I very much like the proposal to bring non-sensitive ArbCom discussions off of email and into public space. The current cast of ArbCom is not only extremely slow and timid about taking and expeditiously settling basic disputes (Muhammed pictures, etc.), they are secretive in their process. I also like the declaration that POV-Warrior disrupters will be whacked. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that almost all candidates almost all the time promise these things. There's always talk of "more transparency" blah blah blah and it never happens. And just wait till you get labeled a "POV-Warrior disrupter" and whacked yourself. Long term, the only people who don't get labeled as such at some point or another are only those who... don't actually contribute any content to the encyclopedia but instead use it as facebook or for other forms of fucking around. Banning obviously disruptive users isn't a problem, and is already done on regular basis. It's the hard cases where two people/groups mutually accuse each other of POV pushing that are hard to figure out - usually because they require substantial knowledge of the subject or at least a lot of work in becoming familiar with it; and Arbitrators aren't equipped for that (and maybe they shouldn't be), least of all those who don't actually edit articles themselves. Volunteer Marek 09:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@VM: I struggled to find any point in that comment that I don't find ridiculous, or exhaustingly cynical. AGK [•] 12:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might give you cynical (as in "distrustful of human nature and motives" and "reflecting a belief that human behavior is motivated primarily by self-interest (even more so of Wikipedians' nature and motives, and Wikipedians' self interest)) but any person who cares to look around the Wikipedia and has been around long enough to know how it works will probably come to the same conclusions. But ridiculous? Sorry, there's nothing ridiculous in what I said. I can point you to a dozen former candidates, many successfully elected who promised "transparency" and "more communication" and "completing cases in a timely manner" over the past four years and ... one would have to be daft to argue that any of these things have actually happened. Your reply says more about the nature of your candidacy than about my statement. Volunteer Marek 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, it seems to me you make a good point about the failure of candidates to effect meaningful reform. However, given that a few other candidates have also suggested making a public space for ArbCom discussion and that the committee tried to do this with its public mailing list motion (that failed for reasons other than general opposition to the concept of a public discussion venue), perhaps you may be disappointed this year! AGK [•] 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already am. But it's okay, the thing about being a pessimist (not a cynic) is that disappointment is "no big deal". Volunteer Marek 22:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea in theory, but in practice, nobody will want to dedicate their time to defining what's "non-sensitive" or parsing the archives for it. The only way we can achieve some transparency is if ALL of arbcom's discussions would be made public after X years (5? 10?). I doubt it will happen anytime soon, as with all organizations (governments, etc.), nobody wants such things public till they are dead. Officially, it's to protect one's privacy, unofficially - too much embarrassing material for one's enemies to pour through for out of context quotations and other tasty morsels. I doubt ArbCom is any different. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No faith
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35679&st=120&p=290211&mode=linear#entry290211 – I don't have any any faith in AGK's ability to settle behavioral disputes. He or she carelessly accused me of being a banned user and an abuser of anonymous accounts. AGK also fails to understand what that thread was discussing ("I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts"). AGK has deleted several revisions related to the Fae dispute, yet he or she admits to not knowing the full story. Should we elect a candidate who deletes revisions without question? Without knowing the full picture? Without understanding the concerns of the other side of the dispute? Should we really elect a candidate who doesn't do any research and who jumps to conclusions so quickly? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked with AGK on various projects, and have not been comfortable with his level of emotional maturity. I have found him to react very defensively when challenged, and I have strong concerns about his ability to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. I just don't think he would be a good arbitrator, and therefore, I must oppose.
Note: Yes, that's a WR link. AGK[•] 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a reason to not click on the link in order to examine the posts there? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. I'd had a past encounter with AGK and his behaviour related to an Israel/Palestine issue, and I was also aware of what seemed to me to be a concerningly determined tendency for hat-collecting. I'd pretty much disregarded all of that, on the assumption that everyone makes mistakes and Arbitration Enforcement is not the easiest of things to be involved with. But, his stoking the dispute on Pesky's talk page after another administrator had already issued the stark warning "What's going to happen here eventually is that the constant hounding of Pesky will cause the loss of a truly industrious contributor", rang huge alarm bells for me - especially after that is exactly what happened following AGK's involvement. That's what prompted my questions.
AGK's reply to those two questions on his candidacy page here really confirms that there is a problem; seemingly the discussion "may not be so important if she's stopped editing" (is this really how easily content contributors are trampled underfoot and thrown aside, in AGK's world?!?), and he "can't really remember the background" to his less-than-civil remark to me earlier this year. The picture that emerges is of an arbcom candidate that is very good at writing answers and explanations that work as sound-bites (for example criticising "administrators who enforce civility for civility's sake" in his reply to Rich Farmbrough), but at the same time likes to throw his weight around and doesn't care who gets squashed in the process.
