ?  08:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you people expect ArbCom to use common decency in dealing with others? Nobody ever uses it in dealing with them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Tomorrow is the Ides of March. That must be it.Volunteer Marek 08:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Indeed it is Volunteer Marek - how apt. Sometimes, when one finds a hornets' nest it is best not to stick one's finger into it. It seems to me that Malleus and George (both productive content account) are not high enough up the Wikipedia tree to enjoy the "special protection" that so many senior Wikipedians quietly enjoy.  Giano  08:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ditto. Most of you were thought to have more sense then a kid being dared to stick a pea up his nose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I thought I might make some sort of statement here to explain my personal point of view and to help people understand what's going on. The statement on the main page is quite simply the only option that we could get any agreement on, and I do support it. The evidence was contradictory enough in places that the the committee was divided as to what link existed between the two accounts. To give you an idea of the scale, since the allegations were made, the committee has sent about 1000 emails discussing the matter. The issue was as divisive within the committee as any other issue regarding Malleus Fatuorum would have been outside of the committee.

  There are those of you who will be asking, why on earth say anything at all? There was a do nothing suggestion, I believe I was the only one who actually voted for that, but it was soundly rejected. I can understand the reasons too, there really appears to be crossover on the editing. If we assume that it's one person, they've broken most of the rules of WP:SOCK. Indeed, there's a strong argument that even assuming it's two people, they had violated our policy on sharing an IP address - they have supported each other on a dispute. Doing nothing was simply not a valid outcome.

  Malleus' hard retirement wasn't sufficient to stop this, though I think it was a factor in the lack of sanctions here. George isn't a cleanstart account as they were both editing at the same time for over a year and there is persuasive evidence that there are multiple people involved here. The explanations given by George and Malleus did not help and I can't blame them particularly, given how Malleus has been treated in the past.

  I do want to make it absolutely clear here, Malleus has been treated differently than an other editor in the same situation would have been. There is no way that another editor would have had so much evidence put together and scrutinised, no way that so much more work would have been put in after the basic evidence had been checked. Indeed, Malleus (and therefore George) have been given the benefit of the doubt and I do not believe any other editor would have got the same. That alone is infuriating for those who believe that all editors should be equal. I'm not going to say the committee worked well together here, some actions taken by certain committee members I find to be unacceptable. Actions were taken in a reactionary way and I do think it's a learning point which has to be taken away, as the same reactionary attitude has exacerbated the DOXing issues above. I'm sure other committee members will have found my attitude to be more than unhelpful in this too.

  Finally, I would like to re-iterate statements I've made over the past days, I'm open to discussing anything that happens on the committee and giving my personal views. If anyone has suggestions for improvement that I could help implement, please bring them to me and we can chat about them. Worm^TT(talk) 11:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  So...will any concrete steps be taken (in a transparent way) so that the community can be SURE that "lessons are learned" from this recent series of events, or are we simply to take it on faith? I keep seeing talk about "learning points" and "lessons learned", but frankly I see nothing that leads me to believe that these lessons will actually be learned or that behavior will really change. It's all well and good to say these things, but results are what matter here. And WE (the community) need to SEE those results, not simply be assured that "oh, they happened. Trust us." Sorry, but that doesn't work. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it's good to see a "do nothing" suggestion was at least floated. IMO, if you couldn't get enough people on the committee to agree that Malleus and George were operated by the same person, then you shouldn't have made any motions or whatever public – this only fuels more (loath as I am to use the word) 'drama' and provides no clear outcome or resolution. Also FWIW, I don't think I'm the only one who at least suspected Malleus was George but didn't feel the need to bring it up because the George account was doing a lot of great work and not causing any problems – to whoever did all the digging and so on to notify the AC, you should really consider whether your efforts have improved the encyclopedia in any way. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's extremely disappointing and hard to assume good faith that after the User:Geogre fiasco, the Arbcom refuses to learn from its mistakes. Geogre and Malleus shared certain similarities - both were great content editors (amongst the finest Wikipedia had), both were in the habit of pointing out the Arbcom's errors, and both ultimately have been needlessly driven off by the Arbcom. I think that's a pity and to be regretted. A wise man does not need to see and hear everything. We now know there has been a case against Malleus - now we have a right to know who brought it, before further damage is done by wild speculation - who emailed the Arbcom about it. Be very sure: I shall find out - better from the Arbcom than me.  Giano  11:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• So now you're making threats, eh? Comparing ArbCom to the Gestapo wasn't enough for you? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think ArbCom lost sight, with this announcement of the fact that we are first of all here to build an encyclopedia. Continuing to do nothing would have been the best course of action. Those who voted "yea" on this motion should expect difficult questions should they seek community approval for another term.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In short - there are indeed two separate people involved - else the committee should have simply shouted "Sock!" MF has edited over 10,000 pages. GP has edited over 6,000 pages. Their overlap is on under 300 pages - or a fairly small percentage as Wikipedia goes. MF has a substantially higher overlap with Wehwalt, whom I doubt is MF <g>. The urgency to make a public pronouncement and shaming is odd -- usually such stuff is given to those who need to know through the channels set up for that purpose and not simply placed in public. OROH, maybe this is simply a new way of OUTING or DOXING done by ArbCom as a committee? <g> Collect (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• The question which I am going to have answered is, if the accounts are so similar, why did the Arbcom not wait for a conventional checkuser request. Malleus had enough enemies - if crimes were being committed, it wouldn't have taken long. Why act on a secretive email. It's widely known that Malleus irritated the Arbcom. The only possible conclusion is that this secretive email cam from within the Arbcom itself or was set-up by an Arb. If it was not from one of them, they would never have been so stupid as to act on it.  Giano  12:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  To put that speculation to rest, the request came from outside the committee and I have no reason to believe it was set up by an arb. The initial reaction including use of the checkuser tool was faster than I would have liked. This is at least part of the "reactionary attitude" that I was referring to, as I believe looking the other way would have been better. Worm^TT(talk) 12:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you had better tell us who it was then; otherwise, it's a case of "You would say that woudn't you." How could you all have been so stupid as to not see these questions being asked and answers demanded?  Giano  12:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You know full well I can't tell you that. I absolutely saw these questions being asked and am doing my best to answer them. Worm^TT(talk) 12:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Buy your not answering, for reasons best known to yourself, you are standing up like a coconut on a shy - while your colleagues are no doubt thanking God for a Heaven sent opportunity. They've made a big mistake - we shall soon see how big that mistake is. Giano  12:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so he violated policy? Well, Z frigging OMG, how horrible. Now, let's look at that for a moment. What's the policy in place for? To build Munchkin Land, where we all sing happily together with anxious glances at the castle? No, it's to get the best content to reader. I will say, now that Cas is off, that all of you combined can't replace Malleus in that role. So, you've stripped us of one of our top content contributors, who the community shouted very loudly at you late last year, "Leave him the hell alone". And what is the upside of having done it? Well, I don't see one, perhaps the committee can supply it. Was the exceptional treatment of Malleus discouraging other content contributors? Not obviously. Was George making a jerk of himself? Not clearly. Was George contributing content at a high level? Yes. Is he doing it anymore? No. Was it foreseeable that Malleus/George would leave once he was outed by the committee? Yes, very much so. Has the committee done a good day's work? Well, except for adding a bunch of oppose votes next time out for people I was appalled got elected in the first place, thus improving the committee over the long term, I can't say it has. However, the committee does little or nothing to improve content, and in this case is actively striking at content contributors, so I think the long term gain is greatly outweighed by the short term detriment.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

God it must be a cold day in Hell. I'm agreeing with Wehalt.  Giano  13:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Lot's of Arbcom blunders recently, but this was one of the worst.

The big picture: WP:IAR/WP:COMMONSENSE and the principle embodied in the first sentence of WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect.") have been under attack from successive Arbcoms for a few years now. Hans Adler 13:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you are going to strip away the privacy of these two editors, who might be family, lovers, roommates, neighbors on a shared router, or whatever by announcing the "close relationship" in public, you ought to release the name of the editor who made the accusation so we can see if somebody is grinding an axe, if your actions are corrupt, or if there was a bona fide reason for your investigation. Why is the name of the accuser being kept secret? Why wasn't this filed as a public sock puppetry case, open for all to see? Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Why didn't you politely ask the accuser to file a sock puppetry report and let normal processing go forth. I'm not aware of any member on the Committee having particularly advanced computer skills, except Coren. Why not just let this matter be processed normally? Why turn it into a political matter and deny those involved the possibility of an independent, neutral review by ArbCom? No matter what happens next, you are all involved in the conflict, and unable to act as reviewers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is the Arbcom now spying on all of us - are our homes, jobs and private lives safe from their illicit snooping?  Giano  13:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much help it will be for more Committee members to give an account of what happened, but I will give my summary. The Committee were contacted with concerns that MF was editing from the GP account, and that he had violated the terms of the socking policy by posting from both accounts on a project page in support of each other. The matter was looked into by several CheckUsers, and the technical and behavioural evidence confirmed that the accounts were run by the same person. We also found some minor tag team edit warring, and a bit of block evasion. We discussed this at great length among ourselves. The view among the Committee was that MF was a special case, and so the whole Committee needed to be involved in decision making. Opinions varied as to what to do - not just among the Committee as a body, but also among individual members, who would change their opinion as the matter unfolded and various arguments were put forward. On the table for discussion was that MF was using the GP account to make a Clean Start, but that he had somewhat messed it up by a) violating policy and b) being spotted. A considerable part of the Committee was supportive of MF's apparent attempt at a Clean Start, and were wondering how best to help him achieve this, and yet stay within policy, and also stay within the Committee's responsibility to the community not to keep secrets, nor to turn a blind eye to policy violations when they are pointed out. MF was contacted. His response was to deny that the GP account was his, and gave an explanation that the GP account was run by someone else. He also wrote to us in the guise of the other person. While the majority of the Committee did not accept this explanation, a few felt it was worth considering. After discussing the matter further, and putting forward several suggestions how to proceed, including simply ignoring the matter, the statement that has been posted was the one that was felt to be the least harmful to Malleus, met the Committee's responsibility not to conceal policy infractions, even for special cases, and covered the possibility that the GP account may have been operated at some time by someone other than MF, but known to him. If anyone wishes to ask me any questions on this matter, please contact me on my talkpage, and I'll see what I can do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• So it seems that ArbCom received a sockpuppet complaint privately. Overwhelming evidence including same IP, same articles, same POV, and mutual support in discussions. This would have been a banning of both accounts for anyone else but in deference to the accounts contributions (Malleus' block log notwithstanding), they are able to continue with the understanding that this is a WP:SHARED account despite the polict violations. That seems like a rather toned down but reasonable response to a productive editor. A response that would not be afforded to many people. "Both" Malleus and George can contribute but their relationship as being shared IP has to be disclosed. That's policy. Nothing personal about those users has been disclosed. Please will someone who is complaining about this action explain why this very soft but necessary response is being met so antagonistically? --DHeyward (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I assume that question was rhetorical, given many of the antagonizers are the type that will never give arbcom the benefit of the doubt, even if they issued a motion that the sun rises in the east, with a strong overlap of "MF should be able to do whatever the hell he wants" sentiment. But you are correct. It does seem that MF was treated far more leniently than anyone else would have been. Resolute 13:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Because Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Now who was the informer and lets have some diffs for the serious crimes. Then we will be told how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Giano, Wikipedia is a Gestapo type state, and has been for quite some time now, and it is getting worse. 76.126.172.249 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If MF is/was running a sock? then he must be dealt with, the way other sockmasters were. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think the community would want it any other way. That assumes that there was proper evidence to justify a check in the first place, which has not been established yet. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes they would. There are plenty of MF supporters out there who would (and did) stand behind him no matter what. Of course, they are half as nice to ArbCom. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• SilkTork, thank you for the informative comment about what happened. That's a good start, but we'll need to know more. (1) Why was the complainant unwilling to make their accusation and post their evidence in public? (2) Is there any reason a Checkuser could not have received the evidence and posted it themselves to a public page for discussion? I am sure the accuser is watching these discussions closely. Please do come forth, accuser. If you have acted correctly, you have nothing to fear. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm surprised more people aren't wondering why we didn't defer this matter to SPI. We discussed that option at length, and came to the following consensus. 1) At the time the allegation was made, GP was voting in RFAs. As we all know, SPI does not allow people to submit allegations about accounts that are voting in open RFAs; such allegations need to be submitted in private. 2) If the allegation was made in public, SPI would not have touched it. The venue does not lend itself to protracted discussion, which a Malleus SPI would undoubtedly have attracted. 3) We needed to establish that there was no compelling reason to keep the connection between the accounts off the public record. To do so, we needed to ask Malleus some personal questions, which the community could not do. When private or sensitive evidence is involved in a situation, that situation—by long-standing arrangement and convention, at least on this project—becomes the responsibility of ArbCom. We exist to handle this sort of thing.

  I suppose the petitioner did not make his identity known because whoever dropped this bomb on Malleus (I don't think the GP=MF connection was widely known until now) would undoubtedly have attracted a lot of ire. We arbitrators sign up to make difficult decisions, including in sensitive cases like this. The petitioner did not. AGK [•] 14:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish! Which Arb concocted the story of an email informant! Which one? and where are the diffs for the supposed crime.  Giano  14:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK, your explanation sounds complex. I'm not familiar with the rule that open RFAs negate the ability to file a sock puppetry report. Can you link to that rule and explain where it came from? Are you suggesting that the accuser didn't want to reveal their identity because they were standing at RFA and knew this accusation would sink them? I'd really like to see the evidence to understand whether this was a bona fide complaint or a bogus one. I do not understand why the evidence of sock puppetry isn't revealed. If a checkuser had to ask Malleus some personal questions, they could have done so. I'm not aware of the need for ArbCom to be involved in this matter. If it were an administrator being accused and a desysop potentially necessary, then yes, ArbCom might be justified. In this case, I'm not seeing it. Please do share the info. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Giano, you're getting in the way of an actual conversation. Please don't be rude.

Jehochman, that an RFA was open was one minor reason why the allegation could not have been made in public. I gave three broad arguments. As for where that rule is set down, I can't link to it very easily, but it's at WP:SPI, underneath "Whether or not to request CheckUser in a case?", in the "In these cases, do not request CheckUser" collapse box, beside "Vote fraud in ongoing vote". There is also the overriding rule at SPI, contained within the yellow box at the top of WP:SPI, which requires cases that rely on evidence that is "sensitive" or includes "emails or any other information not on Wikipedia's public pages" be referred to the CheckUser team by off-site methods or to the Arbitration Committee. AGK [•] 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In the second collapse box here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/CheckUser_criteria. Which doesn't say not file an SPI -- it says not to request a checkuser with an SPI; the guidance is to file the SPI and wait for the Rfa to finish before requesting checkuser (or file at ANI if the vote outcome isn't in doubt.) NE Ent 14:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So nothing really has changed these last six years since I started looking at those reports. On the English Wikipedia, the Checkuser privacy-violating-tool is not employed unless there is substantial evidence of sock puppetry. This evidence should be posted in public. AGK, could you please post the non-confidental evidence of sock puppetry, or are you asserting that 100% of the evidence is confidential, which would be very odd indeed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• So the options are either it was an actual sockpuppet or it was someone else (likely someone related?) who was still acting as a meatpuppet, since the account backed up Malleus in discussions and in other places. Either way, it seems like a pretty clear violation, though I can understand why Arbcom would choose a more toned down response. Silverseren^C 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Malleus self ID of the User:William Leadford account indicates he is a sockmaster. So the only question is if Malleus misused sock accounts in some manner...otherwise, I can't see why else to make this public.--MONGO 15:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the best response we could have wished for. George was editing constructively and politely enough. If it was Malleus, then the status quo before this announcement was exactly what I and most others have been hoping for for years: Malleus's talent without the dramas. Perhaps you had no choice, though. Perhaps the person who alerted you to the situation was going to create a ruckus (or one of you would have) if the committee hadn't acted. Perhaps the association was so obvious that more such reports were inevitable. Anyway. I hope George sees this for the unimportant blip that it is, and gets back to work soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• From User:Worm That Turned above: 'There was a do nothing suggestion, I believe I was the only one who actually voted for that, but it was soundly rejected... Doing nothing was simply not a valid outcome.' And yet, it seems nothing is exactly what ArbCom has done here. Apparently, you had reasonably convincing evidence that Malleus was operating multiple accounts in a manner prohibited by policy. But all you decide to do about it is post a notice about it, when standard policy in such a circumstance is to block the socks. Why has User:George Ponderevo not been indefinitely blocked? If this was any other user, it would have been. Once again, it's one rule for Malleus and one rule for everybody else. I for one am glad he finally quit of his own accord, because it had long since become obvious that no amount of misconduct would ever have been enough for ArbCom to do the right thing and ban him. Robofish (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And the project would benefit from such a block exactly how?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• "If this was any other user" - no you are mistaken. Plenty of our high editors have operated or do operate sockpuppets with impunity. Us lesser editors simply aren't allowed that privilege.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not interested in the past, but if there are such editors who presently operate such sockpupppets, please tell the community. Socking attacks the governance basis for the project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So I'm seeing criticism of Arbcom for (a) receiving a private allegation of sock-like connections between accounts (secret informer!); (b) conducting a discreet, off-wiki investigation of the allegations (star chamber!); (c) publishing the conclusion that the accounts are linked (persecution! invasion of privacy! driving off good content editor!); but (d) declining to indef block the accounts (favoritism!). Looks to me like Arbcom has endeavored to strike a balance between transparency, protection of privacy, respect for productive content contributions, and accountability to the community for violations of user account policy. Reasonable disagreement is fine, but can we please get out of the state of perpetual outrage here? Or at least, will someone please create an {{OUTRAGE}} template that can just be automatically added to every Arbcom announcement, to save time and electrons? alanyst 17:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do we care about sockpuppetry, anyway? The policy says "Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia." (emphasis mine). By supporting anonymous ratting out of other editors, the committee's action here works against the very goals the policy is trying to promote. I understand the trying to simultaneously protect editor privacy and provide governance transparency puts wikipedia between between Scylla and Charybdis; we already have a pretty good mechanism for that in sockpuppet investigations. The explanations provided thus far for not utilizing SPI -- one of which appears to be based on a misread of the policy -- aren't terribly satisfying.

Given that there was no ongoing sockpuppetry -- MF having retired -- I don't see how this motion improves the encylcopedia. WTT mentions share but that advises, but doesn't require, posting the notices.

On a secondary note, arbcom policy states "the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons." (emphasis mine). Given the edit histories of both accounts are public viewing I can't think of what reasons could exist for not providing a more detailed statement in the initial announcement. Given the historic interest the community has shown in dispute resolutions issues connected to MF, the committee should have anticipated there'd be many questions and addressed as many as possible with the initial statement. NE Ent 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

When was it given that no ongoing sockpuppetry was occuring? In fact, it appears there was a lot of sockpuppetry occuring and ArbCom decided for the benefit of the project to use a lower form of identification (i.e. WP::Share) instead of comming down with the ban hammer. This allows Malleus and "George" to continue editing. It also allows Malleus to contribute with a clean start. That is an incredibly gracious move considering the facts ArbCom has established about the two accounts (i.e. it's not credible that they are different people). If MF wants to contribute with a clean start, he is not banned and could do so. Why not do that instead of all this drama? --DHeyward (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

On 23 February when the MF account stopping editing Special:Contributions/Malleus_Fatuorum. NE Ent 20:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do we care about sockpuppetry? Primarily, Wikipedia:Consensus (see, in particular, section on pitfalls and errors). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidence?

Allegations made without evidence violate WP:NPA.

I reviewed at least half of the pages featuring Malleus and George's names, and I don't see anything problematic.

• There was a case where one reported fixing a problem on a GA/FA review, a day after the other edited the same page. One's signature appears below the others, with a day different.
• There was a case when another impulsive editor mentioned Malleus, in a discussion involving George, and Malleus showed up to reply; again, not a problem.
• Jack/B Rabbit made some suggestion about George and Malleus, and then outed one of his own socks. One or both replied on Jack/B Rabbit's page and then on G or M's page, again causing no problems.
• The two accounts thanked an editor for their contributions.
• George Ponderevo participated in Lord Roem's RfA2, which would only be a problem if the editors were the same person, rather than chums, etc.
• More diffs to be added....