Where does "I'm not sure where you learned to socialise, but" fit into any claim to be able to deal equitably with the most difficult of conduct disputes on Wikipedia, where it can be expected that people whose social backgrounds vary wildly might need equal treatment? Was this a hasty turn of phrase that was later regretted? No, I left allowance for that in my question, and seemingly AGK had no concerns with his original comment.
"I have the stomach to speak up and not be a yes-man" is very telling. There's little doubt that AGK will speak up, and will act against all manner of perceived problems, or perceived problem people. The question is, who will speak up for those people? How many of us actually read every single arbcom case all the way through, and make objections at an early stage that are read with care by those who might curb this sort of impetuosity? Any credible arbcom candidate must have better social skills than this, must have the maturity to deal with people properly, must not be the sort of person who joins in harassing behaviour without reading properly before they type their comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you are entitled to restate your concerns at your leisure, it might be more constructive to address my rebuttal to your question on my Q&A. AGK[•] 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your replies here; and in particular, what I find most concerning about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have either misunderstood or misrepresented my response to your question. For instance, much of the start of your comment here focusses on my comments, but when I said may not be so important if she's stopped editing, I meant that I place far more importance on the issue of retaining Pesky as a contributor and ensuring she is not distressed or angry at her treatment by BD, than on asking her not to refer to angry young men. Did you actually read my answer, or just cherry-pick some of my sentences for your follow-up here? AGK[•] 10:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I focus on is your behaviour, on two separate occasions, several months apart. You've said you don't think there was anything wrong with what you said on either occasion (my question also asked if you could've handled either situation differently). I happen to disagree, but that's my personal opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi,
This question is about a dubious case held by email, so I'm asking all candidates who were sitting arbs. My apologies for timing (see "small print").
I will state that you are the only arb I know of who is confirmed to have voiced strong objections on the matters below. But those objections stayed internal and amounted to nothing. If 14 senior colleagues agree to grossly breach norms or act in a way that does, and you know their proposal will be a severe breach, then merely speaking up in their dialog (however strongly) but then acceding, is no less a lapse. So though I do regret it and I appreciate your efforts to ensure fairness, I must ask you the same questions as your colleagues also standing.
Cases held by email or involving private information need special care since they lack public scrutiny. In a major email case this year any arbitrator applying basic due diligence would have spotted very serious errors. Instead you ultimately went along with the following lapses on your watch.
No proper case was presented although repeatedly requested, nor evidence backing defamatory claims.
The party received evasive and ultimately dishonest answers from Arbcom to inquiries.
No actual firm evidence that would stand the light of day existed on the discussed matters. You did not protest at the unsupported or unchecked claims, claims deliberately never specified or evidenced, or matters formally consulted, disclosed, and endorsed by arbs and equivalent, that can at best be seen as legitimate differences over approach.
The Committee tried to backtrack and break its word (or argued it hadn't agreed when it very explicitly had) - multiple arbs knew this.
The Committee did not act over non-neutral arbs with heavy involvement in the issue, later found not to have recused. (As came out afterwards.)
You did not openly protest at the refusal of fair hearing, nor at the tendentious way these were gamed - such as refusing for 6 months to provide details of defamation or any formal case, then claiming untruthfully they had been sent, finally then claiming the matter was closed so none needed to be provided, and other steps taken by the Committee to obstruct fair discussion.
You did not protest when your colleagues showed a gross breach of neutrality by revealing their eagerness and desire to find something actually wrong and their despair at being unable to do so.
You either didn't check "facts" in the case yourself, or protest at Committee emails that were grossly in error or "straw men". (Your colleagues didn't check basic facts much either.)
While you protested internally at some things, when the Committee engaged in strenuous bad faith and games and could not be persuaded to cease, you didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen.
We trust Arbitrators to make evidence-based and fairly considered decisions in private and check facts. If the Committee fails at this and abuses its trust we need arbs who will prevent it.
The lack of genuine case, evidence or reasonable discussion, and its replacement by unfounded defamatory claims, pretexts and assumptions, was a lapse to the point of causing you to express serious concerns. But beyond participating in internal argument, you were silent.
Details of example lapses
The Committee sent a proposed AC/N statement in December 2010 stating the Committee "has become aware" of some matters, worded as if to imply something hidden. This was grossly misleading since I had myself notified the Committee almost 2 weeks before, in accordance with usual standards, to check if the matter should be disclosed. The Committee's email - containing a 24 hour ultimatum - was delayed nearly 2 weeks then sent at 1 AM UTC on the Saturday of the one weekend I had specifically said I was unlikely to be able to receive or read email.
A second email in January 2011 (same matter) was also grossly in error. Its contents were blatantly contradicted on Arbcom's own records and agreements, to the extent that any diligent Arbitrator checking however briefly would notice. Again it seems no fact-check took place.
In January 2011 a blatant defamatory statement which I won't repeat here (same matter) was made in a Committee email. I asked the Committee to let me know specifics and evidence. The reply was a "straw man" giving no comment on the specific defamatory claim I asked about. I asked again, pointing out that an opinion of this defamatory kind needed to be evidenced; without details I could not respond. It was clear and specific as to the defamation being asked about, but the reply was again evasive as to my actual question. I asked a third time for details to back up the defamatory claim -- and was surprised now to be told it had been answered "repeatedly and at length", which was categorically untrue and the Committee knew it. So I pointed out that I had merely received emails answering questions I hadn't asked. The next reply appears to be a subtle coercive threat based on an assumption I would not wish details made public and stating an answer would only be provided - if I insisted - publicly. I ignored it and pointed out (5th attempt to get a reply) that if a reply had ever been written as claimed to my actual inquiry then anyone could cite a date it was sent or forward it, but the Committee would be unable to as none had been. Awkward silence fell. The Committee, and every Arbitrator on it knew the Committee's claim of having sent details backing the defamatory comments were untrue.
To a final request to back up the defamatory claim it had made over 6 months ago, the Committee's response was effectively dismissive, a one line statement that any defamation resulting from the Committee's statements or handling was not the Committee's problem. No explanation, case, or evidence backing any defamatory claim had been sent in all that time.
In the same issue as above, the record shows the underlying matter was legitimate and consulted, and considered by those in senior positions as being correctly consulted, handled, and endorsed. Names, cites and checkable details of those users were provided. At least one arb with close knowledge stated this as well. That should have been the end of the matter. It would have been on any neutral review of evidence. Several had placed their view on verifiable record, including a member of WMF staff. The Committee not only continued to maintain an impossible claim that the matter was a unilateral decision (against the evidence of many users of senior standing who had endorsed or been consulted) but also "circled wagons" around a sitting arb who had been involved, consulted, and had endorsed and "signed off" on the matter.
Specific tactics were apparently discussed to frustrate ongoing attempts to obtain a proper case statement or hearing.
In March 2011 an arb apparently stated "The trouble is that (the user) does deserve a hearing" - evidence that none had been given. (And why would giving a hearing be "trouble"?)
Similarly to cap it all, it seems that after most of the above, a sitting arb then commented that they would have "loved it" if there had been evidence of a specific wrongdoing. If accurate this makes clear that there was an eagerness to find some fault although in reality there was nothing but high quality conduct. No wrongdoing had ever existed - one does not express a wish for evidence to exist if it already exists. More seriously how can any arb be "neutral" who is expressing how they would "love" to find adverse evidence in their off-wiki communications? Other arbs had apparently also expressed such a wish.
Instead conjecture - mostly wrong - filled the gap. Grossly wrong assumptions were apparently made in secret and treated equivalent to evidence, but with no checking of their accuracy, and with no notification or opportunity to rebutt with good evidence.
Notes
Checkable details (dates, cites, etc) sent by email; I will gladly hear explanations off-wiki to avoid placing you in any privacy-related catch-22. Errors will be retracted a.s.a.p., though I expect none. I accept I can't know what you did internally, that's only one part of it. Ultimately you were not diligent, did not protest firmly, or acquiesced in allowing gross errors and clear abuse to go ahead. Facts stated can be unambiguously substantiated, mainly from Arbcom's own records. Straw men (ie arguing points I'm not actually raising, as happened in this case off-wiki) will be met with disclosure as needed to show accuracy of statements, and if needed, with Jimmy Wales' recommendation of public scrutiny of the matter such as RFC. Impersonal pronouns used at times to keep it neutral in tone. Defamations and underlying case specifics not posted to keep the focus on the issues of arbitrator responsibility which is what matters here. I apologize for the timing, which should have been earlier (I had hoped to have it done well in advance for 31 Oct).
That reflects poorly on your conduct as an arb in 2010 - 2011. It seems you can ultimately be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity. You are asserting that you can be trusted to hear cases conscientiously, neutrally, fairly, to a very high standard, and watch for the community over Arbitrator standards in non-public matters, for another two years, but these inevitably raise doubt.
There's no way for me to answer all this simply, and delving into a point-by-point debate isn't going to be useful for anyone reading this page; so I'll answer on the substance.
You screwed up. Over at least two specific major incidents – and no, the Orangemarlin case isn't even one of them of any significance. In both those cases, I have chosen to give the most generous interpretation for events. One because it seemed the simpler interpretation (misremembering the events around the oversighted edits during your election rather than being deceptive), and one because I knew the intent behind your act (the email you sent to a grossly misbehaving editor, which can (and has) been read as very serious threat directed at that person, which I knew was intended as a "last chance to come clean" opportunity).
Both of those incidents, even in isolation, look so bad and so damaging that the committee – as a body – felt that this made your position as an arbitrator untenable, and even your continued participation as functionary was viewed as highly uncomfortable.