What was the problem? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone else did and found a problem and guess what? They were right!! At a minimum it was a [[WP::SHARE]] and the minimum was the only punishment (i.e. "Hey, put an IP share tag on your user page so people know you both edit from the same IP."). No blocks, no bans, no great drama except faux-outrage that a sock puppet of people's favorite editor was discovered. There isn't even a punishment to complain about yet here they are. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Also, personally identifiable information that can be used as evidence may have already been oversighted to protect MF and George so unless ArbCom provides it, your search is a fruitless waste of time. The rabble rousers demanding the evidence would be the first to complain if oversighted material was made public and the first to complain that it isn't. --DHeyward (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Please stop your personal attacks, WMFite and administrator. There is enough hypocritical personal attacks on this page already. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. DHeyward, I don't know who you are or what you're going on about. I doubt there's a conspiracy of oversighters looking to protect MF--and we still do not know if the two accounts were used in some egregious way, like tag-team editing to avoid an edit-warring charge or something like that. Can you put your finger on a violation? Drmies (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your are correct about not knowing who I am. But I'll give you a hypothetical example: If I made an FA comment, received a question on that and an IP answered i,say for argument a public IP 192.168.1.1, then a different user replaced the IP sig with his own, and finally my original account replaced that signatures with my own, you can see the obvious sockpuppet (i.e. same answer with with sigs going from User:192.168.1.1, User:CompletelyDifferent, User:Dheyward), this would rightly generate a checkuser request to see if these accounts are related. In addition, the CU could come back positive, the IP Oversighted to protect privacy. Now after all that, you should not expect to ever see the IP due to privacy (privacy is not given up due to Sockpuppet violations). The Checkuser, through many correlations over time, IP, articles, style, etc, confirm the sockpuppet. You still may not be entitled to even diffs if they compromise privacy. I have not heard it revealed whether this was work sharing, home sharing, cafe sharing, etc. It doesn't matter. In fact, despite the beyond a shadow of a doubt belief of the Checkuser, MF and George were given the benefit of the doubt that they are in fact separate users, under the caveat they disclose their IP relationship and avoid editing similar articles or supporting each other. The reasons are obvious. If it weren't the case, I could create accounts for me, my wife, and 17 children and claim they are all different and expressing their own views. By declaring "WP:SHARE" tags, ArbCom has said "Okay, benefit of the doubt, use WP:SHARE" and avoid each other." IF they truly are independent, this should be pretty easy especially as you can't find the correlation. But if the are socks I'd bet one account just disappears because whats the point of being a sock if everyone knows you share an IP? Different editors (like a husband and wife with different interests) wouldn't care, sock puppets would because it's additional work with no benefit. we'll see if both stick around. Haven't seen George though. --DHeyward (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  And I doubt you'll ever be seeing George around again after ArbCom hung this target on his back. Who in their right mind would want to attract all the cranks and trolls I've attracted over the years? Three weeks ago I agreed to retire in an effort to protect George from that; didn't work though, obviously. But you have studiously ignored the question that Drmies posed. Where was the egregious violation that would have justified a checkuser? It would also be really helpful if we could use the term "sockpuppet" in its real sense, not in its Wikipedia non-sense. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  You agreed to retire to protect George? The impression I got from the correspondence with George was that he was OK with using the shared IP tag. I may have misunderstood that, but either George will agree to allow what he said at the time to be quoted, or we won't hear from him. What puzzles me about this is how you seem to speak for George, even to the extent of taking over his account. Can he not speak for himself? Can you see why people think you are in fact speaking for him, because you are him? I know you will say you are not George, but if George is not here to speak for himself, we can't conclude anything either way except go round in circles. Most of my views on this matter can be seen here, here, here, here and here. You probably won't agree with what I say here and there, but could you at least consider these points? I'm also going to reply to a post by RexxS below, so you may want to look at what I say there. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  Yes. Ask your fellow arbitrators. I'm not George's keeper, whatever you may think. And I'm not privy to your correspondence with George, but really, who'd want to be painted as me and attract all the same loons I've done? Why is it so important to you to flag the occasional use of a common BT WiFi access point anyway? There may well be dozens of people sharing the IP address I'm using right now for all I know. God help any of them if they're also editing Wikipedia. But if one of those unfortunates is also an administrator that may help you to flush out the secret admin account that Demiurge1000 is so convinced I have. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know who DHeyward is either, but as a note, KW is incorrect - he's not an administrator. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question to Silk Tork from way above. You said "His response was to deny that the GP account was his, and gave an explanation that the GP account was run by someone else. He also wrote to us in the guise of the other person." How exactly do you know that the user wrote to you in the guise of another person? Do you have technical evidence that it was, in fact, Malleus that was writing to you? How would you know who wrote the email? Tex (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe they both replied in English? That would do it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• No no no, they both used proper grammar. In a community built around writing an encyclopedia, that's unheard of. The accounts must be the same person! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Necessity?

This is really a rather silly tempest in a teapot. I am quite frustrated that this dispute is taking up any bandwidth at all, let alone this much. Seriously, someone might have two accounts? If there IS a connection between the accounts, well, I guess I'm "shocked, shocked". I suspect that I may be one of the only longtime editors on WP that DOESN'T have an alternative account; kudos to the person above who suggested that anyone who wants to throw stones here should first identify all of their OWN alt accounts, previously disclosed or otherwise. Then, get a grip. WP:SOCK isn't an "off with their heads" axe, it's got a lot of wiggle room to consider the totality of the circumstances, and (if I may mix metaphors here) has in a lot of cases been applied as a sword, not a shield. George has been a very helpful editor and I have found him quite pleasant to work with. Malleus had baggage and was often too mean and snarky for his own good, but he was a very good content editor as well. If this is not the same person, then we are all wasting our time and need to just close this discussion and go elsewhere. If it is, there are multiple ways to keep a damn good editor AND handle a situation where there are two accounts that appear to be a "good cop/bad cop" team, the fastest is to keep the good cop and toss the bad cop, as was done here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mizmontana/Archive One that would be slightly less likely to provoke dramahz in this particular situation is to ask these account holders to close one or both accounts if it IS the same person, and if it is not, then to promise not to simultaneously edit from the same IP unless they disclose identities privately to those who need to know, and in either case, then proceed to do their thing without prior baggage. Let these people edit. Let go of grudges. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK has long since ceased to be anything BUT an "off with their heads" weapon. Your comments are sensible; trouble is, most of those in charge here are loons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.76.177 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Except here where there was no real punishment after the sockpuppet was discovered. Pretty balanced and reasoned decision by arbcom considering all they have said. --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The real problem

The real problem here is secretly checkusering on the flimsiest of evidence. The Arbcom (it claims) received an email making allegations; presumably it did not allege sexual malpractice, intimidation, outing or any RL crime. Yet it decided to secretly checkuser and hold a case in-camera. If the crimes of Malleus and George were so obvious a conventional checkuser request would have happened soon enough and all of this would have been avoided. The Arbcom has overstepped its remit and behaved alike a Fascist junta. We should be told who supported this course of action; they should then resign to restore confidence. That way a further witch hunt can will be avoided.  Giano  19:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

herein Resolute and Giano exchange barbs NE Ent 20:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the most entertaining part of this has been your descent into hyperbole. The casting of aspersions was a nice touch. Resolute 19:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Goodness Me! You and Coren are editing from the same country - I must drop the Arbcom an anonymous email; that's ground for a secret checkuser on you now - you must be a sock  Giano  20:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

All of this has to be put in the context of AGK possibly choking on his cup of tea at lunchtime in Scotland after being questioned by Giano. That is far more worrying than any possible misdeeds of Malleus and/or George committed in some unspecified part of the West Midlands. Please let's keep things in proportion. What kind of tea was it? Lapsang Souchong? Gunpowder Green? Two sugars or one? Milk in first or milk in last? These details are important and we have a right to know. Mathsci (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I certainly don't agree witht he approach of those who are basically screaming at you guys and making baseless accusations, I am left wondering what the community is expected to do with this information, if anything. Correct me if I've got this wrong but it seems you are saying that you all agree that at some point the two accounts were the same person but they may or may not be two people now, you can't decide which, and you aren't going to do anything real about it other than say so, and part of the reason for that is that Malleus is involved. Now, I get that Malleus is in fact a special case. The community has made it clear that it cannot come to a consensus when it comes to Malleus. Is that not what we have you guys for? Its clear there was significant internal dissent within the committee on this one, which is not surprising, but that the only thing you could agree on was requiring a talk page notice and issuing a wishy-washy statement about it is not a good sign. Again, this is what we have you guys for: to take the difficult problems the community can't handle and "break their back." This appears to have done the exact opposite, I can't imagine how anything but further problems can be expected to come of this frankly bizarre announcement. You guys have cleared a lot of difficult stuff from your plate in the last few weeks (who would have thought Fae being unblocked wouldn't be the big story of the week?) and I for one appreciate how hard you must have been working on all that, but maybe you should have held off on this one until you had something substantive to say as it seems clear that this is just another going to result in a lot of bad noise and essentially nothing else, except that we are apparently losing George, whoever he was/is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox's statement is worth reading through to the end. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think one of the major problems (That caused this statement to be issued) is the two accounts have been used in ways which contravene policy. According to the statements arbs have made above, the two accounts have editwarred together and supported each other in discussions. I think that if those violations are published, then the community would be a bit more understanding of this issue. But if true (and I have no reason to doubt my former colleagues), at least something had to be said, even if it's just a "Hey, there's reason to believe these two accounts may not be as independent as it may appear." SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• SirFozzie, I have not seen evidence of edit-warring and mutual support. A dozen of you probably have sharper eyes than lonesome me, but it seems to me that this charge goes to the heart of what is problematic about multiple accounts, and I just don't see any proof of such behavior. I suppose it's water under the bridge, maybe. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• There wasn't and there were no grounds for a secret checkuser. The reporter should have been redirected to make an on-site check user requesr in the normal fashion.  Giano  14:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are secret check-users going on? then only sockmasters should be concerned. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Trust us"

I for one don't. Somebody please post a few diff showing actionable sock puppetry by Malleus. This shouldn't be hard. There should be disruptive edits, and they should be reasonably fresh. The goal is to correct bad behavior, not beat people up. Can somebody explain why a quiet email to Malleus to the effect of "We're onto you, now cut the crap" wouldn't have served well enough? Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside your statement that you don't trust us, thank you for asking us questions in such a constructive and level-headed way. My colleagues and I signed up to be held accountable in our decisions to the community (and to explain them when asked to do so). We did not sign up to be hounded and abused, but recently others seem to be doing awfully much of that. Relevant, reasoned, and polite questions, such as the ones you have been asking, need—I think—to be recognised. It makes contributing here (yes, even as an arbitrator) a job that's actually bearable. As for the two points you raise:

If people would like to see the behavioural evidence we collated, I think that can be arranged. However, some of the following links may be useful if you wish to do your own research: [6], [7]. These edits in particular (by MF, GP, and MF respectively) were what pushed this from "account sharing and/or the use by a long-term contributor of an account 'on the side'" to "subverting consensus or outright lying to the community": [8] – [9] – [10].

One of the first things we did was e-mail both accounts. Malleus (and George, if you accept the notion that he is a separate person—I myself am of two minds) denied that there was anything illicit going on. We weren't left with much option other than to make the WP:SOCK breach known. Hope this helps to clarify things. AGK [•] 23:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't trust anybody; I want to see the facts before the conclusions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

AGK,

Your first "evidence" lists a few pages where both have edited. The shortest time-delay was 11 minutes, with both making short sardonic comments, in a rather open-ended discussion---hardly an attempt to domineer a debate on policy. Yes, Malleus copyedited an RfA 16 minutes after his neighbor. Give a specific diff if you have any integrity.

AGK, try to imagine that there exist two editors who have family or friends. Maybe one of your Arbcomers does also? Such friends or family may well share an IP (or even a computer).

I would like to be able to wish that this was the end of your "net negative" campaign against Malleus, and attempts to bend Arbcom and WP policies to drive away better editors.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That first so called incriminating diff is from 2010, when George's account was registered in 2011. What exactly are you trying to weave here? The other two you cited? That's worth WP:OUTING a retired user? The other possible overlap is on a FAC and doesn't involve voting. Where's the beef? Where's the blatant violation of policy? And why, since ArbCom has sat on this for two months (the only RfA George participated in was Lord Roem 2, voted on 24 January), was this non-statement something you felt was needed now? What was the majority trying to achieve? Demonstrate that in one of the most drama-laden times you could still find ways to add to it? Seriously, where's that sound judgement you all claimed to have when you ran for the job? MLauba ^(Talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, and here I thought Malleus was going to scramble his password, leave the project, and never be heard from again... silly me. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In the only announcement I read of his intention to leave, he referred to "Malleus" going - in the third person. I took that as meaning he'd still be editing but the Malleus account, and possibly it's associated signal behaviours, were going, and saw it as a new leaf situation, which he may have settled into. Now that the committee has linked George with Malleus, we have Malleus back. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably bitten a bit by Poe's law (the "heh" and the emoticon were an attempt to indicate sarcasm). Of course Malleus was never going to actually leave. Same as Giano (who we can see is quite active on this very talk page, having stomped off from the project about a dozen times so far). I have deep respect for the work of both, but I really do wish they'd be a little less diva-y at times. In fairness, I imagine they'd say the exact same thing of me, though likely for slightly different reasons. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You've never done a diva? I've done one ... or possibly two, I'm not sure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've wanted to diva maybe a dozen or so times, I guess, but I've always tried to restrain myself. Having seen so many people (from stewards to checkusers to admins to regular users to...) burn out and stomp off, only to come back, it seems kind of silly to think I'd be any different. In terms of general resignations/retirements, I've probably witnessed a gross or more in my time here, if I had to guesstimate. But of course, that figure probably includes general resignations/retirements, not necessarily diva'ings. It all kind of depends how you count (does Giano count as 1 user or 12 diva'ings) and what you count (plenty of people just get bored and then decide to come back a few years later). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Trust is curently impossible: I cannot believe that so many Arbs would have been so gullible, totally naive and acted like sheep going over a precipice. If the anonymous email made no allegations of RL illegal/intimidating activity, then performance a secret checkuser was a grave misuse of trust by the whole Arbcom. The sender should have been advised to request an onsite checkuser - that is the correct procedure. As it wae, it's claimed that as a group, the Arbcom performed a secret checkuser, then executed a secret kangaroo court and then agreed unanimity to protect themselves. I am concerned about this unanimity and don't want to believe it. That none of them foresaw the resultant furore shows a basic lack of understanding of what is expected from arbitrators.  Giano  08:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Giano, I'm one of 1000 people in the world (I imagine) who know the English Wikipedia really well (too well) and I've been following it for years. And even I can't figure out what the hell it is you're talking about here. Something about ArbCom and CheckUser and Malleus, but being barely able to figure much out, all I can see is that both George Ponderevo and Malleus can edit freely right now (neither is blocked). So what exactly are we fighting for here? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• AGK, I see the same thing Kiefer sees. Two off-the-cuff comments. Sure, they were made in a short time span, but it's not a election that's being rigged or an editor who's being censured on the basis of a vote. I'm sorry, but that's really very little. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • GP was editing April 2012 when Malleus was blocked (e.g. [11], [12]), and also December 2011. But I seem to be missing something here. There was no admonishment. There was no censure. Not that passed anyway. NW (Talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

 Note: The following post contains humour. You may wish to bear that in mind before replying. Added as a public service — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Given Giano's post of 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC), I hearby invoke Godwin's Law. This discussion is now closed. Please move along. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to close an ongoing discussion? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The goings on here have gotten awful enough without people shutting down discussions and taking other ill-considered actions that will only make things worse. Please, let's all just remain calm, maybe take a day (or a month) off from arb-related drama and hope they get their house in order. This does seem like a Bad Time ™ but cowboy actions from any quarter are not the way out. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hex,

Your note labels AQFK's closure and edit-warring (with Automatic Strikeout) as humor; I labelled the closure and edit-warring (particularly the edit summaries) as (unintential) "surrealism".

Beeblebrox and I frequently disagree, but he correctly stopped this disruption.

The community should consider this question: How many many more episodes do we need before AQFK or Automatic Strikeout are finally banned from discussing or alluding to Malleus?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

It's difficult to know where to start. It's been just over 25 hours since I was last in a position to comment on-wiki on any of the matters being discussed here, and since then a large amount has been said and done. I have views on what happened here, and what has been said since, but responding to even a small portion of what has been said here (and on some user talk pages) would take more time than I have available right now. And things may not be much better in another 20 hours or so. That's part of the problem. Things move so quickly that it is difficult, impossible sometimes, to communicate effectively (with hindsight, with the committee being so divided on the issue, we should have either done nothing, or had individual statements to issue with the statement we were able to agree on). For now, I agree in large part with Worm That Turned's comments at 11:13, 14 March 2013, but there is more that hasn't been said yet. I'll note that Malleus now claims to be controlling the George Ponderevo account, so make of that what you will. I need to think about this a bit more, as there are aspects of this that haven't been mentioned yet and still don't quite add up, based both on what occurred when I e-mailed both accounts with the courtesy notifications around 2 days ago, and the initial e-mail correspondence with George (or whoever was controlling the account at that time). The simplest explanation seems to be that one person was controlling the accounts and has been (and still is) playing games with us. If anyone has questions for me specifically, please feel free to ask, but do allow at least a full working day for me to answer during the week. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Malleus now claims to be controlling the George Ponderevo account sounded to me like Malleus had admitted socking, but as the diff shows, Malleus has stated that George has abandoned the account and passed it to MF. I see now what Carcharoth meant but thought it worth noting the ambiguity so others wouldn't be thinking an admission of socking had occurred. EdChem (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Its old news that Malleus was using the William Leadford account...I suppose when arbcom sent their emails to the Malleus and George, only then did Malleus tag the Leadford account as an alternate account of his. The only thing that matters is whether the Malleus and George accounts had influence on some outcome by working in tandem...such as a FAC promoted to FA...or the election or nonelection of someone, or to win a content dispute. I'd have to concur with Carcharoth that "one person is controlling the accounts", but this isn't a problem unless there is clear evidence that Malleus was using George as a meatpuppet.--MONGO 03:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is all exceedingly strange: I agree with you. Or, stranger, you agree with me. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the William Leadford account (which as you say is old news) there was also the Nunez99 account (see this edit). As for the George Ponderevo account, it would be possible to lay out a fair amount of evidence, including some inappropriate overlaps if they are the same person. But I'm reluctant to do that until it is clear that there is any desire for that to be done, and until it is clear which account Malleus is editing from and which accounts he has access to (I think he still technically has [indirect] access to both accounts, even if he doesn't actually realise it himself), and whether the claim that someone else was controlling the George Ponderevo account should be taken at face value or ignored. It also wouldn't be right to do that while there is this amount of heated argument going on. This matter was discussed at length by ArbCom and we didn't get very far, though we did manage to carry on with other matters (two cases were dealt with and closed and several appeals heard). What I would propose if there was a remote chance that anyone would actually listen to and agree to it is the following (the WP:SHARE bit seems redundant now):

• (i) ArbCom step away from this and carry on with dealing with the open cases it has on its docket (as that is its core business);
• (ii) Previously uninvolved editors, including those that Malleus will listen to, approach him and get him to decide which account he will use and whether the contributions licensing issues are surmountable if the account was previously controlled by someone else (technically, there is also a need to prove that the person controlling the George Ponderevo account is indeed Malleus);
• (iii) The other account be blocked indefinitely and redirected to the existing one, OR it is marked as an alternate account (the same way the William Leadford one was by Malleus);
• (iv) Everyone goes back to doing productive things instead of arguing.