I think the committee handled this very poorly at first; you were rather unceremoniously set aside with very little opportunity to defend yourself, although even I must admit that you were being more evasive than comfort would allow – I chalked this up to your usual care in crafting a detailed response before saying anything, but the vast majority of other arbitrators were not so generous in their interpretation of the delays. At that time, I felt you had gotten a bum rap, I was also one voice in a committee that functions by majority vote.
Things went downhill from there.
During the following two years, you have had numerous contacts with both the committee as a body and individual arbitrators. While it may have been understandable given you were under the impression that you had been unjustly treated, you personalized the dispute a great deal and came across as highly combative. During that period, you made a number of assertions to defend your prior actions that – in the end – either did not match or directly contradicted every bit of information we did have from the record or other parties. You know I cannot enumerate any of this here; but in the end even I was convinced that the evidence was so damning that there was no way you could possibly regain the trust of the committee.
I remain convinced that you never had any intent to deceive, and that the incidents themselves were errors rather than malice. I honestly wished that the way the committee chose to handle the matter (set you aside quietly, without raising a fuss and placing you on the stocks) would have allowed you to let the matter quietly drop while you set your efforts to other aspects of the projects. I still believe that things are nowhere near as bad as they look – but they look so bad that I also understand why the committee could not, and cannot, allow you to retain any kind of position of trust.
The issue on this page is the Committee's untruthfulness and dishonesty which led to the "combative" dispute (and it was combative both ways, arbs and ex-arbs are no strangers to "robust" dispute).
The first I heard was a completely unfounded claim by an arbitrator behind my back (CC'ed by mistake). I had to ask directly 3 or 4 times to get an admission of zero evidence and proving it was surely untrue to a neutral user wouldn't be hard. Things indeed went downhill from there. The case (such as it was) was fundamentally flawed - unless you want to start defrocking numerous other arbs and functionaries wincluding one of your colleagues and a WMF staffer at the time. There may have been legitimate robust disagreements or discussion, that was fine. Had they been fair that would have been fine. Gaming and fabrications are very not fine, and seeing all arbs go along with dishonest evasions was shocking. I am genuinely fearful for our community if that trend is not quickly halted and arbs are not made to take a hard look at what they did on their watch.
It was the switch to illegitimate games and outright dishonesty that should never have happened and that's what I am asking: - "why didn't you prevent it or speak up". You saw clearly dishonest statements made - yet your reaction is I should not have combated them when they happened? You saw a user defamed but he/she was out of line to ask repeatedly for a rationale for the defamation when each reply evaded, made threats, and asserted (as you categorically knew untruthfully) that it was already sent? I underline I'm not discussing my actions, but the dishonest and improper case handling, which was rightly protested many times and where the response was essentially "we can get away with it because we're many and have high standing" (as it appeared).
Specifics of poor handling are above. You have cites and dates by email to check them. A user who is sent untruthful information as a purported "case", then told they are "combative" for stating it's unfounded or has not been sent, will never feel they had fair handling. You didn't prevent flagrant Arbcom mistakes, and for blatant severe dishonesty like this "I was one of many" doesn't cut it. Though I'm sure that you sincerely wish it had been otherwise, you failed. You let dishonest case handling, and replies you knew were untruthful and were bound to be protested, happen on your watch.
I know you cannot discuss the detail here. The place to discuss it was by normal email, honestly and directly, 10 months ago when I asked, or 9 months ago when I asked, or 5 months ago when I asked.
Nonetheless if the Committee is sure then I would be fine seeing it at RFC, which was Jimbo's suggestion. It can only affect and reflect on myself and arbitrators, hence cannot harm others (other emails can easily be characterized or redacted) - and I'm sure enough of my ground to discuss having our dialog and the accuracy of your claim about the evidence both judged by the community, if the Committee is too.
Meantime I conclude noting the actual core issue, the evidence of Arbcom gaming, you don't speak to at all. Deceptions and dishonesty are ignored or not contested. "One of many" isn't an excuse. FT2(Talk | email) 23:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That turns out not to be the case.
Disappointing Coren. You were asked about poor Arbitrator conduct and scrutiny, so a few words explaining unambiguous Arbitrator lapses you knew of, or how you came to endorse or permit dishonest arbship in a non-public case would be helpful. "There is nothing more to say" [1] when you have in fact said nothing on the question and it relates to you endorsing dishonesty at a senior level, is... disappointing. Is that really your ethics? FT2(Talk | email) 05:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FT2's first (lengthy) post here doesn't even pretend to be a question. It should have been posted on the talkpage. And, as I just mentioned on Jclemens's questions page, casting further accusations in the form of rhetorical questions ("Is that really your ethics?") doesn't make them real questions, either. I'm not going to say this on all the questions pages you have posted this stuff on, FT2, but please have the grace to move all of it to the appropriate talkpages. The candidate questions pages are for questions; avoid swamping them, please. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I have moved this thread to the discussion page, further discussion on this topic will likely breach privacy policy.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you decided to resign from adminship, but typicly these reasons are either work load or burnout. When it comes to ArbCom, we definitely want to be sure that they can handle the workload, as well as not "burn out" in the middle of your term. Is there anything you can say that can help give us this confidence in you? עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I am still contributing. I've had a few things to learn these past few months in the ways of life skills with a new environment, but coming around in the new year, I will have learned those skills being through everything once, ready to contribute at a normal level. Also please understand not all of my actions are visible, some of them backend with smaller projects like unblock-en-l and mail list moderation, even though that doesn't bring my contributions back up to the same level for this month. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, DQ has indeed done incredible amounts of work on unblock-en-l, at some points carrying almost the entire workload himself, though lately the load has been more spread out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to specific concerns raised by a couple of Voting guides, I have made statements expanding on what is included in the candidate statement and questions. See User talk:Elonka/ACE2011 and User talk:GRuban/ACE2011. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick disclaimer here regarding my availability during these elections; while I realize it's rather unavoidable in order to keep to the January 1st inauguration timeline, the schedule of these elections is really stunningly awful for those of us in the US. I'll be away from home all next week due to the US Thanksgiving day holiday, and am working overtime all this week in order to make sure that I can do so without getting fired. Furthermore, my phone evidently also wants to go on holiday and as a result completely stopped functioning this evening, so I no longer have access to email throughout daylight hours. I will do my utmost to answer all questions as soon as I can, but as some of these do take some reading time, it will be a little while for some. Sorry for any inconvenience. Hersfold(t/a/c) 02:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support
I support Hersfold in his candidature; very trustworthy and helpful person. I encourage you to support him! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see on your block log that you had a recent block over personal attacks. This seems to me like an absolute disqualification for being an ArbCom member. What do you say about this? עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say a block shouldn't be a disqualifier, obviously. But seeing as I was blocked simply for swearing, I'd say there are a lot worse things I could've done that actually hurt the project (socking, edit warring, vandalism, etc.). Hot Stoptalk-contribs 12:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I do believe that there is a statute of limitations on this, the block is too recent for that to count for the current elections. I believe that Arbs should be above the normal standard. Even mild NPA issues, not strong enough for a block, are problematic. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the the official eligibility rule for a candidate requires that they not currently be blocked. While individual voters can adopt their own standards for candidates, a recent block does not officially disqualify a candidate. Monty845 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to imagine that a lot of editors have standards so low that they would seriously consider an Arbcom candidate who joined the project on 11 April 2011, has a total edit count of less than 1000 (including 70 in article space), was recently blocked for this and then purged his talk page immediately afterwards without leaving any conveniently accessible archive behind. Hans Adler 14:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hans Adler. I don't know what "this" means. I looked at the diff and could not tell. Please elucidate, if possible. Thank you! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link is to a diff where he removed a warning on his talk page and used the edit summary "fuck off". Whether such a reaction is block-worthy actually depends on the context. In this case it was as follows: An IP editor added what looks to me like a completely irrelevant piece of trivia to a BLP article. [2] (Although this may just be my European bias.) Dp76764 removed it with edit summary "no source, plus this is a minor appearance". [3] Hot Stop restored it without edit summary. [4] SudoGhost removed it again, with edit summary "Unsourced. Needs reference per WP:V." , SudoGhost left the warning in question on Hot Stop's talk page. Very soon after removing the warning, Hot Stop added the text again, this time with a source [5] and the edit summary "in the time it took u to undo my last edit, you could've googled it".
Most likely, Hot Stop knew that the factoid was true and was sure he would find a source, and reverted it back in with the intent to locate and add one, then got into an edit conflict with SudoGhost reverting him, saw the orange bar before posting the source, angrily removed the warning and finally came to the edit he had meant to do all the time.