There are some extremely perceptive comments made above (I won't say what I think of the other ones). If I think it will help, I may link to some diffs later to highlight the comments that accord with my own views and that I think really get at what has been going on here. For now, read the last few sentences of Moe Epsilon's 05:53, 14 March 2013 comment. Also the 13:39, 14 March 2013 and 20:45, 14 March 2013 comments by DHeyward. It was entirely possible, given the feeling from some parts of the committee, that Malleus would have had the book thrown at him over this. Yes, it could have been handled better, but the end result is relatively lenient. If anyone would like to take the initiative and follow the steps suggested above, please feel free to do so. I'm open to further questions on this, but at some point we need to get to stage (iv) above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I have asked several times [13][14][15][16] for the evidence of disruption that justified use of the checkuser tool. Could you put an end to the stonewalling? Please post the diffs or generally summarize the reason for using Checkuser. We have a policy on this wiki against fishing expeditions, CheckUser is not for fishing and if that policy has been broken, a bunch of people need to admit error. Misleading Wikipedia editors, even the Arbitration Committee, to protect one's own privacy, is neither sin nor crime. Malleus fibbing isn't grounds to checkuser him or to publicize his info as J delanoy has done. Would it be correct to say that Malleus wanted a clean start, to get away from his past conflicts, and he messed up? Error or incompetence should be dealt with differently than malice. You guys outing Malleus doesn't look ethical, given the explanations thus far. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, there has been so much comment on this, it is easy to miss things. Thank you for the note on my talk page (though please note that I will not be around after the next few edits, I generally only get 2-3 hours in every 24-hour period to respond, and if that doesn't align with when others are available, conversations can drag out somewhat over several days). This was mishandled, as I said above. Are you going to get all 13 arbitrators to troop out and sign up to that and go into detail as to what happened. Probably not, though there is a partial timeline of the handling of this that I did when I realised that it was all getting very messy. To try and answer your question, I mentioned to Giano on my talk page that there were periods when one of the accounts was blocked and the other one was editing. There were also overlaps and behavioural signs. But as I said, I don't want to rake over the coals of this (i.e. reignite the embers) until it is clear precisely where Malleus goes from here and which accounts he has access to - at the moment, this is as clear as mud. And linking two accounts is not outing, both are pseudonymous accounts (if you object to what J delanoy published, take it up with him first and then come back to me if you still have concerns). Oh, one more thing "Would it be correct to say that Malleus wanted a clean start, to get away from his past conflicts, and he messed up?" Probably. But why would he then use his clean start account while the other account was blocked? I am now going to respond to a comment made by MLauba, and then that will be all I have time for today. I would also appreciate it if you could try and respond to what I actually said (the four steps I suggested) instead of just hijacking this subthread to ask your questions. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the use of CU in this particular instance, you are reading the policy too narrowly if you think CU may only be performed because of disruption. Investigating sock puppetry is a legitimate use of the tool and the bar for action is probably set somewhere between prima facie evidence and probable cause. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the right to individual privacy pretty much trumps everything else, though it is blatantly obvious - just from looking at some of the other discussions on this page - that this not a universally held view.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for a straight answer. How long ago did the block evasion occur? During the block evasion was Malleus peacefully editing articles, or was he performing vandalism or carrying on harassment of other users? Judging by what's been left unsaid, it sounds like he neither damaged articles nor editors. Given what I have been told after asking five times, there was a pretense for accessing Checkuser, but apparently no real justification.

Malleus tried to get a clean start, messed up a bit, and the Committee outed his new account, preventing him from getting beyond his past conflicts, preventing him from making useful contributions. This was a stupid act of following the rules for rules' sake.

I like your four thoughts. Add (v) Malleus may start a new account (and permanently abandon old accounts) to get away from his past conflicts. (vi) Committee vows to never again be party to fishing expeditions, in general. Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I accept (and always have accepted) the clean start hypothesis. I also accept that some people find a clean break with their past accounts more difficult than others. But you have to draw the line somewhere and while we could turn a blind eye to an overlap period of say a week or so, perhaps even a month or so, I doubt that the community would regard transitioning over nearly two years as acceptable. If the community really does think this is acceptable, then both the WP:SOCK policy and the WP:Cleanstart guideline need completely re-writing.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that misuse of clean start is a problem, because that degenerates into good hand, bad hand. In this situation if a single, clever administrator or Checkuser had been involved, they probably would have emailed Malleus and said "Somebody suspects you are using two accounts improperly. You need to stop doing this henceforth, or else a sock puppetry case may be opened and you may be sanctioned." Maybe this already happened. If so, why did the Committee get involved instead of pointing the reporting party to WP:SPI? How can you guys review a matter (your job) after you involve yourselves in it? That's just not smart. Haven't you seen enough cases already where ArbCom action in the first instance created a huge mess? The public presentation of evidence, workshop discussion, and voting is what gives your actions legitimacy. The public posting of evidence substantiating a sock puppetry accusation is what gives Checkuser actions legitimacy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First I agree with something Roger eluded too, that Clean start does need a rewrite. There are several problems with cleanstart, not the least of which is that its nearly impossible to do so without being dishonest to some degree. We shouldn't have a policy that inherently requires a user to purjur themselves in order to edit. Especially when we frequently run check user on them and then block them for socking. Its also very hard to expect someone to change their interests and expect them to be a different person. People tend to edit what interests them or what they have some experience in. So if they edited Military history and do a clean start they are unlikely to change that and start editing about cats (cool or otherwise). So its unrealistic to require folks to change themselves, their beliefs or the things they care about just so they can edit and continue to be involved in the drama of Wikipedia. If we truly want people to use the clean start policy and we are serious about it as a policy, then we need to allow it to be used, otherwise we should abolish it and just tell folks they can't come back (I don't recommend this BTW). The other problem is that many in the community do not have the faith of the Arbcom for a variety of reasons so telling folks that they can notify Arbcom of the new/old identity isn't realistic and most checkusers wouldn't ask Arbcom if they knew about it proper to accusing the user of being a sock anyway. 138.162.0.45 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A (sort of) outside technical view

Not sure if making a new section is the best way to present this, but hopefully it will make this post make more sense, since it will be a bit long.

A few weeks ago, an arbitrator (who is also a CheckUser) asked me, as I am a CheckUser who is not (and has not been) a member of the Arbitration Committee, to provide an outside, independent technical assessment of the possibility of a connection between the accounts User:George Ponderevo and User:Malleus Fatuorum. For what it is worth, prior to this communication, I had not investigated the case at all, and indeed was not aware that there even was any investigation surrounding either of those accounts. I understood and interpreted my involvement as simply a measure to guard against groupthink in the Committee (insert random jab here: Groupthink? In my ArbCom?! Who would ever make such an accusation??)

Here is a somewhat modified version of my findings (some details are not included for obvious reasons, and some phrasing is changed to make it more readable):

Preliminaries:

[During the 90 day period ending at the time that I ran the query], User:George Ponderevo and User:Malleus Fatuorum both accessed Wikipedia exclusively through IP addresses registered to [the same ISP, a large provider from which many users access Wikipedia].

Compared to all internet providers I have seen during my three years of experience using the CheckUser tool, [their ISP] allows its residential subscribers access to relatively large and diverse blocks of IP addresses. In addition, a given subscriber’s IP address will change very frequently, typically on the order of every few days. Consequently, a user consistently editing Wikipedia over even a relatively short period of time will use a number of different IP addresses. Because of the frequent IP address changes associated with accounts editing from [this ISP], it is extremely unlikely that two accounts contributing to Wikipedia from devices located in different physical locations will access Wikipedia from the same IP during the same period of time.

Evidence:

[A large amount of detailed technical evidence is redacted here, principally a spreadsheet showing in tabular form the exact times that each account used each IP address, and also including information about user agents (which incidentally did little to influence my conclusions in either direction). Essentially, the spreadsheet notes that out of a relatively large number of distinct IP addresses, except for a very few, each IP used was used by accounts]

In every case where both accounts accessed Wikipedia using the same IP address, they did so within the same time frames. In every case when one account changed its IP address to another that was used by both accounts, the other account changed during the same time period. In other words, there were no occasions where one account switched an IP, and after that account switched, the other account made an edit using the previous IP. In addition, in each case where edits were made with an IP by only one of these accounts, there are no edits made at all by the other account during the time period where that IP is in use. [Some emphasis in this paragraph is added]

Conclusions:

During my period of service as a CheckUser, I have run queries on many IP addresses and accounts [that access Wikipedia] using IP addresses registered to [Malleus' and George's ISP]. As I stated before, this service provider provides extremely dynamic IP allocation schemes.

[Given] the volatile IP allocation scheme utilized by [their ISP], for two accounts controlled by physically separate users ([both of whom subscribe to this ISP]) to exhibit such perfect correlation between editing times and IP addresses used is extremely improbable. In my opinion, it would be practically impossible for such a correlation to arise by random chance over such a long period.

Based on the [technical evidence] I received via my CheckUser queries, I cannot make any conclusion except that the accounts User:George Ponderevo and User:Malleus Fatuorum are being controlled by the same person.

At this point, I sent my findings to the Arbitration Committee. One of the arbitrators replied and told me that Malleus Fatuorum's "defense" (for lack of a more suitable term) to (what I assume was) their questions, was that he and George Ponderevo are co-workers, and therefore naturally share the same IP from time to time. The arbitrator also noted that it was worth mentioning that businesses do sometimes use residential accounts, so "residential" doesn't always actually mean it's a residence, and asked me to look at the CheckUser evidence once more with these notes in mind, and comment again on the issue. I did so, and here are the second-look findings which I sent to the Arbitration Committee

The fact that the IP addresses are listed [on their RIR] as being residential is irrelevant for my results. Malleus' claim that he and his coworker would "naturally share the same IP from time to time" is misleading. This is not a case of only a few coincidental IP matches; this is nearly a perfect one-to-one correspondence for every single IP address used by both accounts during the entire time in which I can view the relevant server logs. This is despite the fact that as I stated before, [their ISP] utilizes an extremely dynamic IP allocation scheme. The odds of such a nearly perfect lineup of IP addresses arising by random chance on that ISP is almost unimaginable.

In order for Malleus' claim to be true, both he and his coworker would have to only edit from work, and from no where else, since [as noted], with only a few exceptions, every single IP address that either account used was used by both accounts.

However, both accounts have, [within three-month period ending at the time I ran the queries], made edits at all hours of the day, and on Christmas Day, and from the same IP address on Christmas Day:

[exact IP/edit info redacted]

Based on this, I think it is obvious that these accounts are not editing solely from work. This is especially true when one notes that both accounts edit frequently on every day of the week:

[evidence redacted, but may be obtained from the external tool http://en.wikichecker.com/user/]

In my opinion, the only possible way that George Ponderevo could not be an alternate account of Malleus Fatuorum would be [if they] are rooming together. If this were the case, it would seem to me that Malleus would have mentioned it when you first contacted him about this issue. Assuming that Malleus Fatuorum did not claim that George Ponderevo is his room mate, in the absence of [an explanation] for the fact that he and his coworker are apparently at work all day, every day, even Christmas, the only possible conclusion I can make is that Malleus is not telling the truth, and that both accounts are being controlled by the same person, i.e. Malleus.

These letters represent both the start and end of my involvement in this matter. I am posting this in the hope that it will set right the (mostly) understandable but inaccurate accusations that the Arbitration Committee is (in essence) maliciously attacking Malleus Fatuorum and/or George Ponderevo. Far from this, there is extremely compelling evidence to suggest that the two accounts are being controlled by the same person. Of course, my post here will only work if people think that I am not part of The Cabal™. I clearly cannot say how others feel about my involvement with the Wikipedia Powers That Be. Regardless, I will state with absolute conviction that I undertook the investigation, assessed the evidence, and drew my conclusions from what I sincerely believe is a disinterested and impartial point of view.

I would also like to say (and this is purely my unqualified personal opinion), that were this any other user, both accounts would have been labeled socks almost instantly and likely both blocked. I say this without giving any opinion on the suitability of such an action, or even if such an action would be remotely necessary given the circumstances. In any case, far from maliciously attacking Malleus, or similar nonsense about Malleus "not being high enough up the Wikipedia tree to enjoy 'special protection'", I believe that the Arbitration Committee has done much less in this case than would have been done if this were any other user. I must admit that I was extremely surprised (when I saw it on my watchlist) that their announcement was not more pointed. As I stated, once the technical evidence is reviewed, I believe that it is almost impossible to imagine any realistic way that the accounts are not being controlled by the same person.

Sorry for the length of this post. Given that this was far from an ordinary case, I felt it would be extremely improper to give anything short of the most thorough and detailed results. If there is anything unclear in what I wrote, I will do my best to clarify any questions people may have, although it is quite late now where I live, so please do not interpret silence as me refusing to answer questions. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi J.delanoy. I'm just going to post here that during other aspects of the investigation, some information came out about a major ISP that had the potential to completely skew the results. I'm encouraging my peers who gathered that information to let you and the rest of the checkuser team know about it, because it could have longterm impacts on CU activities; I hope it will be out to you within the week. Risker (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, maybe. Some of us bought it; some of us didn't. But you are right that this is something best discussed in private. NW (Talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the nature of the exceptions would be the most important point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said below in reply to EdChem: The CU evidence presents a picture that shows two accounts always being used in the same physical locations as the other at all times. The exceptions where only one account edited from one of the IP do nothing whatsoever to dissuade this view, since as I said, in each case when an IP was only used by one account, the other account made zero edits during the time said IP was in use. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Completely overwhelmed by the correlation. The correlation beyond any reasonable persons doubt is by far the most important point. The "no planes theory" has more plausibility than independent editors. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) Thanks for the detail, but there are a couple of things I find unclear:

1. Were you given any evidence to justify running a checkuser, or did you accept the Arb's word that use of CU was justified?
2. What sort of evidence would be required typically to justify running a check? Have you seen evidence (in this thread or elsewhere) that would justify a check being run without a request from an Arb?
3. Does the CU evidence rule out MF running a small business at home with GP working there as a colleague, consistent with a description of "co-workers"?

EdChem (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous...a conspiracy theory no less. Is part of this collegues job description to go and edit pages Malleus just did, or to comment at them...preposterous. I think sometimes editors think that only the checkusers can tell if they have the same editor...rest assured it isn't.--MONGO 04:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, let's see: by your implication, somebody made some completely random fishing request and hit the jackpot! They should play the lottery. But no, ythereality is that someone made an observation and said Check A against B and it was spot on. As the CU above said, it's tevchnically not feasible to randomly check for socks with such a dynamic IP provider. The non-correlating data would swamp out anything except a very specific request. They pulled the signal out of the noise because the request already identified the signal. Most likely from previous revelations is that the correlation was made offsite screwup and matched to a Wikipedia effort. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I accepted the CheckUser's word that the CU was justified, which is a somewhat subtle distinction. As I said, I undertook the investigation with the understanding that it was a sanity check. This is commonly done between checkusers when one is unsure of themselves, and also when a case deals with a long-term and/or high profile editor. From my experience, when such requests are made, CheckUsers will generally trust the judgement of the requesting checkuser that the case warranted a look.
2. Each case is different on whether I will run a check, and it is hard to put into words what criteria I use to decide if a look is warranted. Generally, if two users have similar writing styles, similar content interests, I will take a look. One of the things I really look for is small idiosyncracies in writing and editing style. As an example, I have been informed that I use an unusually large number of adverbs; if I were to decide whether to look at my own account, that is one of the things that I would look for. Even for a determined and driven person, it is very, very difficult to suppress that sort of thing, so it is usually a dead giveaway. In the exact case at hand, I believe that if a non-checkuser had asked me to take a look, or if I had understood the check as anything other than a sanity check, I still would have taken a look.
3. No, it does not. The CU evidence presents a picture that shows two accounts always being used in the same physical locations as the other at all times. The exceptions where only one account edited from one of the IP do nothing whatsoever to dissuade this view, since as I said, in each case when an IP was only used by one account, the other account made zero edits during the time said IP was in use. This is entirely consistent with GP and MF running a small business at their home, and at the same time, they room together. (Once again, this is my own interpretation of the evidence - which I believe is correct, but it is clearly not the only possible one). I concluded that this was not the case was because if this was true, it is an easy and logical way to explain the checkuser relationship entirely, and I personally felt that it would have been the first thing mentioned when someone inquired about their accounts. I do not deny, however, that not mentioning such a personal thing would, in my opinion, be entirely consistent with the personality that Malleus Fatuorum has, but a CheckUser is useless to determine that sort of thing.

I hope that this helps you understand my thought processes a little better, and I am sorry for being so vague with my answer to the second question. I know it's cliché, but each case really is unique, and it's really hard to give a blanket definition or description for what I believe represents sufficient cause to run a check. I have struggled many times without much success over the past couple of years, especially when trying to help new CheckUsers to get their footing, to convey this same concept. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your response. Your answer to (1) was what I was expecting, it makes complete sense that CUs would accept that a check was justified when asked for a cross-check, and (3) seems to me to be consistent with the statements we know about and the technical data. On (2), I understand what you mean about small clues that are hard to quantify - there are plenty of clues I pick up that tell me who carried out some task (putting out the washing, stacking the dishes, etc) at home, and I can usually tell when several people have written different parts of a document. As it happens, just a few minutes ago I was looking at an article I rewrote a couple of years ago and could see which parts others had redrafted, so I knew I could go back to "my" draft to find out how the meaning of the source had been slightly distorted. So, I do understand what you mean and why it is hard to describe the clues that just indicate a problem. What I am surprised by, and what disturbs me in this case, is that I have yet to see anything that even suggests justification for a CU being run. The positive CU evidence allows looking for editing where one editor was blocked, but I don't see the evidence that would lead a CU on an on-wiki case to say "yes, there is enough evidence to run a check". I realise this is not for you to address, it's for ArbCom and there are plenty of editors asking (me, Jehochman, MLauda, Giano, ...), but to me it is the critical point that is missing here. If ArbCom can post evidence that convinces reasonable critics that running CU was justified that aren't "well, it found evidence so it must have been justified", and then add some sort of abuse (double !voting, trying to influence consensus, etc) then a lot of the controversy will go away. Unfortunately, if no evidence is forthcoming then community fears that ArbCom CUs may choose to run checks whenever they wish will rise. I hope someone from ArbCom will clearly respond to this topic. EdChem (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs & CU: There's several very simple explanations. Two computers set up by the same person sitting on the same router in the same household. Or one single computer used by two people in the same house. Claims "co-worker" because the nature of the relationship between both is none of your goddamn business. Could be father / son, spouse, landlord and tenant, two retirees in the same retirement home.

What is missing is any diffs of misbehaviour that justify this fishing expedition in the first place. Those posted by AGK above are simply laughably absurd and would only be evidence of nefarious activity to a paranoid body intent on seizing any pretext at all to get back at a controversial contributor.

Further, anyone reading George's interaction on talk:MOS/Infoboxes that thinks this was Malleus needs to get a grip. There's no way he would have held that discussion for so long without dropping a couple of choice epithets for which he is famous. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be the case. But there are other discussions as well. Would you say the same about the one that was hatted here at WT:GAN? There are also a couple of edits around that period where George Ponderevo took over and signed for edits made by Malleus Fatuorum, saying that the latter had not logged out (I don't have diffs handy, but they should not be hard to find). That alone usually justifies a need to use WP:SHARE tags, and the thing that I find most strange about all this is that during the correspondence with George Ponderevo, I got the impression that he was OK with using such tags to indicate that the accounts edited from the same IP address. If that person is still around, maybe he will give permission to quote what he said? At times it looks crystal-clear, then things get murky again, which is why I think account sharing (two or more people editing from the same account) has occurred (whether intentional or not) and made it very hard to untangle Malleus's contributions as George Ponderevo from those of another person. This is in large part why we were unable to agree on what was going on, hence the anodyne end result that was published. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth, that WT:GAN link still doesn't show any good hand / bad hand violation that would justify a CU as only the George account edited from there. What could that have possibly shown? That's still one account.

Reading this discussion I can understand the inference that George started that thread and Malleus at some point posted under George's account, if they're separate people, OR that his temper gave him away later on. But here's the thing. On that date, Malleus was neither blocked nor restricted from anything but threaded comments at WP:RFA. So whether it's an account operated by two people or an undisclosed sock / botched cleanstart, that's still not something that should have triggered 2 months of hand-wringing followed by this drama generating announcement in one of the more drama-laden times Arbcom is in.

Has it ever occurred to you that keeping this matter private with simply a note to the George account that for the avoidance of any doubt, he should simply heed Malleus' RFA restriction (not too onerous) and avoid policy-based discussion in support of Malleus would have been the best way forward, not only to avoid yet another round of Arb-drama, but also to retain a source of good content contributions? Is the majority of ArbCom so beholden to "we do not rule on content" that they forget that their sole role is to foster the production of it? MLauba ^(Talk) 22:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth, did you mistakenly give the wrong diff? I agree with Mlauba that that diff doesn't seem problematic. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The diff I gave shows another editor hatting the discussion. It is the discussion that you need to read (MLauba seems to have understood what I meant here). I'll reply here to MLauba as well: I should have been clearer, I wasn't pointing to that WT:GAN discussion as a justification for any check that was run, I was responding only to part of what you said, the bit where you said: "Further, anyone reading George's interaction on talk:MOS/Infoboxes that thinks this was Malleus needs to get a grip. There's no way he would have held that discussion for so long without dropping a couple of choice epithets for which he is famous." I was pointing to the WT:GAN discussion as a counterexample, and a discussion style that struck me as being very, to coin a phrase I saw somewhere recently, Malleusian. Anyway, I see from edits elsewhere that Malleus has now retired George Ponderevo ([17], [18], [19]) and has unretired the Malleus Fatuorum account (this is not a surprise if you look at what I said here), so whatever the backstory to this, there are clearly two accounts controlled by Malleus at this moment in time. If he is reading this, he could put an end to all this right now by marking George Ponderevo as an alternate account of Malleus Fatuorum (the same way he did for William Leadford), and then carry on using both accounts within policy. It would then be up to his fellow editors to point out to him if he starts to use the accounts inappropriately. Then we could all get back to doing other things. As for having negotiated better with Malleus at the start of all this? Has anyone ever been able to talk Malleus down from anything? There is more that could be said, but this looks likely to be one of those never-ending discussions where you try and explain something and the explanations just lead to more questions. If someone wants to go through everything slowly and reasonably (over days, not just a rushed discussion over a few hours), you know where my talk page is. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So...is it up to the community to sort through the contributions, assemble specific diffs and then submit then to the committee in an open case?--MONGO 13:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The pseudoscience of Inspector Clouseau

I'll perform a brief autopsy next. Please give me 2 hours. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious from this section header that you do not trust me as a CheckUser, and that you do not agree with my results. It is equally obvious from your comments on this page that you did not enter this discussion without a preconceived point of view. I did. I had zero prejudices at all when I was asked to look at the case, and that still remains. If the checkuser results had indicated that the two accounts were not related, I would have said so. Furthermore, I would have given just as much time and effort to support of my position regardless of what it was. I have no bone to pick with anyone here. There was and is nothing whatsoever for me to gain by agreeing with The Powers That Be, by "opposing" Malleus. If I had "gone against" The Powers That Be, I would have lost nothing - I would not have been banned, I would not have been desysoped, de-checkusered, or de-steward(ed?). I would not have lost any "karma" with The Powers, or with the "Legions of Sheep" that agree with The Powers, or with the "enlightened" who disagree, if these last two even heard about the case at all.