In my opinion, Hot Stop can't be blamed alone for what went wrong here, and the block was arguably an overreaction. But this was precisely the kind of needless escalations that editors should have left behind them a long time before they run for Arbcom. As arbitrators we need editors who can analyse such situations correctly rather than editors who cause them. Hans Adler 22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, Mr. or Ms. Hot Stop used "fuck off" in an Edit Summary? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's Mister. And his timeline's slightly off, I sourced it [6] before the warning was slapped on my page [7] (all told it was about five minutes between SG's revert and his warning on my page). Hot Stoptalk-contribs 04:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. More precisely, he used "fuck off" in an edit summary because he was angry about a formally justified warning against edit warring an unsourced BLP claim into an article. Hans Adler 07:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, although exceedingly minor, I'll refer those of you with an interest in this matter to a dialog that Hot Stop had with me this morning, on another editor's Talk page, on a topic that was tangential to the main topic I had addressed to that editor, on that editor's Talk page. The discussion is here: User_talk:Pats1#NFL_staff_templates. The minor item was to accuse me of "nitpicking" in an edit summary, a borderline case of not assuming good faith. I am not offended by it, and it would be no issue in general, but if Hot Stop has put himself forward for ArbComm, perhaps it is relevant to those of you who are studying the issue of his temperament and qualifications. Perhaps not. YMMV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Partly in response to Hans' concerns I set-up an archive with (hopefully) all past discussions. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 13:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's an intriguing thread on Jclemens's talk page right now regarding his attitude towards the responsibility of individual editors, and the project as a whole, towards copyright violations (originally in the context of relatively recent de-PRODding of at least two articles later established to be largely blatant copyvios, but evolving into a general discussion of the attitude editors should take towards potential copyright violations in articles). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are getting at in the context of this election. Can you elucidate? Are you for him/her or against him/her? Thank you! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the "intriguing thread". It amounts to Chris Cunningham implying a failure of Jclemens to remove copyright violation from Wikipedia and Jclemens defending himself adequately. Fartherred (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is "inside baseball" stuff. How does it help to decide whether or not to vote for this person? Hm? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chris has a legitimate difference of opinion with what I believe the responsibilities of various folks in deletion discussions are and should be. We all are agreed that copyright violation is bad, just not necessarily over who is primarily responsible for searching it out and eliminating it. I think he's approached the topic in a fair and straightforward manner, articulated the difference of opinion politely, and brought it up here in a manner consistent with him believing it has a legitimate bearing on my fitness to serve. Since ArbCom doesn't make policy and current editorial guidelines don't support his desired new obligation, I don't tend to agree... but Chris did not twist my words or misconstrue anything I said, unlike certain other objections posted here. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suitability
Jclemens' handling of the abortion case as the principal drafter has been disappointing. Various aspects of the case were misjudged, starting with an unprecedented approach to gathering evidence, which on the one hand was not open to scrutiny and on the other hand ineffective. This resulted in the case being needlessly prolonged and did not seem to help in analysing the underlying problems that precipitated the case, admittedly not an easy one. In these circumstances it is not clear how wise it would be to choose Jclemens to continue for a further year or more as an arbitrator. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm...what do you mean about the gathering of evidence? Colour me confused..... Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, Jclemens felt overwhelmed by the volume of talk page archives involved in the abortion case. On his talk page, while discussing another matter, Jclemens asked Captain Occam and his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, both under ArbCom sanctions, to help him gather diffs. None of the evidence they provided one week later has been publicly viewable. Diffs singling out MastCell, who had previously blocked Ferahgo the Assassin under WP:AE, were later added by Jclemens to the workshop page. I am not aware that Jclemens has passed on the emails of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam to the rest of ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And so you think that the absence of sanctions my draft proposed on MastCell stems from... what? No sanctions were posted for MastCell because, in summary, he didn't deserve any. Review the workshop to see the interplay. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the workshop page, MastCell pointed out that you had overlooked an email that he had previously sent to ArbCom. You corrected yourself, but it was a misjudgement posting a section on MastCell in the first place. Evidence placeholders were later added for multiple other editors on the workshop page which remained unfilled; that is what I meant by an "ineffective" approach to gathering evidence. As you say, presumably after private interchanges between arbitrators, the case has almost been concluded, but that was not my point. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, why on earth is it relevant here that I was sanctioned in the R&I case 15 months ago, or what kind of personal relationship Ferahgo and I have? Even after ArbCom asked you to stop harping on things like this, you still seem to be taking any excuse you can find to bring me up, or tar other editors for their purported associations with me. It was bad enough when you were accusing other newish editors of being my sockpuppets, but now I’m seeing essentially the same attitude being directed at a member of ArbCom. I really hope you aren’t hoping you’ll be able to hurt Jclemens’ chance at re-election with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that all that's bothering you? MastCell exercised poor judgment in deleting material from the case pages that was directed at him--as in, was accusing him of actionable misdeeds related to the case. It was from an IP address, presumably a banned editor with an axe to grind, and nothing ended up coming of it. Still, patrolling the case pages for such disruptive additions is the job of non-recused clerks, and the right of uninvolved editors, but not the job of parties to a case. As you note, once I posted a candidate finding on the workshop page, MastCell pointed out that he'd notified the committee about the problem earlier, a message I'd not seen, and I agreed that it did not merit a finding. Nothing anyone else did had any bearing on that: MastCell earned himself the scrutiny by reverting someone else's material accusing him on a case page where he himself was a party. Honestly, him doing that caused me to spend more time looking at it than I otherwise would have. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My views are expressed in my first statement; others have made similar comments elsewhere. It appears that the majority of MastCell's proposals on the workshop page were adopted in the final decision: his contributions to the case were a net positive. The last message [8] of the banned user 71.3.234.41 (talk·contribs·WHOIS)[9] underlines why the possibility of long term semi-protection will probably be part of the final decision. Disruption by agenda-driven IPs cannot be blamed on MastCell.