But by stating that I believed that the accounts were related, I opened myself up to attack by the many people who believe that any position "against" Malleus stems from a personal vendetta against him, and should be treated as such. I have already received a couple of quite nasty emails relating to this, and I knew that this would happen when I made my comment last night. What is more, I know that no matter what I say, no matter what I do going forward from here, there are people that I respect greatly who will not ever, EVER trust me again. This is not a trivial, flippant matter to me. I contribute to this project because I enjoy doing so. I enjoy being able to help people, and I find satisfaction in dealing with the mundane nonsense of vandals and spammers in order to help keep the project from disintegrating, and to free up time for those who are far better at writing that I am to grow the project. Because I have done what I did here, and publicly "opposed" Malleus in the eyes of many (despite all of my claims of neutrality and disinterest, I know that I will not be believed), I have irrevocably lost a large amount of positive karma, and I really do care about that, since it will harm my ability to help people in the future.

I had nothing at all to gain by presenting my findings, and I stood to lose a lot. Take that for what you will, and take the evidence I presented as what it is - the opinion of someone who is experienced with using the CheckUser tool, but by someone who has no illusions that he is part of the FBI, or MI5, or $awesome_spy_agency, regardless of what you may think or say. I laid out all of my reasoning and the basis for that reasoning to the Arbitration Committee, and I did not remove any of that in my post here, except for what I was bound to remove by the privacy policy. I am hiding nothing, because I have nothing to hide. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

J, did you independently assess whether a Checkuser was warranted by evidence, or did you take the Arbitration Committee's word? I don't have a problem with the accuracy of your findings. The issue is whether the check should have been run at all or if the results should have been reported above. As you were appointed by the Arbitration Committee, it is understandable that you'd "follow orders" to run a check if asked, and that you have a reasonable reliance that they weren't violating policy by ordering the check. It's an unfortunate/uncomfortable position for you to be in now if it is the case that they gave you a bum steer, and you have my sympathy. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I've already asked that question, and the answer is in the section above - have a look there for the answer in J.delanoy's own words. EdChem (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw after posting. The situation is clear. I have no further questions. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a minor quibble, but I was not appointed as a CheckUser by the Arbitration Committee - I was elected by the community during a time period when ArbCom was experimenting with a different way of selecting functionaries (I believe that fell away when it degenerated into a mess of political posturing and taking out personal vendettas on people for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with being a CheckUser or an Oversighter, but I do not remember for sure). J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jdelanoy, thank you for your answers. I appreciate you taking the time to explain at length. If there's anything that might be both salvation and result, it's transparency, and you've given us some in regards to the investigation. What we are all looking for here, I hope, is a way to improve governance and the relationship between editors and functionaries. Besides that, I want MF quietly back in his FA corner, dropping choice epithets every now and then and improving articles--some of us still care about that. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing is TL;DR, but from a cursory glance at old contributions [20][21], there are several days where both accounts had edits at the same time. Sure, there are some holes where one stops and the other starts up at the same time that would be suspicious if there were nothing else, but there are two many sets like [22] and [23] ... [24] and [25] ... [26] and [27] ... etc where both users have edits at the same minute. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I'm more than willing to accept the checkuser at his word that there's too much overlap of the IP addresses to be a coincidence, but it could just be that they live in the same apartment complex and mooch off of the same free wifi or some such thing. I would be utterly stunned if they are the same person. --B (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that happens on Wikipedia stuns me in the least. And to have Malleus back, whether as Malleus or any other avatar, can only be a Good Thing. `Writegeist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Autopsy of discussion of coincidences

0. Request should have been rejected, per guidelines on check user tooluse. (This point has been made by others.)

1. You state that you have "three years of experience" with check-user.
   1. Did you try to identify the algorithm used by the ISP?
   2. How many times have you dealt with an ISP using this algorithm? Or with similar patterns of reassignments?
2. You state that the ISP had a lot of WP editors, and then you claimed that MF and GP were unusually close. What is the basis for this claim?
   1. Did you comply with the first rule of Baconian science, and so state the statistic you would use to evaluate the SP charge before looking at the data?
   2. You state that you "stared at your spreadsheet" and found that GP and MF were close, according some measure. Let's consider a half-assed method of analyzing the claim, before we begin to think like non-stupid high-school students.
      1. How many other WP editors have used this ISP since one of GP or MF first began editing? (Since you report having taken hours with just those two, I suspect that you considered no other pairs.)
         1. Did you try to examine the whole population of editors from this ISP? Did you construct a sampling frame of these editors?
         2. Did you bother to examine other pairs of editors from this ISP? Did you construct a sampling frame for such pairs?
         3. How many other pairs of editors did you examine with your metric? Were they randomly chosen? How many were as extreme as the MF-GP pair of those considered?
      2. The problem with this half-assed procedure is that it assumes that MF and GP are exchangeable with the other editors from that ISP. In fact, their editing histories (which includes expert discussion of IT and WP policy issues) suggests that they are among the most informed IT professionals writing on WP, and that there's no reason to consider most of the other WP editors using their ISP as providing a benchmark for their editing practices. A relevant comparison would be to other pairs of WP IT-expert editors whose ISPs use similar assignment algorithms; you would also want these pairs to have avoided disclosing publicly any connection. A valid comparison is probably infeasible.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kiefer, sorry, but that's not really for this forum. The question came up why CU was considered and what the results were (valid questions, IMO). Given Malleus's comments, I'm not even sure whether it really matters anymore, though if Malleus feels that his privacy has been unduly invaded he is free to speak out on that. But what you're asking about is really whether this was an abuse of CU, or of the process. You can take that up at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee--and there's even an ombudsman listed at the bottom. I'm not saying that your questions aren't valid, but I think there's a better forum for it, and a result from a complaint you can always bring back here, I suppose. I just don't think that a detailed investigation into motives and technical aspects is helpful in this particular discussion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(@Kiefer) Your questions indicate that you clearly do not understand even the most basic parts about how the CheckUser tool works, how IP allocation works, the means by which the CheckUser tool is useful for determining whether two or more accounts are related to each other, or even how to at a basic level actually read what I wrote about what I did. I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability, but some of them are so completely off the wall in relation to the actual reality of how the CheckUser tool works and how the data it returns is used that they do not even remotely begin to make any sense at all.

• You state that you have "three years of experience" with check-user.
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&page=User%3AJ.delanoy%40enwiki.
• Did you try to identify the algorithm used by the ISP?
  • This question is irrelevant. For this case, I was looking for two accounts using the same IP address at the same time. It did not matter exactly which ones were used, only that the same ones were used by both accounts at the same time. Go read Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol.
• How many times have you dealt with an ISP using this algorithm? Or with similar patterns of reassignments?
  • This question is irrelevant. For this case, I was looking for two accounts using the same IP address at the same time. It did not matter exactly which ones were used, only that the same ones were used by both accounts at the same time. Go read Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol.
• You state that the ISP had a lot of WP editors, and then you claimed that MF and GP were unusually close. What is the basis for this claim?
  • The IP addresses that MF and GP were not used by any editors other than MF and GP. The basis for the claim is detailed in the "evidence" portion of my original email, posted above. Since you clearly did not read that, I see no benefit in repeating it here.
• Did you comply with the first rule of Baconian science, and so state the statistic you would use to evaluate the SP charge before looking at the data?
  • I have no idea what you are talking about. CheckUser is decidedly not a statistical analysis. You clearly do not understand how the CheckUser tool works. Go read Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_operation and mw:Extension:CheckUser#Usage. Actually, no, those won't help you. Go start your own wiki, give yourself CheckUser, get 10 million edits made every day consistently for several years from all over the world from every conceivable operating system and browser, make about 15000 CheckUser queries over three and a half years, and then talk to me. I do not want to be condescending, but what you are doing is similar to asking someone to teach a 10th grader quantum field theory.
• You state that you "stared at your spreadsheet" and found that GP and MF were close, according some measure. Let's consider a half-assed method of analyzing the claim, before we begin to think like non-stupid high-school students.
  • I never once stated that I "stared at my spreadsheet", and I already explained exactly what my reasoning was. Other people seemed to understand it without problems.
• How many other WP editors have used this ISP since one of GP or MF first began editing? (Since you report having taken hours with just those two, I suspect that you considered no other pairs.)
  • There were no other editors on the IPs that MF and GP used during the time that I could look at the records (which is a three-month period ending at the time I made the query). There was no reason to consider other pairs. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. You obviously don't understand how the CheckUser tool works.
• Did you try to examine the whole population of editors from this ISP? Did you construct a sampling frame of these editors?
  • CheckUser is not a statistical analysis.
• Did you bother to examine other pairs of editors from this ISP? Did you construct a sampling frame for such pairs?
  • CheckUser is not a statistical analysis.
• How many other pairs of editors did you examine with your metric? Were they randomly chosen? How many were as extreme as the MF-GP pair of those considered?
  • There were no other editors on the IPs that MF and GP used during the time that I could look at the records (which is a three-month period ending at the time I made the query). There was no reason to consider other pairs. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. You obviously don't understand how the CheckUser tool works.
• The problem with this half-assed procedure is that it assumes that MF and GP are exchangeable with the other editors from that ISP.
  • No, the problem is that you are inventing your idea of the manner by which the tool is used purely out of your own imagination. Your conception of how the tool is used is incorrect.
• In fact, their editing histories (which includes expert discussion of IT and WP policy issues) suggests that they are among the most informed IT professionals writing on WP
  • This is irrelevant. If MF invented IP, TCP, and DHCP by himself, it would mean nothing for this issue.
• and that there's no reason to consider most of the other WP editors using their ISP as providing a benchmark for their editing practices.
  • There were no other editors on the IPs that MF and GP used during the time that I could look at the records (which is a three-month period ending at the time I made the query). There was no reason to consider other pairs. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. You obviously don't understand how the CheckUser tool works.
• A relevant comparison would be to other pairs of WP IT-expert editors whose ISPs use similar assignment algorithms; you would also want these pairs to have avoided disclosing publicly any connection. A valid comparison is probably infeasible.
  • CheckUser is not a statistical analysis.

Look, I am not trying to be a condescending jerk here, but I don't quite know how to respond to this. I honestly have no idea what it is that you think the CheckUser tool does. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

@Mr. J. Delanoy:

Please fret about being a condescending jerk with bad karma on your talk page, and stick to business here.

I asked whether you had considered (besides these two accounts) other accounts/IPs from their ISP. Such accounts/IPs would provide a heuristic basis for comparison, and allow you and others to state something about MF and GP being closely linked (by being extreme) without bullshitting. You replied that the two accounts shared unique IPs at times, again not answering the question.

The discussion of your "report" has a lot of statements about such a link being unlikely without both accounts being operated. These statements seem to be bullshit, based on prejudice rather than on (even heuristic) evidence, because you never compared those editors with others from ISP.

I am sure that check-user is a wonderful tool, and must be an engineer's delight. But the relevant question is whether your analysis, following a failure to collect data that would enable a comparison, is relevant to a judgment of whether the MF account and GP accounts violated any policy.

Most importantly, you and arbcom have violated the check-user policy.

1. Why haven't you resigned your checkuser privileges?
2. Were you assured by WMF counsel that you were indemnified or would at least be represented if sued for violating our public guidelines? (In at least two states, you might be personally liable for misfeasance; I am ignorant of California's laws, but you should check.)
3. Please resign immediately!

Why did you publish this analysis, which will lead to further harassment of the editor using the Malleus account, following Arbcom's still unexplained leaking of his confidential correspondence?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, please stop and think for a minute... I suggest you are barking up the wrong tree here, for the following reasons: (1) There is (to date) zero evidence of CU misuse by J.delanoy because he was perfectly justified in running a check. He was requested to give a second opinion / sanity check by a fellow-CheckUser who is also an Arbitrator. I suggest it is entirely reasonable for one CU to offer a second opinion when a check has already been run and to accept that that basis for the original check was valid. (2) Before you say it, I agree that there is significant doubt surrounding the legitimacy of the original check(s) done by one or more arbitrators but that is not J.delanoy's fault. (3) Chasing after J.delanoy is distracting from the more critical question of the evidence used to support running a CU on MF and GP in the first place. (4) If J.delanoy had collected baseline evidence by comparing other users - even assuming such data would have been useful - would this not have been a gross breach of those users' privacy and a violation of WMF policy? (5) The report that J.delanoy has published was been redacted of identifying information and only adds a small piece to this puzzle - it shows that the CU checks provided evidence of a connection consistent with co-location or a single editor - which given the subsequent evidents is hardly surprising. MF's own posts since the ArbCom declaration confirm a close connection between the accounts. The problems are that (a) the evidence for disruption / policy violation given a connection is poor to non-existent (based on what I have seen to date) and (b) the evidence to justify a check (in line with the requirements of WP:CHECK) is even worse. Both of these problems need to be pursued with ArbCom, not by by chasing a functionary who responded to an apparently reasonable routine request in a routine way. (6) I suspect that if your doubts about J.delanoy's competence were held by others, there would have been posts supporting you. As he said, a CU check is not a statistical test and the methods of one are not applicable to the other. I recognise you may disagree with me, which is fine, but please at least stop and consider whether the approach you are taking is helpful. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

EdChem,

A claim that a pattern of interaction between the two accounts is too extreme to be anything more than one person controlling two accounts is a statistical claim, which, if it is not to be bullshitting or lying, needs to be based on statistical reasoning and evidence. (Engineers typically have little training in scientific investigation or statistics---far less than psychologists---and it is no excuse to make a statistical claim and then bleat "but checkuser is not a statistical tool".)

Of course, another problem is that the check-user exercise has negligible power to distinguish (1) two accounts always being controlled by one editor from (2) Malleus's explanation. Why publish the useless study after an explanation has been given (especially since no problem characterizes the interaction between the accounts, as EdChem notes)?

You are quite wrong in asserting that being the second (or later) WMF officer to violate the published WMF policy about user data be an excuse, either for the WP community---or civilly or criminally, based on my experience as an officer for non-profits in two states (not California); officers must show independent responsibility and avoid misfeasance. It is a simple question about WMF counsel giving advice or approval. (There have been many WMF discussions about indemnifying WMF officers, of course, and I am glad that you are not claiming that I am threatening legal action.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Coren and I independently ran the first checks. I do not know what evidence Coren looked at before he ran his checks, but here's what I had:

• The complaint we got was that George and Malleus edited the same VPP discussion: George Malleus. If they were the same person, that hits several points in WP:ILLEGIT: the first point says that "alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists", and using two accounts to argue the same position has that effect; the third point broadly prohibits undisclosed alternate accounts to edit project space, and the VP is in project space; the fifth point prohibits using "more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people", and GP's suggestion that he's an "outsider" can be considered misleading if he and MF are the same person. Therefore, if these were in fact controlled by the same person, there's a violation of WP:SOCK. Probably not a block-worthy one (the action I first proposed was a quiet email to MF), but enough to warrant a look.
• The question then became whether there's enough evidence that they are the same person to justify a check. The type of edits done by the two accounts are similar, but what convinced me that there's reasonable cause to believe that the two are the same is [28] and [29]. In the first diff George added the restoration dates, and 8 minutes later, in the second diff, Malleus stated in the article's FAC that the dates have been added. There is no apparent reason why George couldn't have reported the addition himself, which'd be the usual step after you made an edit to address an FAC comment. To make it even more unusual, Malleus has not edited the article in more than a week, and he only made three edits to the FAC, with the other two immediately following this one. He expressed some strong disagreements in those edits ("Nonsense"), but George is the one who followed up on replies. This, in my view, connects the two sufficiently for a checkuser to be ran.

Checkusers can't give an exact statistical probability, but they do know from experience how dynamic an ISP's allocation scheme tend to be, and how the IP history of your usual user on that ISP tend to look like. The ISP at issue is a very big one, with a good number of sockmasters, and one of several ISPs notorious among the checkusers for its highly dynamic allocation scheme. Checkusers who have seen editors from this ISP before (and J.delanoy has undoubtedly seen a lot of them) know that the chance of seeing one person being repeatedly assigned the same IP to be, well, almost zero. In this case, Malleus and George shared almost a dozen IPs with the pattern J.delanoy described, with numerous cases of Malleus editing from one IP, then George, then Malleus, then George, and so on. If they were not editing from the same internet connection, it would require Malleus to get assigned an IP, disconnect, George to get assigned the same IP, disconnect, Malleus get the same IP back, and so on, and so on. This is simply not something that happens with this ISP. Can I give you the exact probability that they are not somehow related? No, I can't. Can I say that it is extremely unlikely that they are not somehow related? That I can, because whether that probability is 0.01 or 0.001 or 0.0001 or 0.0000001 is entirely immaterial. T. Canens (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Timotheus Canens,

  Thanks for the reply. You all seem to have missed that Malleus went to the (horrible) Village Pump policy after I alerted him that I had quoted his statement that he was often called immature---by twelve year olds. Nothing nefarious. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. Your comments seem to rely on an assumption that the assignment of users to IPs is random, and Delanoy stated that the assignment algorithm is irrelevant. On the contrary, an assigment algorithm could easily start from a list of users, who are then assigned to a list of IPs. If the lists are non-randomized, and if GP and MF are clustered in one list of users (e.g., early in a list), then they would often be clustered by assigned IPs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You alerted Malleus, but did you (or someone else) also somehow alert George? I didn't assume that it's something nefarious. At that time, I believed that if indeed Malleus was George, George's edit was probably an inadvertent slip (hence the original proposal for a quiet email).

Yes, if the algorithm were like something you say, then something like what we saw would be somewhat more likely. However, in that case we'd expect to see a lot more similar patterns on other editors from the same ISP. That is not the case; editors using that ISP usually go through a lot of IPs, and stay on each IP for a period that's significantly shorter than Malleus (and George) did. T. Canens (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timotheus Canens,

I did not alert George, and I have no speculations about somebody alerting George either.

I am glad that you admit that the algorithm (including data structures) matters, a proposition that was denied by Delanoy.

Please watch Three Days of the Condor and consider, insofar as Max von Sydow's character was based on me (although my Swedishness influenced the choice of actor more than the Dutch characterization, to protect my identity), that Robert Redford's character---mark his encyclopaedic knowledge from "reading everything", the boyish charm, and ability to land the woman of his dreams, and most relevantly his expertise in telecommunications, including rerouting his calls to protect his privacy, etc.---was based on Malleus! ;)

I repeat that MF and GP seem to be experts in IT and telecom and I would be wary of speculating much about their behavior based on haphazard observations of other editors/IPs.