I'm not sure whether it's worth discussing this any further. From the outset I should have probably prefaced my remarks here with the statement that I consider you an excellent administrator and checkuser. As one of many examples, you have been extremely helpful in issues concerning sockpuppetry in Seventh-day Adventist articles. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words on that score. If not retained as an arb, I will have more time to devote to those functionary roles, which I see as a pretty critical skills gap for the project as a whole. (CU+OS+OTRS+time = ability to untangle some truly nasty BLP messes) Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's probably referring to me asking other editors, including at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute, who were not involved in the abortion case to review publicly-available talk page diffs and pick out ones they found the most egregiously uncivil, which I then reviewed and incorporated as appropriate. It was really such a successful experiment that I'd recommend that the committee employ uninvolved yet experienced editors as "investigators" to help sort out large mountains of public evidence in complex cases. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"..at least one with whom he'd previously been in a dispute" — that's what I call a snide remark. Was Captain Occam one of the users you asked? He may or may not have been in a dispute with Mathsci, I wouldn't know about that; I believe he has been in a dispute or disputes with many editors, and his grudge against Orangemarlin is evident in this recent thread, which he started. I hope it won't drag on any longer. I'm finding the discussion between you and myself in the same thread quite disappointing (not saying that's all your fault, but you're the one standing for election). To explain briefly to readers here: it's a discussion about Orangemarlin, who has been seriously ill and is apparently now just of hospital. OM posted a little wave on his own page on 18 November, which has prompted both Captain Occam and Jclemens to insist that OM is now "back", therefore perfectly capable of entering a defense on the Abortion case soonest, therefore it's perfectly fine to treat him just like the editors who have been able to defend themselves during the case. I think there's an animus against OM leaking from the words of them both. In Jc's posts there's also, again in my opinion, a hostility towards those fellow arbs who he considers "soft on incivility"; see e. g. the rudeness to John Vandenberg here, gratuitously referring to him as a "lame duck" in a reply to (ostensibly) me. Anyway, the Wiktionary definition of "lame duck" is here, and Jc's non-apology apology for using it is here. The ostensible reply didn't engage with my own main point (that the state of having "returned to editing" after serious illness is not on a yes/no toggle; see how OM hasn't edited again since the 18?), confidently stating instead that "none of that matters". Later there are some personal remarks about the toxic effects of the way people like me talk. I would like to think this is not a typical display, and that Jc was merely unusually annoyed by my remarks, having already been stirred up by disagreement with some fellow arbs. On the other hand, if people aren't at their nicest when they're running for office, when will they be? Bishonen | talk 01:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You know, I'm wondering how many different venues and ways I'll have to say this: OM's return or lack thereof is entirely tangential to my position, which is that his actions speak for themselves, and his input is welcome but non-essential. All his self-declared return does is remove the excuse that other arbs have taken to duck the civility issue.... that is, unless they move the goalposts and say that his return isn't a return.
I can't say that I blame them. I've had more hate directed at me for doing the right thing here than in any other part of my Wikipedia career. And no, Bish, I'm not playing things down or up just because it's election season. I'm a WYSIWYG arb: I stand up for what's best for the project, even when it's unpopular, no matter what the season. Of course, I also make statements that get misunderstood, misinterpreted, or taken out of context, just like I do the rest of the year. For example, I referenced Lame duck (politics), and yet you chose to reference wikt:lame duck without mentioning the difference between the two. Why would you partially and negatively summarize a conversation like that? Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that others too may be "standing up for what's best for the project" from their perspective. More importantly, in a collaborative project such as this it's not good for disagreement -- even vigorous disagreement -- to be internalized and regarded as "hate." It will chew up your insides. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Always good advice, thanks. I don't have a problem with folks disagreeing with me, at all. Happens every day around here. This election season has seen far more folks assuming the worst in my past actions than I was subjected to last time around, which I'm at a loss to explain, since I was running for the same office last year. It'd be entirely understandable to be opposed based on the positions I actually hold and the things I do, in fact, stand for, but aside from a couple of guide writers, that hasn't really happened yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. As far as Mathsci's point, I certainly do not think the Arbitration committee should adopt the adversarial approach towards adjudication where the judges actively ignore evidence which one of the two sides does not present. This can lead to absurd results and encourages laziness rather than active participation. And if Jclemens somehow seemed to encourage the collection of evidence by other people, I don't see the problem - even if the people have a bias. After all, any individuals are free to present evidence. Evidence-gathering is not a fear for innocent edotirs. As far as the Orangemarlin controversy brought up by Bishonen: MastCell I have lot of respect for, and I think most people who are really into Wikipedia realize that MastCell is one of the most highly respected users around. Unfortunately in my experience MastCell has never spoken up to say that what Orangemarlin does is wrong. This is a pretty sad fact. More time and emotion has been wasted on Orangemarlin's misbehavior than probably any other user in this encyclopedia. Enough is enough. It really does not matter that Orangemarlin has been sick, because, as I doubt anyone who has interacted with Orangemarlin at length will deny, his uncivil behavior has gone on for a long, long, time. Orangemarlin really does not seem to give a fuck. And that is really not acceptable. It's been said before, at ArbCom, and it needs to be said again, firmly. II | (t - c) 12:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell commented on Orangemarlin's incivility on the workshop page [10] and the PD talk page [11]. Mathsci (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens is unfit to serve on the Arbitration Committee
I have had concerns about Jclemens' temperament and attitude towards transparency for some time. I asked a series of questions about a pair of incidents I observed during his tenure that I felt illustrated these concerns. Please refer to my section on his candidacy's question page for details and diffs.[12] I found his answers to be evasive and largely unsatisfactory. In short, Jclemens:
Believes that the expectation of accountability that all admins are subject to does not apply to arbitrators, and that arbitrators may ignore good-faith questions for any reason or no reason at all.