Experts grossly exaggerate their competence, particularly in making predictions and classifications (Meehl, Dawes, etc.). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to reiterate something said above, in stronger terms. In these modern times of ours, people quite frequently work irregular hours, or hours and days other than 9–5, M–F, and it is not unheard of for people to work on the holidays of the dominant religion in their country. I am currently typing this at work at about 5:15 ack emma local time. On a weekend. After just finishing lunch. (And using someone else's wireless, with permission.) It is also not unheard of for people to work from home or sleep at work. Several such professions come to mind, but speculation would be invidious. I see no reason why having an unusual work/living arrangement, even if it involves sharing a computer as well as a router and volunteering here at godsawful hours, should imply malfeasance. (Also, either the wording of the roommate policy should be updated to recognize there are a deal more circumstances in the brick and mortar and the internet worlds than "roommate" and "living alone", or we should cut editors some slack when they don't perceive it as having a bearing on the merits of their editing if they share a router.) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The questions asked by Kiefer appear to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about CU and networking issues in general. So I'm left scratching my head about why someone, seemingly without the necessary prerequisites to judge the issue, is pouring scorn on a CU, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  Scratch your head more and write less. You might examine my edits to articles on algorithms, especially randomized algorithms, etc., before speculating with cowardly adverbs, e.g. "seemingly". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The necessary prerequisite is networking, not algorithms. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. What are the algorithms and iterative methods used for the frequency assignment problem? [30] Have I edited or organized those articles or not? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

@J.delanoy :just two notes about you report: Some people do work on Christmas; and when you assume they are likely not to, you are using a statistic. Note that I have largely no idea of the main discussion here, nor I care much about it, and I am not trying to undermine your reasoning, which sounds quite sound overall (but I am no expert for sure) [no need at all to reply :-) ]- Nabla (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A true outsider's view

Having done some of my own sleuthing on this matter, using the public information I regretfully have to agree with the conclusion. Initially I was skeptical, but a few things make this seem likely:

• The two accounts have never clearly been editing at the same time. I looked through several months in 2012 and I often saw George and Malleus edit within minutes or a minute of each other, but never at the same time. A number of times it would be a few minutes between when one account stopped editing and the other started. Switching between accounts would certainly be possible in these short time-frames. Nost of the time there were larger gaps before one account would start editing again.
• We have the previous account Malleus created "William Leadford" to indicate this is something Malleus has done in the past.
• Although later edit summaries seemed markedly different from those used by Malleus (using "Copyedit (minor)" instead of "ce"), early on in the account's history the differences were minimal. This suggests the differences in certain behaviors were intentional deviations to throw people off.
• Most importantly the Leadford account stopped editing on June 7, 2011. The George Ponderevo account was created that very same day and began editing that same day.

That all being said, B's point above about the accounts occasionally making edits within the same minute is curious. While seemingly possible to switch between accounts that quickly, I am not entirely sure about that explanation. It is possible that Malleus allowed someone else to use the account a few times to make it easier to throw someone off.

One thing I can observe is that there is nothing seriously wrong here. Any violations are trivial or technical, rather substantive or disruptive. Given the extensive editing histories of both accounts and the switch from Leadford to George on the same day, I don't think he operates any more than the two accounts. To me the most obvious explanation is that Malleus created the George account to basically be a "no drama, just content" account. In other words, using his main account to get involved in contentious areas, while using the other to focus on content work without having to deal with the usual wikidrama.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your last paragraph, if it stressed different points, would mention block evasion, tag team edit warring, use of multiple accounts to create an inflated sense of consensus, and a degree of good hand bad hand (we know from the GP account that the user is capable of editing collegially; he just chose not to using the GP account). That seems a little more than trivial to me, but your mileage may vary. NW (Talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My mileage does vary, Nuke, and as anybody who has met Malleus will tell you, he's really a thoroughly amiable person. When you recognise that he has been the target of far too many trolls, nutjobs and stalkers, you're not surprised that he responds to perceived incivility in like fashion. It's the reputation, not the person, that causes problems for Malleus. Have we forgotten this lesson so quickly? --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but how can you be sure I was telling the truth when I said I was MF? ;-) I didn't get into any fights, I didn't start shouting at anyone, nobody tried to throw me out of the pub, I didn't spit at anyone ... all completely out of character for Malleus I'd say.Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm sure Malleus is thoroughly amiable in person. Most people I've met at meetups, including you, have been thoroughly nice people (I hope you'd say the same about me!). Which makes it a bit of a puzzle that people in general have the capability to get so confrontational when online. Well, its not really a puzzle, as it is commonly observed behaviour when people go online. But the real puzzle is why amiability and general laid-backness doesn't always transfer online. Some manage it, others don't. See also my comment below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways Carcharoth. If MF and George really are the same person then you have to explain how it is that in almost two years George Ponderevo got himself in no trouble at all. Do at least try to be consistent in your prejudices. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not difficult to maintain a persona like that when each account can act as a safety valve for the other (if you get frustrated, you switch to the other one). And you should give the full story. Towards the end George Ponderevo was starting to exhibit uncollegial tendencies. The WT:GAN discussion summed up by Wizardman here, and the editing of the Wells Cathedral article where insults were aimed at a fellow editor in edit summaries (example), culminating (after you publicly reclaimed the GP account as MF) in this gem. It is almost as if someone was tiring of keeping up appearances. Your point about prejudices is apt, though. Most people coming to a discussion like this will prejudge it unless they try very hard to put biases to one side. Most people also don't bother to actually look into things in any great detail (to be fair, the extensive editing history of both accounts makes that difficult). The Devil's Advocate has looked into this (based only on the editing histories that anyone with the time and inclination can review for themselves), and unsurprisingly he has concluded that we were, essentially, correct in our conclusions. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

@ The Devil's Advocate: I'm grateful you took the time to look into this, rather than having the instinctive reaction that others have had, instead trusting us enough to at least look into it yourself. The three examples of overlap that worried me most among all the things mentioned in relation to this were: (i) the editing by both accounts at a FAC (the Little Moreton Hall one); (ii) the editing with GP while MF was blocked ([31] + [32] and [33] + [34]); and (iii) both accounts applying for access to a HighBeam Research Account ([35] and [36]). In all three cases, things are fine if the two accounts are controlled by two different people, but are not if only one person is controlling the accounts. I may be presuming too much there, so maybe RexxS and TDA (and anyone else who wants to comment) could say whether they think it would be acceptable in the scenario where one person controls both accounts, to edit while the other account is blocked, to both edit the same FAC (nominated by one of the accounts), and to apply twice for access to a limited resource arranged for the benefit of Wikipedia editors? If those examples hadn't been present, I would have been tempted to dismiss the whole thing, but it was the seriousness (to my mind) of those examples, that persuaded me that it was necessary to get to the bottom of this. I hope (RexxS, TDA and others) that this makes some things a bit clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're just making all this up as you go along. Let's get back to the fundamental question here; what was the policy-based reason for carrying out a checkuser in the first place? Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the e-mails you received told you what the reason was for the check. I'm not sure I agree with that reason, but once the possibility was raised and I became aware of the three examples I've pointed out above, I personally (I can't speak for my colleagues) thought it was necessary to make sure there was an adequate explanation for those examples. If you can accept that I thought there was a reason to look into this further, would you consider responding to the three examples above, or is that a non-starter? Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say I find the comment by NW to be incredibly misleading on the point about "tag-team edit-warring" as he is making it sound like those accounts were being used in some horrific abuse of consensus. As best I can tell there was only one incident of inappropriate use of the accounts to revert edits, and the instance involved one revert from each account. The dispute was over a trivial issue with a template. The "good hand, bad hand" argument is misguided, as the key difference between the George and Malleus accounts is that the former barely edits any discussion areas and almost never a edits in a heated discussion area, which explains that account's lack of controversial activity far better. As to the points you are raising, I don't really see anything untoward in the comments at the FAC. The Malleus account made a few comments on some of the minor concerns, but I don't see any indication that any sort of manipulation took place. With the block evasion, they were basically pittances, during one block from nearly a year ago and another a few months before that. Mostly just to copy-edit, with a few appropriate speedies. Given how long ago these violations occurred I fail to see a serious issue. Evading short-duration blocks in order to improve content is hardly something I see as nefarious. Just so I am clear, did anyone actually suggest sanctions against Malleus for these things?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough if you don't think those are serious matters, but can you accept that I thought they were and that this is what guided my thoughts? To be clear, I'm not referring to what NW mentioned, but specifically the three points I raised, one of which you ignored completely (did you forget to look at that one?). You may also want to look at what I've said above about 'George Ponderevo [starting] to exhibit uncollegial tendencies', and the timing of when GP's contributions to projectspace discussions started to increase. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth, what article has been damaged by Malleus' activities? What productive editors have been run off the project? If you can't provide specific answers for either of those questions, you had no business investigating or enforcing any rules against Malleus. There's lots of stuff out there. Please focus on the activities that damage the encyclopedia. All else is primarily irrelevant. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman. We talked about this earlier. I will answer, but it is frustrating to raise several points and then have them ignored by you in your reply. The point should be, in case it wasn't obvious, that editors engaging with an alternate account of Malleus who have edited with Malleus previously should not be deceived into thinking they are interacting with someone else. Anything else is evading scrutiny. I would be very happy for Malleus to edit with both accounts if he really must, providing that those who interact with George know the history here (i.e. both accounts are properly tagged and don't edit in the same discussions and the other considerations listed in the relevant policies). Surely that is not too much to ask? After a period of time, the older account could be discontinued and the process of leaving the 'bad reputation' behind would slowly happen, but it would be done publicly, not secretly. You yourself said earlier "How dare you all treat him as some sort of special editor. He should be treated just like the rest of us." But he is being treated as some sort of special editor. By you and all the other editors who, knowing that he is (right now, since the point he took over the account) controlling both the George Ponderevo account (which he could unretire at any time) and the Malleus Fatuorum account, but hasn't tagged them as alternate accounts. If you really want to avoid Malleus being given special consideration (and were not just using that as a rhetorical device), why don't you take that up with him? Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Very, very good point at the end here. It would be extremely easy for MF to indicate that both accounts are operated by the same person, and that would pretty much resolve any issues regarding misuse of alternate accounts. And, honestly, under the circumstances, I really can't think of any reasons why such a rather obvious simple act hasn't already been done. Doing so would resolve many of the issues being discussed here, and basically remove any reason for there to be "special considerations," because there would be nothing requiring any degree of special considerations. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter, there's one reason you forgot. If there is genuinely a different George person who did control the account for a while (and there ARE enough examples of that in the editing history that this cannot be simply ruled out), that's in fact a good reason not to accept tagging one as a sock of the other, because it wouldn't be true.

@Carcharoth (belated), I disagree with some of your reading of the situation and many of your conclusions, but would like to thank you for engaging in the discussion in the manner you did. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done NE Ent 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Undone. Keep your hands off other users' user pages. The box was pointless, because of the WiFi miracle, etc., which I just heard about, that means that many of us share IPs. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC) 19:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren's resignation

Original announcement

• 2 resignations this week. Maybe this says something... --Guerillero | My Talk 23:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That Committee members are tired of being treated like something you curse when you step in it? (Coren's resignation seems internal, but I don't blame the Arbs from being frustrated from the crap they've taken from some folks here) SirFozzie (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It says that in addition to (a large portion of) the community lacking faith in the Arbitration Committee, its own members now lack faith in it.

      I think it's time to start a discussion, perhaps an RFC, about the future of the Arbitration Committee. Not some broad and open-ended discussion, though. Much more focused on this particular question: can the work that the Arbitration Committee currently does be handled by OTRS volunteers, oversighters, checkusers, stewards, and other trusted users? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

      • Are there any trusted users? Weren't they the ones elected to ArbCom? Bielle (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, plenty of them. Special:ListUsers/checkuser, Special:ListUsers/oversight, Special:GlobalUsers/steward, et al. Looking at this in terms of tasks rather than in terms of creating a bureaucratic monster of a committee is a better approach, in my opinion. What needs to be done and who's available to do it? Most wikis (somewhere around 99.9%) get along fine without an Arbitration Committee. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
          • That's because most wikis are tiny compared to the English Wikipedia. We need a place to go to that makes the hard decisions. --Conti|✉ 23:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
            • [citation needed] :-)

              There are plenty of medium and large wikis without Arbitration Committees. Sources: list of large wikis, list of medium wikis, and Wikimedia wikis with Arbitration Committees. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

              • The Italian wiki seems to be the largest without an Arbcom, and its size doesn't even come close to enWiki. Anyhow, what would be the alternative to an arbcom? Where should, say, the whole Scientology dispute be dealt with instead? --Conti|✉ 00:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
                • Maybe their private mailing list? Or just a big community ban vote, that's fairly well regulated. --Nemo 23:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    • if the shoe fits... 174.141.213.40 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is not without good reason that people feel this way, you know. The recent situation has hardly been one without cause for discontent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually it's a small, vocal, trollish minority that can find no middle ground or compromise. If ArbCom reveals too much it's "outing" and if not enough, it's a "star chamber". The reality is that it's neither and that those that spend all their time criticizing ArbCom, should hang it up for a while and let things take their course. Arguing that idenfying is a sockpuppet is "outing" while arguing that identifying the real life identity of a user is not, is disingenuous and counterproductive. Only the echo chamber wants to hear it so go take it to the echo chamber sites. --DHeyward (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I usually keep quiet, while watching these pages, because the discussions here cause a lot of drama and I find it pointless to comment on those discussion as it ultimately causes more drama. I find it disgustful what this community has become. We wonder why Wikipedia has been dying, why the OMG unmentionable site has written bad things about this site. This is why. ArbCom is something that requires a focused mind. If you lose focus, or have a weak mind, you get absorbed and taken over and start to focus on what's easiest, and not what's right. Coren outlines it exactly how it is. While we have good members on the committee, some just work to get re-eletcted, the corrupt so to speak. That's their fault. Our fault is that we have essentially a community that supposedly picks the trusted members of the community to become ArbCom. Instead we turned into a community that pick them as our scapegoats, and I find it absolutely repulsive. If I had decent change of being elected, and I most likely don't, I would probably run myself, if only to try and stop the ongoing quibbling between ArbCom and community. But alas, that probably won't happen and we won't realize our mistakes until Jimbo himself gives up on the project.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Cyber's comment is worth reading and we would also all do well to keep in mind that Arbs are people too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Personally, I find the statement from Coren to be rather unfair, but as they are departing words I cannot blame him for expressing his opinion. I mention above that some members of the committee would have been unhappy with my attitude being unhelpful. Well, Coren's description does match my attitude, I do give a damn what the community thinks. I consider the repercussions carefully and try to minimise the controversy surrounding events. I also care about the image that the committee portrays, as without the community's respect, the committee is nothing. Clearly, given what's happened so far this month, I've not done a great job.

  I'm sure it's not only me that Coren's statement is reflecting, if it was I would be roundly ignored, but I believe I'm the most vocal about it. The leap that I cannot accept is that I'm doing this to be re-elected. I have no interest in being re-elected at the end of my term and thats after completing just 10%. So, instead, I'll leave it for the community to decide. I've updated my recall criteria slightly and now willingly apply it to my role as an arbitrator. I see no reason why we cannot do the right thing AND keep the community on side. If that's playing politics, then so be it. Something needs to change round here and accountability is a good way to start. Worm^TT(talk) 23:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  I personally don't believe that Coren's statement applied to you in particular. I genuinely believe you serve for ArbCom to do the right thing, and not play to just have the title of ArbCom on you. Your words are well said, though.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  If Coren equates worrying about the image of the committee and the amount of drama caused with pushing for re-election, I'm pretty certain he means me (maybe others too, but certainly me). I don't equate the two. Worm^TT(talk) 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  But you're not pushing for re-election. You're trying to do what's best for the community. Or are you pushing for re-election.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think I have much to add, might be worth re-reading what I've written and what Coren actually said. I don't think any arbs are pushing for re-election, I believe we are all trying to do what's best for the community. If you're still confused, you know where my talk page is. Worm^TT(talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  On another matter, you said "something needs to change around here." What are you referring to specifically? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  I believe there is a chasm growing between Arbcom and the community and I'd like to see it closed. Pretty much everything else comes down to that. Worm^TT(talk) 00:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  Part of the problem, I think, is that ArbCom is intervening in things of its own motion, and I'm not sure the community's perfectly on board with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  Very much so. I personally feel that certain members of ArbCom have long abused using motions, including but not limited to using motions to act on things that they have little or no official business touching. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  If there is a chasm, what is its cause? Does the community (whatever that is) not understand what the committee is supposed to do? Does the committee not understand what it is supposed to do? Does the committee not understand policy? Has the community not articulated policy? Is what the committee decides only "right," if it is popular with whomever shows up to protest? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  Well, to answer those questions I would need to start really pushing into my own personal opinions and it is really tangential to the subject of this thread. If you would like to discuss my thoughts further, then please do wander over to my talk page or drop me an email. I'll hopefully reply in the morning :) Worm^TT(talk) 01:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  A lot of editors who would be fantastic Arbs don't run for reasons mostly related to the fact they don't have the time to do the "job" or really can't be bothered with the hassle. Or, they seriously don't want to identify themselves to the WMF because they are unconvinced about the security of such. So what we end up with, every year, is an ArbCom comprised of such excellent editors mixed with a collection of hat-collectors who don't really contribute much to Wikipedia who've been elected because there was nothing better (I'll just, yet again, link this) and proceed to show their utter cluelessness. I do feel sorry for the competent Arbs who must get utterly frustrated with the incompetence of their fellows. Perhaps we should have restrictions on Arbs (a certain number of articlespace edits, FAs, GAs, whatever) as we do on those voting for them? Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  And I'll add that, given the snark in that announcement, that I'm pretty sure if the community was given the choice of WormTT or Coren on ArbCom, that would be a pretty one-sided result. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  First, you suggest the pool is too small and then you suggest a more restrictive pool. And none of those restrictions you propose address why you say the pool is too small. Regardless of the value of those restrictions, the community would be the one to adopt such metrics but they have not -- so that would be a community problem -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  You're missing my point, I think. ArbCom should be a collection of people who are simply interested in making the encyclopedia the best it can be. At the moment, we never elect anyone that's not an admin (despite the fact that most of our best article writers are not admins, and don't wish to be) and we do elect people who have done little/nothing except politicise for the last year (see the link above, again). Surely we should be reversing that trend? That would make the pool of potential Arbs bigger, not smaller. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  Oh. I don't see that suggestion above but would editors have more time than admins to do the job, be more interested in the hassle, or trust the WMF more? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sure many wouldn't. But we don't need a lot. A collection of article writers together with the competent-type Arbs that I mentioned above would see the ArbCom in safe handds, I think. Black Kite (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  I gotta disagree here. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I think that is what gets us into all this drama. I don't doubt for a second that all the Arbs want to make the encyclopedia the best it can be, but that is largely beyond the remit of Arbcom. Arbcom is the supreme adjudicatory body on wiki, and there is in most cases no appeal (or at least no practical appeal) beyond them. As such, for things to run smoothly, we need to trust both in their judgement, and restraint. They need to consider both what is best for the encyclopedia in the immediate case, but also what impact that decision will have over the long term, both for future cases, and for Arbcom as an institution. That may mean letting someone get away with something in the interest of not setting a bad precedent. (and I know Arbcom does not officially follow stare decisis, but its still a precedent). Sure we want Arbs who care deeply about making the encyclopedia the best it can be, but they also need to understand conflict resolution, and be sophisticated enough to consider the consequences of their action to the long term institution that Arbcom represents. Monty₈₄₅ 13:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  My own guess would be that editors simply do not want to be involved in administration to any great degree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is, of course, that by editing articles one ends up getting on folks' bad sides, and thus becomes unelectable. It seems as though the only way to avoid having one's candidacy torpedoed by a small group of determined sociopaths is to spend all of one's online time campaigning. I think you're addressing the wrong problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  Don't know. If your interests are volunteer research and writing, and contributing to consensus (where you can). That would just seem not to leave alot of time for other responsibilities. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• An informative statement by Coren. Thank you for your candor. The Committee needs to focus on doing what it is good at: hearing cases about intractable disputes where the community asks for its help. The Committee should refuse to handle matters where it can't help so well: dealing with things that ought to be dealt with by paid WMF staff, such as stalking, Oversight, severe harassment and private or confidential matters. These are issues for a legal team, not a bunch of volunteers. Frequently when the Committee does some spontaneous thing via it's mailing list, it ends up in hot water. It should just stop making that mistake. Jehochman ^Talk 01:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Today's actions are hardly indicative of a smoothly functioning committee. Which is odd because; controversial though some recent actions may have been, it does seem like they managed to make quite a few tough decisions in the past week or so, and to find compromise on the issue with Kevin. Then this weirdness with Mal/George pops up and a different picture emerges. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• If by pops up you mean "has been dividing this Committee since mid-January", sure. NW (Talk) 04:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened in January? Volunteer Marek 05:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

MF/GP was first reported to us then. NW (Talk) 05:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you would have saved yourselves an awful lot of trouble if you had referred the reporter to the on-site checkuser request page. You have no one to blame but yourselves for this mess.  Giano  09:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, endogeneity.Volunteer Marek 05:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw, as a complete aside, one thing annoying about the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee page is that if you click on an old version of it, like say this one, from June 2011, it lists some members of the committee and tells you "The following list is accurate as of 06 June 2011:" - but it lists the current members of the committee, not the members of the committee as of June 2011. This is annoying if one wants to quickly look up who the members of the committee where in June 2011, or December 2012.Volunteer Marek 05:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's because the information is transcluded from a sub-page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Current members.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, then the history is inaccurate. Anyway, is there a quick way to click and find out who the members of the committee were at time "t"? Volunteer Marek 05:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Look up here: {{ArbitrationCommitteeChart}}. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to this is Bugzilla:34244 "Transclude contemporary template states to page histories?". If fulfilled, the version of the template that was current on 06 June 2011 would be shown when viewing the version of the transcluding page from that date. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Benedict XVI resigns, Beatrix of the Netherlands will be abdicating, Raul Castro of Cuba announced he will be retiring at the end of his current term & now Coren has resigned. 2013, is turning out to be an active year. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is very sad to see, but I understand Coren's frustration, largely because his stated reason for resigning was one of the "other reasons" that led to my own resignation, and one that I did raise with the Committee in private. Unfortunately, I was hoping he'd be one of the ones to lead the charge against such politicization, as I know he is (was) one of the Arbitrators who was firmly dedicated to doing the "Right Thing;" what he believed was best for the project and best upheld the project's core values and policies. I say "one of the Arbitrators" because Coren's comments certainly do not apply to everyone on the Committee. However, over the course of my term, I noticed a steadily increasing emphasis from several arbitrators on avoiding actions that would look bad for the Committee's image or otherwise cause undue amounts of drama. As I told the Committee prior to resignation, arbitrators are not elected to make the Committee look good or avoid drama; or, phrased a bit differently, the Committee exists to handle problems that will have long-term consequences. The community is perfectly able to deal with most short-term problems itself, however is largely (however not completely) incapable of considering the long-term impacts of a particular action. The Committee is here to handle situations that have no ideal short-term solution, situations where the best option is whatever offers the best long-term outcome. It is impossible in these situations to make any decision without angering some people or causing at least some drama. However, if arbitrators focus on these short-term concerns, they are blinding themselves to the long-term outcomes that they need to be reviewing. Again, not every arbitrator has engaged in such conduct, but it nonetheless is a concern, and one that the Committee needs to address quickly. I again express my hope that the community offers them more support in their actions; while the Committee certainly has some issues needing resolution (what organization doesn't?) they still need your trust and confidence as they attempt to resolve those issues.

Coren, thank you for your service on the Committee, and I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh do spare us the heroics - or has the whole sorry story got to be publicised?  Giano  16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, yes. Swear loyalty to the ArbCom and they will make the trains run on time. I've heard this all before. How about ArbCom holds an RFC to determine what their role should be, instead of attempting to acrete more and more powers to themselves? The community will provide support and trust when the Committee earns it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's one option - I would support: but I still think this individual case needs to be explored further. Who sent the email? What exactly did it allege? Who supported the secret checkuser d perfomred it rather than referring to the conventional public checkuser request? Someone needs to lose their checkuser tool - a simple resignation is not enough to quell this.  Giano  17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3, from about a year ago, is an interesting read on this subject. It deals with some of the same issues about sockpuppetry and secrecy as have been raised here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom should probably stick to full arbcom cases. Those issues that they handle through motions should be probably handled by someone else. Supreme arbitration body trying to quickly fix issues (Kevin was desysoped in less than 24 hours), is inevitably going to lead to significant fuckups that bring whole body's prestige down rapidly. Now we have case of checkuser usage on questionable grounds. This could be solid reason for starting a full arbcom case, but idea of arbcom case about arbcom's own potential fuckup is quite silly, who is going to "arbitrate" there?--Staberinde (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's all rather predictable and symptomatic of a project that has outgrown its original governance/direction idea and is now spawning multiple shadow bureaucracies. The whole system needs to be examined and overhauled, not just ArbCom. They're just a symptom of the larger problem. Intothatdarkness 21:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Shadow bureaucracies" is an awfully fancy term for cabals. They're hardly new. ;-) I think Wehwalt and Staberinde are both hitting it above in their comments:

• (a) ArbCom should get involved when the community asks it to (not when it feels it has to); and
• (b) ArbCom should be deliberative and contemplative (more Newyorkbrad-y) and less rash (emergency level II procedures, section B red team deploy gogogogo!). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Given what has been said above, and taking recent events into account, I don't believe an RFC on the role of Arbcom will be anything more than a temporary Band-Aid for a problem that has been growing and festering for years. The only way to fix the situation properly (that i can see) is something like a Constitutional convention to formalize the way the Committee operates, what falls within its jurisdiction, what it can do and what it must not do. And it needs to be binding. Currently, we have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy, in which any amendments must first be approved by the Committee before the community can vote on them. When the community has lost confidence in the Committee itself, this method is not sufficient. Hell, the Committee doesn't even follow it especially closely. It says "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat" which is laughable. Even prior to the Kevin situation, Arbcom decisions have been inserted into policy going back at least to the Rachel Marsden decision in 2006, possibly earlier (that's just the earliest one I remember). What the community needs to do is take a good hard look at the role of arbitrators, and figure out whether we want them to be able to vote themselves more power by fiat. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to you, and to many others who have written on this page, that what would make more sense is some sort of constitutional convention to develop a group that will handle matters that are outside of Arbcom's scope, so that there is no pressure on Arbcom to take on tasks that nobody else will do currently. Whatever you come up with, it should not have multiple layers of "oversight". And you should also give some thought to the qualities you would look for in potential members of such a group, and assess whether or not those qualities (combined with personal interest) exist within the community. Everyone contributing to this project in any way is only human. Risker (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed one possibility. The Committee currently performs functions that are legislative, executive and judicial. They make policy, interpret policy and enforce policy. It might be a good idea to try to separate some of these functions. However, if the community does want to go this route, it is worth noting that there is a risk of making the existing bureaucracy even more massive and unwieldy. In addition, it has been argued that it is hard to get enough quality candidates for Arbcom and various functionary elections as it is (most people who have the good judgment to be an outstanding arbitrator also have the good judgment to stay far far away from the position). With more positions on more committees available, we run the risk of not getting any better candidates and then still being in the same position we are now. I'm not saying that your suggestion won't work, but there are additional things to consider. I'm curious what the community will want to do, if anything. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Common sense might be a good start. As might opening up Wikipedia's governance to those others than administrators. This daft notion that administrators are more trusted than regular editors, and that arbitrators are even more trusted than them is just puke-making. I, for instance, trust very few of you, and the reasons for my distrust have been amply demonstrated in the past. You can't even keep your supposedly confidential email list private. Malleus Fatuorum 07:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, every level of Wikipedia governance should be open to non-admins, especially major content contributors. Given the absurdity that RFA has become in recent years, it should be no surprise that there are many excellent editors who are not masochistic enough to put themselves through that, or otherwise have no interest in the tools. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to be careful Wordsmith, as I'm sure that even as we speak there's an email (allegedly) winging its way towards ArbCom. Your only hope for salvation is that we haven't edited too many of the same articles. But as I've edited so many I think it could easily be proved that you're one of my sockpuppets, or I'm one of yours. . Malleus Fatuorum 08:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You would also have to have him move into your basement or bedroom. --DHeyward (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What Malleus and I do in his bedroom is none of your business. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire. If it's editing Wikipedia in his bedroom from the same IP on the same topic, the community can treat you as a single editor. WP:SHARE and supporting WP::SOCK policies are clear. Edit different topics and avoid mutual support and don't walk and quack like a sockpuppet duck. No one cares what you do when you are not editing wikipedia. MF and George can talk to themselves all they want. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Have you not heard of this wonderful new invention called WiFi? It's really good, you should try it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As a point of information, non-admins can become functionaries. The committee has always been keen on this; the community less so. bahamut0013 was a non-admin appointed to AUSC ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bahamut0013/Archive_12#Congratulations he got the mop after the appointment). The CU and OS toolkits were tweaked accordingly.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On an AUSC level that might be true, but for regular CU/OS use this would not be practical. Non-admin CUs would not have the ability to block, and other CUs would have to step in and do the blocking. Non-admin OSers would not be able to delete revisions, and considering that many OS requests are fulfilled with revision deletion, this would be a problem as well. --Rschen7754 09:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With all this talk about cabals and oversight and whatnot, I think that it would be an excellent time to point out that every currently sitting ArbCom member was asked during the election about whether or not discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly. Several successful candidates seemed averse to the idea for no better reason than that email would be more convenient. Others were concerned that ArbCom wouldn't be able to discuss things as robustly/openly if people were watching, or that ArbCom's voice might get drowned out. All in all, the vast majority of reasons for opposing moving much more of the conversation on-Wiki boiled down to a "but it would be easier for us if we didn't", which is a fantastically inadequate excuse. I think that the candidates should feel lucky that the number of legitimately qualified applicants is so low that they can get away with that kind of statement. The fact of the matter is that until ArbCom stops clinging to secrecy the way Linus clings to his blanket, there is going to always be a massive trust deficit. Setting up new bodies and debating how much people's personal issues effect governance isn't going to fix anything. Kill off the unnecessary secrecy and a lot of the trust problem will go away. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The mailing list leaks. Sometimes slowly, sometimes all at once. The ArbCom would be much better off conducting all business in public where they can be scrutinized by the people they report to (us). There does not need to be so much drama and intrigue. The cure is to do things in the open. If they propose an idea in the open, we can comment and convince them not to make mistakes. As for things that need to be cofidential, I suggest that ArbCom simply refuse to handle those matters. Foist them off on WMF's legal department. Lawyers are properly trained to handle confidential matters; our Arbitrators are not. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That would work in some cases, or even in most cases, but not in all cases. ArbCom shouldn't be touching complaints of threatened physical harm or pedos stalking children, both things that I know ArbCom has handled in the past, because the formal legal process covers those things. However things like outing or cleanstarts, where there is no formal legal coverage but there is a strong privacy component, do need secrecy. However there is no reason why ban appeals can't be made public, or deliberations on cases, or the selection process for advanced permissions, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A fine-grained transparency policy is long overdue.

Another thing that ArbCom and clerks could to do improve their standing would be for them to be less pompous. I'm serious. Which of the following sounds more friendly?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a

For the Arbitration Committee,
Somebody 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

or

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a

Somebody (Arbitrator) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Using pseudo-legalistic language and phrasing does arbitrators no favors at all. Making pronouncements in the style of a Supreme Court judge only serves to make it look as if you're trying to put yourselves on a podium above the community. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone sign statements with "(Arbitrator)". That is not any more 'friendly' than using the phrase "For the Arbitration Committee". The latter phrase tends to be used when publishing something on behalf of the committee (i.e. when a formal vote has taken place), which is why I used it recently. There is also an element of just copying the style from previous announcements to be consistent. I would almost only ever use that style on this noticeboard and not anywhere else. I deliberately avoided that style when leaving notices on user talk pages, and merely signed the talk page notes as I would at any other time. I try to be informal most times, but there are times when you are asked about certain things when you do have to be formal to avoid confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As for transparency, the ArbCom should default to conducting business in public, and only handle things privately when the community agrees to it. I would agree that matters related to outing could be handled by the functionaries mailing list, and if appealed to ArbCom, handled on the ArbCom mailing list. Even then the situation should be described (anonymously) to the public so that the outcome is not a total surprise. These situations should be very limited. I do not like that ordinary cases are discussed on the mailing list or that ArbCom is took upon on itself to handle a very routine sock puppetry case. If Malleus was socking, the accusation could have been filed at WP:SPI and handled normally. How dare you all treat him as some sort of special editor. He should be treated just like the rest of us. I see no reason that ban appeals can't be disclosed to the public. Banned editors may have to email because they can't edit, but that email could be posted, comments received, and action discussed. We need to have more openness. Jehochman ^Talk 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And why didn't you do any of this when you sat on the committee. I remember you being OK with arbcom business being conducted in private. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hex, if you sign something "(Arbitrator)", it does not make it clear that the editor is saying something that's the opinion of the committee, rather than the opinion of that Arbitrator. Can you come up with a form of words that's neither pompous nor ambiguous? --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hrm, well. It depends on context, doesn't it? The noticeboard is only for official posts, so anyone placing text there should be doing on an official basis. There could be a bit of window-dressing via a template, a box with a title ("Arbitration Clarification", and so on). It's important, as I see it, to maintain a straightforward and unfussy tone when you're communicating with people that are in the middle of a dispute. We're not in a court of law here, so the further we get from "Signed, sealed and delivered by my hand on this the Eighteenth of March the year Two Thousand and Thirteen and entered into the record thereunto"-style language, the better. There are other signifiers available to us. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dweller asked you to give an example of a less pompous way of expressing it. All you've done is come up with an example of a more pompous one. I'm sure if you can suggest a better alternative people will be willing to consider it, but if you're just going to criticize without suggesting a solution then people are less likely to change. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your critical reading skills evidently need a bit of polishing, old bean. Back to the bally drawing board and all that, eh? Pip pip. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That is extraordinarily rude, Hex; comment on the information, not the individual, and I suggest you consider striking it. As for a reality check, anything that requires the use of a template is by definition a more complex proess. Further, arbitrators and arbitration clerks also participate in the project in their personal capacities. Thus, it is important for them to make clear when they are acting on behalf of the committee, and when they are acting in their personal capacity. Risker (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

anything that requires the use of a template is by definition a more complex process If the prospect of putting words in a box is the complex part, then I suspect that this organization has far more deep-rooted problems to address. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On that, templates are a terribly difficult concept for some people to get. I include it in my adoption course and it's consistently something that people struggle with. I've spoken to multiple people who press the edit button but don't make a change because the first thing they see is an infobox. You should know that wiki-code is one of the most deep-rooted issues with Wikipedia and a barrier for many, hence the development of a WYSIWYG editor - templates exemplify everything that is difficult about editing. You may get it, I may get it, don't assume everyone does. As Risker says, adding templates adds complexity. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree entirely. Wiki markup is a massive impediment to new editors. But we're talking about arbitrators and arbitration messages here, not the general issue of templating. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No need to be flippant. I actually agree with you that a lot of the language currently used by ArbCom tends to be superfluously pompous. But you haven't really suggested any specific improvements, or found a better way of expressing "For the Arbitration Committee", except vaguely proposing a template of some nature with a fluffy sounding title. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(It was the signature more than anything else.) Well, being able to point out an issue doesn't require also being able to offer a solution. But I can see that we're on the same wavelength, and that's good. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think someone speaking for Arbcom could be more personal and less pompous simply by saying things explicitly and making a little effort to put things nicely:

Hi, Sanctioned Editor, I am afraid I have bad news for you from the Arbitration Committee. We have collectively decided to ban you until the cows come home or something unexpected happens. Here is the text of the decision:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a

Somebody 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As arbitrators are (theoretically) elected for their social qualities, this shouldn't be so hard for them. Hans Adler 15:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that might have been a compliment, Hans, but I'm not sure there's any correlation between being elected to Arbcom and having exemplary social skills. I'm afraid that, speaking personally, I'd find the wording you're suggesting is far more insulting than something more straightforward; it implies a personal relationship, and distances the writer from the decision even more so than the current standard phrasing. Having said that, the softening of wording of some of the more common user templates by the Editor Engagement team reportedly had statistically significant improvement in editor retention, so examining their findings might inform the committee on some opportunities for changing some of its standard wording. On the third hand, most of the time the committee is sanctioning the user; I'm not sure it's a bad thing to sound stern when doing so. Risker (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the part about social skills in a positive way, and in fact if we are not supposed to elect arbitrators according to perceived chances that they can resolve conflicts fairly and efficiently, then I confess I'm a bit puzzled. I would count these as social skills.

Your point about the distancing surprised me, but it makes sense. How about this:

Hi, Sanctioned Editor, I got the short straw and have to notify you of the Arbitration Committee's decision:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a

Somebody 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this could even work as a standard text for notification of sanctioned editors. In other cases, something more neutral might be better. Hans Adler 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think this perhaps all a bit too flippant and could easily cause offence? These things need a degree of neutrality and gravitas (which is NOT the same as pomposity) simply to minimise the prospect that they'll be taken the wrong way. I'm not too keen on the legalese that sometimes creeps in but often it's the most concise way of saying something.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding this interesting, as I used to sign emails from the Ombudsmen in the same way. What do others think of this suggested format?

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna a

Somebody (On behalf of the Arbitration Committee) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Views/comments welcome. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The only times I use "For the Arbitration Committee" in email (and then far from always) is if I'm cold-contacting someone via "Email this user". And then only because there's a reasonable chance they don't know who I am or that it's in an official capacity. Most of the time, I'll just sign Roger or Roger Davies. It's about speed of communication, I suppose.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Narrowing ArbCom's focus

Related reading: User:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom and User talk:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement By NE Ent on resignations

Scope and responsibilities

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

To the extent that the resignation statements contain implicit and explicit attacks on the remaining members of the committee, I'll note:

• "Doing the Right Thing" is not listed in the scope of responsibilities. It's wiki 101 that we're not here to Right Great Wrongs
• "Handling problems that have long term consequences" is also not listed in the scope of responsibilities. Arbitrators are expected to have the experience and judgement and be willing to volunteer vast amounts of time to meet the above goals. They are not elected because they're smarter than the community and they are not elected to make policy.
• Running to "fix" an "obviously ailing" committee is not consistent with good faith.

Conduct of arbitrators

Arbitrators are expected to:

1. Act with integrity and good faith at all times;
2. Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles;
3. Participate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations, advising the Committee of upcoming inactivity if that inactivity will likely last more than a week; and
4. Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations.

It's the job of the 15 14 13 to figure out how to to work together. If an arbitrator finds they need to resign or become inactive due changing real life circumstances, that's understandable. If internal circumstances change such that an arbitrator feels they cannot continue in good faith for other reasons, a gracious withdrawn, per Hersfold's original statement is acceptable. But to leave with "parting shots," especially as the #4 of the arbitrator code above precludes those remaining on the committee from the opportunity to provide an effective rebuttal, is not consistent with one of the very pillars of the project we're all supposed to be about.NE Ent 12:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Temporary cease fire?

Over the last 48 hours the Arbcom has had a well deserved kicking. However, constant shouting and demand for answers does not give anyone time to collect their thoughts. I think we should now have a few hours of silence while the remaining Arbs collect their thoughts, pick themselves up and decide the best way forward for them - assuming, they see a way forward and don't opt for a mass resignation. We need some good answers and explanations - the remaining Arbs need time to plan and respond to this. So what about 12 hours of peace?  Giano  12:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's a very good idea. Bravo. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion 24 hours would be more realistic for such "cease fire" to have some actual effect.--Staberinde (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK - 24. But is anybody going to take notice?  Giano  15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that 24 hours of ceasefire will kill the momentum that seems to be building in the community. You know as well as I do that editors are easily distracted by something shiny. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately encyclopedias aren't very shiny. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You need a tax for posting on time-wasting pages like this. One free post per month, and beyond that you need 100 mainspace contribs per post. That would improve the signal-to-noise ratio considerably, and help get people to contribute to the encyclopaedia project. Or, at least, help moderate the way that the "professional Wikipedian class" drowns out the actual content editors. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A mass resignation sounds good to me, but I'm prepared to wait before once again demanding some answers. This isn't going away. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What is this? All I see is a mass of the usual discontents, together with a handful of others, beating up on the arbcomm. We've been there before. The arbcomm is far from perfect, and deserved the occasional bashing. But the issues that have gotten so a few noses so badly out of joint are, as best I can tell, almost entirely irrelevant to the project. We're not going to gut the Foundation policy on privacy here. So what's the goal? Bully a few arbs out of the project? Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We were hoping for a few hours of quiet contemplation, but if all you can do is come here and attack those who are unhappy with the situation, why don't you hand in your tools too because it's obvious that all you want to do is inflame a situation. As an admin, try setting an example!  Giano  18:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda: there's no 'momentum' for change here: it's a small group of editors discussing their (mostly) long-held position and agreeing with one another in a forum which can't actually be used to drive any change. There's nothing wrong with that per-se (people are free to discuss ArbCom's actions, which is why this noticeboard exists), but this is all a bit silly. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no momentum for change anywhere, that's why Wikipedia is dying. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"...Wikipedia is dying." Neutron (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the phrase the "oh shit slide"? Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, actually. But I think I do understand what your general opinion of the "health" of Wikipedia is. "Dying" is clear enough, it doesn't need synonyms to make it clearer. What it does need is facts to back it up, otherwise it doesn't mean much. Neutron (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a presentation by Sue Gardner that you probably ought to read in that case. Malleus Fatuorum 05:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Imminent death of Wikipedia predicted — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's time to weather the (non-existent) storm

There is no general outrage among the broader community. It's a only small group of vocal editors who are whining and complaining. The more attention you give their complaints, the more attention they will crave. No one outside this small circle takes these complaints seriously. To ArbCom and everyone else, I recommend that you just ignore them. They may or not go away, but it doesn't matter, because few, if any, in the broader community supports them. (Of course, this small, vocal group may vehemently disagree with this assessment, but that's all the more reason to ignore their complaints and move on.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(To paraphrase: let's quickly sweep all of this under the carpet and carry on as normal before the little people notice we have a problem.  Giano  11:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for so nicely demonstrating the problem here you two. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be only two stirrers here who fantasise that there is no problem. Now that is a seriously small vocal minority. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when two sane arbitrators resign because the system is broken, and a lot of "vocal editors" believe it's broken, you say "it's only a small group" and basically tell ArbCom to "not feed the trolls". That's horrid that you'd even think that. If you really want to discount our claims, start an RfC, see how many people think ArbCom, or the community, or both are broken right now. Case in point, User:Cla is still blocked for what they did, when in any other situation they'd have been unblocked forever ago. Stop this attack on this not-so-small group, because your claim that "no one outside this small circle takes these complaints seriously" is flat out wrong. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Could we be quite clear on this: Two arbitrators resigned because the committee was not quite so compliant in breaking rules and acting in an overbearing matter as they wanted it to. That Coren persuaded them (against their better judgements)to sign a half-baked motion is to be regretted. That he obviously had to take some flak from his former colleagues when the community reacted as they had predicted is really his problem rather than that of the community. The question remaining, is does the community have confidence in the remaining Arbs?  Giano  11:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Two sane arbitrators? Coren and who else? Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

New socks, new blocks, whose socks, whose blocks?

Apologies to Dr. Seuss, it needed a section heading.... — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking to get anybody blocked, banned, etc. But, why hasn't Malleus been blocked for sock-puppeting? GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"I'm not looking to get anybody blocked"... "why hasn't Malleus been blocked". That's a little contradictory (however, I'm kindof left wanting more closure on this issue too). gwickwire^talk_editing 01:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm more interested in learning if there's a change in how sockmasters are treated. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you assuming a little too much GoodDay? Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeking an explanation, that's all. If you haven't been socking, then what's all the fuss? GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The fuss is that I've been accused via an anonymous email, resulting in an out of policy checkuser. If I had access to the checkuser tool I'm quite certain I could "prove" that you were sockpuppeting yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Has it been proven that you've been socking, though? GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you call proof. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If 2 or more accounts are proven to be the same editor. Do you admit or deny having socks? GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

How exactly would you go about proving such a thing GoodDay? And do you consider it's been proven in this case? Or are you asking a hypothetical "what if ..." question? Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't prove or disprove anything at the moment. I'm asking for clarification from you. If GP's not your sock? then there's a chance GP is the secret informers sock. In that case, the GP account would've been created to get you banned. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, you're talking complete bollocks GoodDay. Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And unsurprisingly, while two sections above, no arb can actually point out to any clear and blockable offenses committed by the two accounts to even justify running a CU, because it's Malleus, here comes to block bandwagon. Seriously, folks, check your WP:BATTLE attitude at the door. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking to tar & feather Malleaus. I've nothing to gain by that. Merely want to know what the heck's going on around here, it's all TLDR. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you look at WP:SPI, very few accounts have done anything worth blocking on their own; they are reported because they look like a sock, blocked using behavioral evidence, and a CU is ran to check for sleepers. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So, what's the ruling? GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's simply not true Guerillo. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I may not know the policy on undeclared sock accounts that well, so can't say that Malleus should be blocked just because he had a sock account. The Malleus and George accounts overlapped on 287 "pages" as shown here...so the only thing that matters is if Malleus was using George as a meatpuppet account (or vice-versa) to do something such as block evasion, vote stacking, content dispute, etc.--MONGO 04:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  GoodDay and I have overlapped on 301 pages. Does that make me his sockpuppet or is he mine? Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  My comment was rhetorical...unless arbcom can show evidence that these two accounts overlapped maliciously, then there is no issue I don't believe.--MONGO 05:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  The issue is if that there was no evidence of any such maliciousness, and there isn't, then why did ArbCom initiate an out of policy checkuser? Are we all to be subjected to such investigations on the hearsay of an anonymous tip-off? Added to which I've had a brief discussion with Coren about his quite different reaction when his compadre Rlevse was accused of socking with his PumpkinSky account. Which was basically to do nothing, because Rlevse was his friend. I on the other hand have no friends in ArbCom, and am not even an administrator, just an easily replaceable unit of work. See the difference? And interestingly MONGO, you and I have have collided on 381 pages, time for another checkuser I think, as a major plank of ArbCom's evidence is that George and Malleus edited the same pages. Malleus Fatuorum 05:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's appalling that some get special treatment exempting them from rules everyone else must follow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know why they did Malleus...I'm out of the loop. I glaced at a few items on that overlap and nothing popped up. At the Little Moreton Hall FAC that George nominated, you made a few comments but didn't support the promotion. At the usertalks overlaps, all those editors are on friendly relations with you, so no reason to suspect that you would use two accounts to harass anyone there. On the Wikipedia space pages I can't see any evidence that you used two accounts in the same discussions, just on the same pages. In article space, unless two accounts were engaged together in a content dispute, using two accounts for ce isn't an issue. In my cursory glance, I cannot see any evidence of malice. Carcharoth, in a thread above, indicates you used a different account to evade a block and that you have (or applied) for Highbeam for both accounts. Again, I'm not a policy expert on SOCK or CHECKUSER nor am I here to undermine arbcom or you. For the record, if you have (had) multiple accounts its a unique thing since all the others I have encountered aside from Bishonen and her private army were here solely for disruption and POV pushing...neither of which is something you or George do. I AGF that all this will blow over and be nary a footnote in the annals of Wikipedia.--MONGO 06:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

  I could point you to a number of editors (but I won't of course, that would be to break confidences), some very high-profile, who are today using alternate accounts for the sake of a quiet life. And does anyone remember Chillum, an admin who admitted to having an alternate account but refused to reveal to anyone what it was? Much has been made of my William Leadford account as proof that I'm some kind of puppet master, but few seem to recall that the link between me and that account became public because of leaked emails to ArbCom, in which I was discussing how best to proceed. The answer in retrospect seems obvious; don't tell anyone, especially ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 06:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with "don't tell anyone." I don't see why anyone would share private information with the Wikipedia arbitration committee. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatting discussion about third-party editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Malleus, I'm not sure dragging PumpkinSky into this is appropriate. As you may be aware, he was blocked for a violation of RTV, a policy that carries with it no penalty beyond having edits reattributed. This was done by Moni3, who had immediately previously called PumpkinSky a "dingus" and an "idiot". conversation, in which Malleus took part, here. Note that Moni3 blocked PumpkinSky indef at 0000 on 2 February. As you will recall, Hawkeye7 lost his bits for calling you a koala, I daresay "dingus" and "idiot" are worse and should have carried at least the same penalty, but no one seemed inclined to do anything about it. You will recall Moni3 of course, she unblocked you twice, each time without any request by you, and I believe you stayed blocked a combined total of nineteen minutes. PumpkinSky, on the other hand, for violating a policy which carries no penalty, was blocked for months until a brave admin had the guts to unblock him, and the community showed its opinion of that by electing him a crat. Accordingly, PumpkinSky was not in the least treated better than you. I would suggest that you consider PumpkinSky a victim. Can we agree on that? Or if we can't, can we agree to allow those who are choosing not to be a part of this to avoid being dragged into it?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not criticising PumpkinSky, I'm criticising Coren, who under the exact same circumstances of the GP/MF anonymous tip opted not to run a checkuser because Rlevse was his friend, and he trusted his friend. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Nor was his trust misplaced, because the person who was Rlevse did nothing wrong in returning as PumpkinSky.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Really? I must have missed that. Any proof for this claim? Did he return to clean up his copyvio mess or just to continue his social networking? I am talking about before he was caught. Hans Adler 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole incident is regrettable. My confidence in Arbcom has been further weakend & I've less faith in an editor. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to Malleus

I'm sorry for my conduct towards you yesterday. You're correct about not having to answer to me & your frustration with me was certainly valid & understandable. I will continue to AGF with you. You're a straight shooter & one of the few honest editors around. I freely admit to being frustrated with Wikipedia lately & shamefully let some of that frustration out on you (which was uncalled for) & I'm rightfully embarrassed. PS- I'm apologizing on this Noticeboard, as this is where I harrassed you. PPS: I wouldn't blame you, if you rejected my apology. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't take much account of apologies GoodDay, as you may know. I'm much more interested what you do from here on, as words are easy. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There's very little left on Wikipedia for me to do, accept gnoming. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think the best way for you to show that you wish to disengage from this issue, would be for you to stop editing on this page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Off topic, hatting before it descends into personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed by Risker. Please do not modify it.
Who's George Ponderevo suppose to be? GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC) So basically you're commenting on something about which you know nothing at all, you simply saw the word "Malleus" and decided to agitate for a block/ban. No wonder George didn't want that target painted on his back. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Malleus, you have been publicly caught socking, and lucky enough to get away with it. Wouldn't it be a good idea to stop digging yourself deeper by trying to deny the obvious, and just go edit some articles or something? Robofish (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Just goes to show how little you know Robofish. When was the last time you edited an article BTW? Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I have & will continue to defend you (or anybody) concerning WP:CIVIL. However, socking is another matter with me. I prefer honest demons over lying angels. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Do you consider your behaviour here, agitating for me to be blocked/banned, is civil? Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC) If GP's your sock? then you should be blocked for it, unless Administrators 'no longer' do this to sock-users. So far, you've haven't answered my question, yet. Again, is GP your sock? GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I have discussed this matter with ArbCom, and I am most certainly not answerable to you. I don't know what your agenda is, but I can smell something fishy even from here. Is it perhaps your intention to inflame me into some injudicious choice of phrase that will in your mind justify your running to ANI to demand a civility block? Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I'd never drag you to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC) GoodDay, is there a problem you are trying to solve? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Indeed. I wish to know if Malleus & George are the same person/editor. If 'no'? then I can continue to trust Malleus & if 'yes' then I can't trust him in future. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Can't trust me to do what? Have your children? Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Honestly, I've never seen such determination to not answer a simple yes/no question. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Since when did I become answerable to you? Do you have any evidence that either Malleus or George, working together or separately, have ever done anything to damage Wikipedia? If you do then let's hear it, because ArbCom obviously don't. You'd be helping ArbCom out, and get them off the hook for their out of policy checkuser. And as I said, give me checkuser access for a day and I'll "prove" that you yourself are a sockpuppet, it won't be difficult. Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC) If you suspect me of having socks? then I encourage you to open an SPI on me. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I may not know the policy on undeclared sock accounts that well, so can't say that Malleus should be blocked just because he had a sock account. The Malleus and George accounts overlapped on 287 "pages" as shown here...so the only thing that matters is if Malleus was using George as a meatpuppet account (or vice-versa) to do something such as block evasion, vote stacking, content dispute, etc.--MONGO 04:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Another section rapidly spiraling out of control
The following discussion has been closed by Sven Manguard. Please do not modify it.
Ignore all dramas - If the dramas prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.Moxy (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe you might learn something by looking at the contribution histories of those posting here. "If the dramas prevent you ... ignore them"? What kind of nonsenses is that? Malleus Fatuorum 06:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I guess that went over your head - this editors should be contributing not dealing with this. Why people are still after you is puzzling.Moxy (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC) The last 50 edits from the people in this thread. User Mainspace Talk Wikipedia related User User talk A Quest For Knowledge 2 0 29 8 11 Nick-D 22 0 22 1 5 Malleus Fatuorum 3 0 41 0 6 Epipelagic 24 5 16 2 3 gwickwire 14 4 20 2 10 GoodDay 42 0 7 0 1 MLauba 4 1 26 0 19 Guerillero 19 5 8 8 10 MONGO 9 5 23 1 12 Moxy 5 1 42 0 2 --Guerillero | My Talk 06:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Do you understand what a "contribution" is Guerillero? To Wikipedia I mean, not to this poxy discussion? Let me give you a clue. I've made almost 85,000 edits to article pages, whereas you've made how many? A little over 3000 in four years? I've done more in a week than you've done in your entire time here. Malleus Fatuorum 06:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Please Malleus, please show some respect: Guerillero is an 'Administrator of the English Wikipedia' a project full of the world's finest knowledge; that means he's infinitely superior to you, a mere content typist, in every way possible way. Administrators have many strenuous duties; they aren't just here for the kudos and to boss people around because they're nonentities in real life.  Giano  17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC) He should be a little nicer, Guerillero has actually contributed some valuable content and not just on trivial pop-culture matters. As far as content work he actually outclasses several on the Committee, including the two who just resigned. Certainly he is not akin to either of you, but, unfortunately, not many are as capable or active when it comes to contributing content.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Crap. I could've had a perfect "0" for mainspace but I blew it. NE Ent 13:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Once the committee decided to make an announcement about their findings there were only two things they had to avoid doing to prevent causing a ruckus, to wit:

• Blocking the Malleus account
• Not blocking the Malleus account

This was a Kobayashi Maru (No win for non-geeks) situation for the committee. Had they not made an announcement of some sort, sooner or later it would have come out and they'd be accused of collusion, cover-up and non-transparency.

The purpose of dispute resolution is to avoid escalating conflict so folks can concentrate on editing the encyclopedia. It's unfortunate the overlaps between MF and GP were detected by either someone with an axe to grind or a "law and order" Wikipedian who doesn't grok that sometimes selective blindness is in the best interest of the project. What's done is done; as this is an ArbComNonBlock it'd be incredibly stupid to pursue that avenue any further. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Fighting an MF / civility war skirmish here will come to no good end. (See also Note on civility ) NE Ent 13:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

With that thought in mind, I have issued an appropriate barnstar at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Wikipedia:Arbs are people too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

GP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Gerda's POV on George Ponderevo) I checked my history and found that George Ponderevo silently copy-edited my articles at least since 2011. I am ashamed that I see that only now, I never thanked him. He wrote Little Moreton Hall, I translated it to German, it was liked on their Main page. He has been a blessing to the project, an awesome Wikipedian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a mistake in the lede of Andreas Scholl by GP which I corrected (I was at Glyndebourne in 1998 for Rodelinda: the WP article scarcely does justice to one of Handel's finest operas). I notice that MF has picked up editing Andreas Scholl where GP left off. Enough said. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Mathsci, not "enough". You cowardly wrote too much innuendo.

A recent discussion at Good-Articles noted that MF conducted 300 GA reviews; the next most was c. 20. MF has similar editing at FA articles. You would find that MF has continued working on articles by most repeated GA or FA participants who are not writing illiterate articles about Rihanna. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked him if he was willing to continue the interrupted work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the best thing to do. As I say, it would actually be nicer to find people to help improve the content in the core articles on baroque music, not just performers. (I resumed work on Orgelbüchlein.) Mathsci (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, what you said was that my helping Gerda out, at her request, with an article that GP had worked on, proves that GP and MF are the same person. Rather shameful of you to try and pretend otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not what I wrote. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed topic. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Term limits/rights restrictions?

Granted I may be talking out of turn here, what with my measly edit count, but I really like/use Wikipedia a lot; and I must also admit an unhealthy “from the sidelines” fascination with all the politics found in boards like this one, ANI, BLPN, RFA, etc. . (My homepage is set to open to the ANI board when I get online, for instance.) So I have been following all this rather closely, and I have two questions/suggestions:

1. Has a single term limit been considered for ARBCOM members?
2. What about term/rights limits for Admins, Check users, Stewards, etc.?

I don’t have so much of a problem with all the extra rights assigned to certain users, as I do with that they are often bundled together, and also the whole “once an admin, always an admin (unless you are desyesopped)” mentality. No. You should be given the privilege to have the “power” above a “regular” editor, ONCE, and for a designated amount of time. Once that time has passed, you can display a barnstar on your page, or whatever, reminiscing of your previously elevated status, but then must go back to contributing just like everyone else, and let others have a turn. This is just a suggestion. Ditch ∝ 03:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You may not have seen Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Arbcom members have to be voted each time if they want a second term. It is a fearly involved learning curve and historical knowledge is a Very Good Thing. That said, I am benefitting from some time away....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with that page...can you be more specific to the section you are referring to? "...have to be voted in each time" Response: Unless that wasn't an option...one and done, that's what I'm saying. Ditch ∝ 03:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree there should be a set term for admins, as there is for arbitrators. As for term LIMITS for arbitrators (especially a one-term limit), why? The community is capable of deciding whether to re-elect someone or not. Why take away that option? Neutron (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Ditch - it is good to see a new face on this page. I'm actually quite shocked to hear that you start your usual Wikipedia experience on ANI; I don't even read it on a regular basis, but to each his own. I do agree with Casliber that since arbitrators must go through a community election on a regular basis, it's fairly difficult to justify a term limit; our recently resigned member Coren ran four times and was elected on three occasions, for example, and the community made its decision each time. On the other hand, I do think that the community may be overloading the committee with a large number of people from a very small group (i.e., current and former arbitrators, functionaries, and admins who work extensively in arbitration enforcement - well under 100 people) while shutting out candidates who don't come from these groups; in the last two elections, only one of 15 elected arbitrators did not fall into that small group. I think that Arbcom can benefit from a more diverse range of voices; in the past, its diversity was one of its greatest strengths, but I don't think it could be called diverse today. The decisions on who gets elected aren't made by Arbcom, though; they're made by the community. Risker (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  The elections have been heavily influenced in the past by a few guide writers who get their guides promoted on the arbitration election pages. If this bit of corruption were eliminated, the elections might be more welcoming to a more diverse set of candidates. The election pages should not elevate the opinions of a select few to higher visibility. Jehochman ^Talk 11:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  When in doubt, reduce the amount of information available to the editors? I think not. Nor do I have any reason to suspect such opinions are "corrupt" in any way. And since anyone can create a guide, it is not a matter of a "select few" that I can see. IIRC, I supported proportional representation for the committee in past discussions - I agree that diversity of opinions is essential. But eliminating guides will not help that cause. Collect (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I think a single term approach for ARBs might be beneficial is because the motivation for making decisions, especially controversial ones, could be influenced by how it will effect one's chances for re-election, rather than the overall good of the project. Those two motivations are often at odds. Arbcom does not (or should not) have a set of constituents to please. They are the Supreme Court of en.wiki (except they are elected, rather than appointed). They are tasked and trusted through the election process to be the ones to make tough, often unpopular, choices, where all else has failed. But if an Arb feels he/she needs to maintain popularity in order to be re-elected in the future, perhaps they would avoid making unpopular decisions,or would tip-toe around controversial ones, rather than taking bold and decisive action beneficial to the project. I see a conflict of interest. Ditch ∝ 13:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Two things I often bear in mind:

One: it is easier to be voted in as a member of the Arbitration Committee than it is any other elected position on Wikipedia - as such it is difficult to think of Committee members as some kind of elite. Essentially, the Committee is composed of the least offensive of the small bunch of people who nominated themselves. Note the 2010 results, where there were 18 eligible nominations, and 12 of those were elected (66%), 3 with less than 60% of the vote. It is difficult to become an admin with less than 70% of the vote, and in that same year (2010) there were 231 RfAs, of which 75 were successful (32%). There were 6 nominations for bureaucrat in 2010, with 3 being elected (50%). Two candidates were rejected even though gaining over 100 votes each. There are some WikiProjects which have their own process of appointing directors or administrators which may not have democratic elections, and which may not have an established process of removing a director.

Two: the Committee is one of the few positions which does have fixed, limited terms. Difficult to see Committee members holding lasting power when compared to some other positions.

The Committee has fewer powers and less influence than some users think. And there has been a gradual move over the years to limit what power and influence it does have. The power it should retain - and only by community assent - is that Committee decisions should not be reversed or undermined unless by the Committee itself. A direct challenge through appropriate channels such as Clarification Requests is both appropriate and vital. But no user should either directly (by unilateral action) or indirectly (by agitating others to inappropriate action) subvert the Committee, otherwise we might as well close ArbCom down. Its purpose is to serve as final arbiter in disputes. That doesn't mean the decision will always be the right one. But it does mean an intractable and disruptive dispute is ended. Subverting the decision through inappropriate channels simply reactivates the dispute. So we need to preserve that privilege. But other privileges can and should be challenged and questioned. I am strongly in favour of splitting off various aspects of the Committee's roles into discrete units.

Other than appeals by ArbCom banned users, I do not see the value of ArbCom listening to block appeals. I think having a group of users to reconsider appeals that have already been rejected by the community, or where the user's talkpage is blocked, would be useful.

Emergency desysopping decisions could be handled by the 'crats far better than by ArbCom. The 'crats are closer to the admin process, have the power to do it themselves, and are elected via a more stringent process than the Committee.

Oversighting, privacy, legal and sexual matters, threats, etc, should be WMF concerns, and it really is time that is taken on board by the WMF and not left to the volunteers.

I'd like the Committee to deal solely with disputes. And to do that openly on Wikipedia, with no email list or ArbCom Wiki to retreat to. To enable that to happen, I'd like to see a stronger enforcement on removing users who hassle and cloud the process with insults and inappropriate remarks to participants including Committee members. Criticism is vital. Insults are not. Insults are simply counter-productive. Abusing ArbCom for being secretive is a sure way of keeping it secretive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on your point about the WMF taking up the more sensitive occurrences, such as oversight, sexual matters, threats etc. I've pondered this myself, and I wonder what others think about this idea? Would you (or others) have a problem with simply "taking the word" of WMF representatives if something was acted upon (oversighted, deleted, etc.)? I remember in the early days, Jimbo would sometimes act unilaterally in this way, but it became rather unpopular, and he ultimately handed these concerns over to the community, which is one reason we have the system we do now. Ditch ∝ 17:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I kind of stepped on Roger's post below...not sure why there wasn't an ec.

Oversighting, privacy, legal and sexual matters, threats, etc, should be WMF concerns - Yes, they should and I'd be delighted if the WMF took these over. I have made overtures but, if anything, their position against doing do has hardened rather than softened over the years. The WMF wishes to be the provider of technical infrastructure, with the component projects operating along the lines laid out in the Terms of Use.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the WMF hardening their position against this: It is true that when one assumes the role of a monitor, one also assumes liability if something goes wrong on your watch. The smart move, from a legal standpoint, is to do nothing. This is why hotels and health clubs often do not have security cameras in their pool areas. Not for privacy concerns, but because if someone were to drown, an argument could be made by a lawyer that someone should have been watching (not saying it makes sense, but this is lawyers we're talking about...it's what they do.) The solution? Remove the camera; remove reduce the potential liability. Ditch ∝ 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense from a legal perspective not to get involved at all, yes. But I wish arbcom would just declare itself not responsible on these matters, either, and force the WMF to act. The WMF is essentially dictating (quite sensible) rules about essential stuff (copyright, harassment, etc.) while simultaneously telling us that they're not going to act on these rules themselves, ever. It makes sense from a legal standpoint. From a non-legal standpoint, it's just bizarre. --Conti|✉ 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think it would force the WMF to act? And what about the people who get hurt in the interim?  Roger Davies ^talk 20:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was only half serious, since I see no real way to do this without hurting people in the interim, as you say. But I don't see the WMF just standing there and watching, either. It's a weird situation. --Conti|✉ 20:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with what SilkTork said about what roles the Committee should give up. As for the WMF's resistance, that's unfortunate and might be worth some community-based requests for reevaluation. In particular, there are things that ArbCom has had to do by default, that really ought to be handled by attorneys, and WMF should realize that, in the long term, it's every bit as much in WMF's best interests as it is in the best interests of the editing community (and shouldn't those interests be the same, anyway?) to have those things handled professionally by WMF Counsel, as opposed to by volunteer editors. To Ditch's question, I think (hope) the community would accept decisions by Counsel in ways we might not automatically accept decisions by other WMF employees. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree personally, but for the sake of continuing down the road of this discussion, when you start accepting WMF acting unilaterally in some situations, at what point to we lose the Wiki- in Wikipedia? I mean, yes, we are here with the purpose to build an encyclopedia...but am I crazy to think that the foundation of the Project was basically one big social experiment? Ditch ∝ 23:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as whole issue is discussed quietly in private, WMF can simply bury their head in sand and pretend that problem doesn't exist. On other hand, if community publicly gives them a simple deadline for taking over handling of such issues, they will have to accept it or they will have potentially massive PR disaster at their hands. I am sure Sue Gardner is thrilled about possibility of having to start explaining on interviews, why WMF with its 100+ employees and 40+ million dollar budget, has left child protection issues on small group of overworked volunteers who never signed up for this and are only doing it because nobody else does.--Staberinde (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Silktork's comparison of percentage support requirements for RFA, Crat and Arbcom, the percentage is not a meaningful comparison, partly because the voter criteria can be very different. There have been many RFAs which I've supported because I thought the candidate was ready to be an admin but where I wouldn't have supported the same candidate if they'd been standing for Crat or Arbcom. There have also been candidates that I've voted against for Arbcom but who I'd have been happy to see as, or continue as admins. Remember that in an RFA we are deciding if that particular candidate is ready to be an admin, in Arbcom elections we are deciding which of a group of candidates should get a limited number of posts on Arbcom. Some people will have sussed that if there are a couple of candidates who you strongly support then the most effective way to vote in Arbcom elections is to only support the candidates who you strongly support and to oppose the rest, I don't know how many people follow that voting tactic, but it obviously depresses average support levels. As for Jehochman's assertion that voterguides are somehow corrupt, I did a voter guide in 2010 and dispute that it was in any way corrupt, I didn't ask any of the candidates for any sort of reward for my endorsement and no candidate approached me with any offer of inducement to improve their standing in my voter guide. I'm familiar with a number of other editors who have written guides over the years and don't believe that any of the guide writers who I've come to know well were corrupt, as for the guide writer who I don't know, I'm inclined to AGF unless and until someone produces evidence of actual corruption. May I suggest that Jehochman either retract that allegation or provide evidence of corrupt practices. ϢereSpielChequers 23:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken that there are multiple differences between ArbCom and other votes, and these differences make comparison of minimum supports suspect. Regarding voter guides, I did not interpret Jehochman's comment re corruption as suggesting that all, or even any of the guide writers were corrupt, but that the practice of a small group of editors writing guides might lead to groupthink, even if not coordinated. I personally find the guides helpful, understand the potential for groupthink, so would be open to discussion on the issue. If my supposition is correct, wish Jehochman had used a less loaded term than "corrupt". If meant literally about specific individuals, as opposed to an unfortunate by-product of the process, it should either be supported with evidence or retracted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

break

• The call for lawyers to command the project is unimpressive. Not the least because, it's rather easy to call for something that someone else has to pay (quite a bit) for. User's should voluntarily follow the terms of use, as that is what they agree to, and that is the first line of enforcement. Sometimes they do not, so in order to function, we have voluntary policy and procedure to have that happen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's my fault, for having expressed the opinion that WMF Counsel should do more, that editors think there's a proposal here to "start accepting WMF acting unilaterally" (Ditch) or to have "lawyers to command the project" (Alanscottwalker), but those things were not my intent. I totally agree that there is no conceivable reason for Counsel to set policies about editing, etc. What I was trying to talk about was the situations where someone contacts the ArbCom mailing list about an editor who is underage and where there are sensitive issues, or where someone contacts the list about alleged violations of the meta privacy policy, stuff like that. Those things have nothing to do with arbitration, and have just fallen to ArbCom by default. Those things are better suited to being handled by professionals than by volunteers.

If WMF is resisting such roles, perhaps a better approach than having ArbCom ask them privately (or giving them a deadline and an ultimatum) would be for the community to have a policy RfC, once there is a well thought out proposal for what WMF should or should not do. I think that broad based community support would be more difficult for WMF to brush off. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those things do have to do with arbitration. Arbcom does not set policies regarding editing either, but they are the only ones empowered to make binding decisions regarding conduct. Either the Pedia takes control over doing most of it themselves on a voluntary basis (through something like Arbcom), or the WMF pays someone to do it, without elections, consensus conduct policy, etc. The TOU is the floor, of course, as that has been the practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Those things have to do with what ArbCom has historically done, but they rarely are outgrowths of requests for arbitration. I'd really like to see ArbCom focus solely on things that do arise from such requests for arbitration, where the community says there is a conflict that the community has been unable to resolve. Someone e-mailing ArbCom about a supposed underage editor, as in the leaked e-mails a year or so ago, is an entirely different situation. Many of the other ArbCom tasks should be delegated to other parts of the community (for example: checkusers or OTRS), but here I am talking about certain things that have nothing to do with resolving intractable community conflicts, but where people e-mail ArbCom because it's become the default "private" e-mail contact. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(E/C) The community is not able to resolve conflicts regarding the underage editor, or private personal information, etc., so that falls within your criteria of intractable things the community cannot resolve. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't, unless one simply plays with words. The reason that the community cannot solve those things is because the community does not see private correspondence, not because the community tried to deal with it and failed. ArbCom shouldn't be the only group of volunteers that can be contacted confidentially. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The community cannot see "those things;" it cannot do the technical investigations. The community cannot put those things together and discuss them. What is the point of having multiple groups getting "confidential" information? It only makes it less confidential. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, I don't mean that there should be some sort of open-wiki discussion of private material. I'm talking about a different group than ArbCom dealing with it, per below. If it's a single "different group", then there is no loss of confidentiality (in contrast to sending it to multiple groups, which I'm not advocating). And the point, ultimately, is having a less overburdened ArbCom, as well as having a more focused role for them, per the perennial complaints of them being both the prosecutors and the jury. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• TLDR version: Don't hold your breath waiting for the WMF to swoop in and take over this stuff.
• Long version These issues actually came up rather recently on the functionaries mailing list. What is expected in cases where it is believed that an actual child predator is active on WP is that anyone who has gathered evidence of such is asked to submit it to the WMF, who are more than willing to take action on it, up to and including contacting the relevant authorities. Other less urgent matters relating to privacy are handled by the functionaries and/or individual arbs. This is why we must all identify ourselves to the foundation and undergo a vetting process to insure we understand and will uphold the Foundation's privacy policy. If you want the WMF more involved than that you are going to need to find a lot of money to facilitate it.

A site like Facebook has something like 300 paid full time staff who work such issues 24/7. We have exactly two WMF staff who deal with privacy and child protection issues not only on WP but across all WMF projects. They don't have the time to do the legwork, and it's already too late to ask the FDC to deal with it this year, funding proposals were due some time ago and already in the review phase over at Meta.

So realistically nothing of the sort is going to happen for at least a year, and even then it would have to be a formal proposal submitted through proper channels at the foundation level, not just a local discussion here. As a non-profit foundation the WMF is not free to just spend donations willy-nilly on a whim, there is a process, and it is fairly complicated. If somebody actually wanted to see this happen they should probably start working on it now if they want to determine how many staff it would take, what their pay would be, where they would work out of, etc, in time to even submit a proposal for next year.

Until then you'll have to accept that it is in fact a team of unpaid volunteers that do this job, and generally do it so quietly and efficiently that nobody even notices. Suppressions are going on all day, every day, and I would estimate that less than 1% of it is even noticed by the community, let alone problematic. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That was very informative, thanks. In that case, I'll backtrack from what I said about needing professionals. But I still think that ArbCom are over-tasked. So who else is there in the volunteer community? Oversighters? OTRS? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I just checked, right at this moment there are 13 oversighters listed as currently online at OTRS, and only two items in the queue. And for the record the obversight OTRS queue is always the first place you should go with any priovacy related issue. We are usually able to handle it ourselves but we do sometimes kick things up to the committee or even the legal department if we don't think we can handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

OK then, we still know from things that some Arbs have said, and from what some of us saw in the leaked e-mails, that stuff that ought to be handled by the oversight OTRS queue ends up going instead to the ArbCom mailing list. Maybe the "first place you should go" needs to be better enforced, perhaps simply by ArbCom forwarding some e-mails instead of feeling that they have to deal with them tehmselves. And, seeing that you do sometimes send things to legal, it's unclear why ArbCom has such a hard time doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Tryptofish, if you wanted to have a major impact on our burden, coming up with a fair community process that would be the last resort for non-arbcom-related block/ban reviews would be the one. Most of the rest of this stuff takes very little time; I doubt the committee as a whole spent more than 30 hours on "child protection" issues last year, and a lot of the work was simply receiving reports of blocks done by administrators and logging them on the arbwiki. Oversight requests that don't get immediately actioned already go to the oversighters, OTRS-type requests are already referred to OTRS, and usually checkuser requests get dumped on checkusers. One more thing that concerns me is the "logging" of alt/cleanstart accounts. I'm not sure why anyone came up with that idea, that Arbcom should do it, because we certainly aren't watching those accounts. Risker (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I did suggest an AN review board (similar to deletion review or move review) a few months ago for that type of thing, but no interest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A couple of things. One is, I distinctly remember reading, in those leaked e-mails at that other website, a very lengthy exchange between you (Risker) and someone who pretended to be a little girl in a difficult situation, but who ultimately turned out to be a troll. I thought you handled it very well, but it's pretty clear to me that you personally spent many hours just on that, and it clearly was not in any way something that arose from a request for arbitration. But you are right to point out block/ban appeals, so thanks for drawing attention to that! I think there is probably wide agreement that ArbCom needs to be the body that deals with appeals of bans issued by ArbCom itself – otherwise you don't want to get into the situation of admins undoing ArbCom actions without ArbCom's permission, etc. But for anything not issued by ArbCom, ArbCom should not be hearing the appeals. If it's a community ban determined at WP:AN or a block issued by an admin, it should generally be redirected to WP:AN. When the party no longer has talk page access, there should be a way for them to e-mail someone, perhaps a dedicated OTRS queue, and trigger a discussion at AN. And yes, we should develop a new system for alt and clean start, perhaps growing out of the WP:SPI page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Tryptofish, but since we handled that one fairly decisively, we've not been bothered with similar situations. Word does get around, you know. ;-) And yes, I think sanctions issued by Arbcom (or at AE) have to come to Arbcom, but the overwhelming majority of unblock/unban requests are just your run-of-the-mill requests. If you can drag Mackensen out of his train articles for a wee bit, he might have a list of the past discussions to try and develop something like that. I really don't think the discussion should be at AN; it should be a group of people who otherwise don't review unblock requests onwiki or through any other process, so they come to it with clean hands and no preconceived ideas. I think, actually, it's a bit abusive to have a discussion at AN where everyone and their brother gets another kick at the can, and the blocked user can't even respond. Risker (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. AN is not the place for such independent review. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, I'm open to it not being AN, and I'm certainly open to letting the person requesting the unblock/unban get a word in edgewise. But there also ought to be a way to assess community sentiment, without opening the door to abuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember there was a proposal to expand BASC to have three non-arb members; did anything ever happen with that? --Rschen7754 23:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a similar committee with only non-arb members? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Arbitrators?

The question was answered and the commentary about the person who asked the question seems to be moving towards personal attacks. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't have any particular Arbitrator in mind, but was just wondering. Is it possible to strip an editor of his/her Arbitratorship? GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC) The process is outlined at WP:ARBPOL. Risker (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC) GoodDay were you born tiresome, or did something make you that way?  Giano  20:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Honestly Giano, what was the point of that question? If you're going to engage in such behavior you should at least do it on your victim's talk page. 174.226.65.157 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Errr, it was GoodDay's question not Giano's I presume you meant...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The question was dodged by directing the asker to a TLDR policy page. The answer is:

"Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators."

In other words arbitrators do not answer to the community, only to each other. Risker opposed a suggestion to make arbs accountable on the basis that she would always be "looking over her shoulder". In my opinion Arbitrators are the only people who should be always looking over their shoulder. Risker suggests that this is fine and dandy for regular editors, but unacceptable for exalted arbitrators. Rich Farmbrough, 04:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Rich, if you are referring to my belief that arbitrators should not have to tolerate constant harping from individuals dissatisfied by the outcome of arbcom cases in which they were sanctioned, you're kind of proving my point. Your case ended months ago, and you have not stopped harping about it since then. Risker (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Werieth (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder, this talkpage is for discussing Arbitration committee announcements. In the recent days, it has devolved into a free for all. If you wish to launch a debate on the Arbitration committee, please use the appropriate talkpage or start an RFC. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2013)

Original announcement

Something is wrong with our governance. ArbCom is going to appoint the people who are responsible to oversee the use of Checkuser and Oversight tools, including usage by arbitrators. This makes no sense whatsoever. It seems like the users of Checkuser and Oversight tools need to be a different set of people from the members of ArbCom. Separation of powers allows each side to check what the other is doing. When we have ArbCom appointing overseers, we can safely assume that those chosen will have no interest in curtailing any abuse by those doing the appointing. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

But it's always been thus; the corruption at the heart of Wikipedia's governance effectively stems from how the user rights are bundled, simple as that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is no reason you couldn't have a totally independent review body with the current bundling. Though it would still be in the position of reviewing its own member's use of the tools. (Even if they only use them to audit, you want to make sure they follow that rule) Monty₈₄₅ 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Remind me. How many members of this subcommittee are non-admins? Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There was one non-admin on AUSC in 2011. I would love to see more applications from non-admins. Risker (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That would mean giving people who had never been through any form of election access to private data. I thought the Foundation was opposed to that, and my recollection is that the community was also opposed to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A prospective Admin who has been on Wikipedia 5 minutes and has 392 gossipy little friends troop out of IRC to vote for him is hardly a reliable 'election process' proving trustworthiness - as we have learnt all too often.  Giano  19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Those individuals would never get past vetting, let alone community consultation. Risker (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a community consultation period for the community to express concerns about the individual candidate; remember, not everyone who sends in an application gets as far as the community consultation. The community might well identify that they do not feel a non-administrator is qualified for the role. You may wish to check with Philippe (WMF) to verify the WMF's position on non-administrator functionaries; however, there are non-admin oversighters and checkusers on other projects. Risker (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Other projects without an ArbCom elect their CUs and Oversighters following the Meta process that sets minimum number of votes and percentage of support. For small projects these requirements are significantly more demanding than their RFA process. A non-admin CU on one of these projects would have demonstrated greater community support than an admin. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There has been concern for several years that the ArbCom is seeking to do too much, and it keeps leading to problems. Most of the dispute-resolution that goes on on Wikipedia can be handled by editors, admins, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers and oversighters. We need the ArbCom to settle disputes that editors bring to the committee because other efforts have failed; it's meant to be a "court" of last resort. Because the committee is handling too much, other groups that would normally deal with things by themselves are being undermined, and don't try so hard to settle issues on their own. And the disputes that the committee was elected to handle take ages to get resolved because it's almost always busy with other things. For example, the committee should never really be involved in a sockpuppet issue, unless for some reason everyone else has tried but failed to resolve it.

So a request to the committee: please allow our various dispute-resolution processes to be handled by others, and wait until people bring a case before you get involved. It would also help a lot if you would make most of your decisions in public. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Amen, sister. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The bulk of the things Arbcom is doing seem to be outside its jurisdiction, at least as it was established. By now, we may have reached the point where the only recourse left is to dissolve the Committee and rebuild the entire governance system. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is within the jurisdiction of the Committee, though, and has always been. Under the global checkuser policy, this is Arbcom's responsibility (it's not even a "remit", it's a responsibility devolved from the WMF Board), until the community as a whole can come up with a process to manage appointments. So far the community has been unsuccessful in coming anywhere near consensus on the issue. Risker (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Or they could just focus on what they are supposed to do--hear cases--and say "no" to all the rest. Just pitch the extraneous stuff back at Jimmy and WMF. I am sure they can figure out how to handle all that craziness. We don't need any more resignations; much better for the remaining arbitrators to learn from recent mistakes and refocus. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Risker, here (I'm not the biggest fan of ArbCom, but I try to be a pragmatist rather than an idealist). With AUSC in particular, it's important to have competent, reliable, available people, and decision-making processes that rely on numbers of people (be it an election or a consensus-based process) don't always produce such a result. It is within ArbCom's gift to supervise the use of checkuser and oversight without any community input, so appointing community members to the AUSC is already a move towards greater transparency and separation of powers more than they are obliged to make. Addressing some of the other comments on this page, personally, I will believe many things of ArbCom, but that they are corrupt evil-doers who mean Wikipedia harm and who will appoint their cronies to hide their own abuses is not one of them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Related reading: User:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom and User talk:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are we appointing AUSC members for only two month terms? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We aren't. If you look closer, you will see that the term ends in June 2014. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry...just tired.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was expecting someone to ask why we had established a 14-month term this time. We have set the term to expire in June 2014 so that next year's committee has sufficient time to have a CheckUser/Oversighter appointment cycle before the AUSC election if it is needed; AUSC members can usually be persuaded to hold steady a bit longer, but significant shortages in CU and OS need to be addressed in a timely way or they can have a domino effect. Risker (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm curious to see what AUSC ends up looking like this year, with active functionaries being dissuaded by Arbcom motion from volunteering. Hopefully a wonderful group of "background" editors steps up to do the job. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement from the Foundation's legal team

After receiving a note about this from SlimVirgin on my user talk page, I took the question to our legal team, and have communicated this outcome to Risker (for the committee). In summary, the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process. While we certainly think the goal of involving non-admins in the oversight functions is laudable, and we support expanding the role of non-admins, this is one area in which we are forced to constrain that activity. We think that we have been consistent, for some time, in saying that we require an RFA or RFA-identical process for access to deleted revisions.

With that said, I personally erred in not noticing this earlier and in not putting an earlier stop to it. I wish I could explain how that happened, but I'm simply at a loss to understand how I missed such a clear connection between the statements that we (and I, personally) have made around this and the practice that I knew was going on. I want to thank you for pointing it out, SlimVirgin, because it's an opportunity for us to correct that mistake. I apologize to the committee and the community for not doing that earlier, and want to express my apologies to any non-admins who may have applied for this permission this time or in the future, when the Foundation really should have stepped in to prevent that. I hope that they will use their energies for another opportunity to help the project, and that they will understand and accept my apology. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)