Refuses to clarify why he insists on private interaction by email rather than on-wiki discussion for topics of public interest that do not involve confidential information. This has grave implications for the transparency and accountability of arbitration.
Implied that editors who asked neutral, good faith questions regarding his vote on a Climate Change amendment were conspiring together - and thus were unworthy of an assumption of good faith - and that these editors have social interaction problems that stem from their poor upbringing, or even Asperger's syndrome.
Insists on civility from other editors but does not hold himself to the same standard.
At the moment, he is pushing for harsh sanctions for the civility of an editor who has been unable to participate in the Abortion case due to extremely serious health problems, and has hinted that this editor's illness may be feigned to avoid sanctions.[13] The rest of the committee has unanimously rejected this call for sanctions.[14]
Solicits topic-banned editors to dig up one-sided evidence on editors they dislike, and to forward it to him by email rather than to post it publicly on the case's evidence page. Jclemens later described this "experiment" as a success, and said that he will repeat it in the future.
Insults his fellow arbitrators when they disagree with him, and asserts they are "soft on incivility".
I understand that difficult arbitration cases can drag on for long periods - however, as the drafting arbitrator, Jclemens' stewardship of the Abortion case has resulted in a nearly 5 month delay. I note that this is the only case on which Jclemens has been the drafting arbitrator. This is a relatively straightforward case with abundant and clear-cut examples of poor behavior, yet the main point of disagreement and delay seems to have been Jclemens' desire to persecute a seriously ill editor with sanctions that are punitive rather than preventative.
To summarize, Jclemens does not answer good-faith questions, assumes bad faith, attempts to write off polite reminders as symptoms of mental disability, does not hold himself to the same standards he demands from others, places no value in transparent decision-making, and ignores humanitarian concerns like serious illnesses among parties to cases. I therefore urge the community to vote oppose on Jclemens. Skinwalker (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm impressed: You've managed to write an oppose in which not a single one of the bullet points is accurate. As an editor, admin, and arb, I've never claimed perfection, but one of the things that's mystified me about this whole process is that I'm not being taken to task for anything I've actually done wrong, but imagined crimes. In fact, not only are all of these incorrect, most of them are demonstrably incorrect, and have already been answered in one form or another during this election process. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the opportunity to correct any misconceptions I have about your conduct as an arbitrator, and you responded with evasive and lawyerly answers that hinged on rhetorical points of order and ignored the substantive spirit of my questions. At this point, it's not worth pursuing any further. You can have the last word. Skinwalker (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I recommend that everyone try to consider assertions which lack evidence as evidence against the accuser, rather than as evidence against the accused. People should be ashamed about such things and consider it a very black mark in their future in this community. See response below.II | (t - c) 11:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read my section on the questions page, you'll see that I provided evidence in the form of diffs for each of the topics I described above. Further up this very page is a discussion of the Orangemarlin issue, also with numerous diffs. Whether or not you agree with my interpretation of these diffs is your prerogative. I have nothing to be ashamed of - in fact, I believe that confronting abusive governance is a necessary and healthy aspect of the project. As for my future with Wikipedia, I don't particularly care. I have a vanishingly small amount of time to contribute, and at any rate I am very disillusioned with the administrative and governing aspects of the project. As I said above, I don't feel like pushing this any further, and the voters can now decide on Jclemens' suitability for re-election. Skinwalker (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no obligation to be factual? Your responsibility is only to post Have you stopped beating your wife? questions, and then berate me for whichever answer I choose, or for evasion if I dodge the trap? I agree, that's your prerogative... but it's a shame. Take, for example the assertion that I invited anyone "to dig up one-sided evidence on editors they dislike"; that is entirely not true: I didn't ask for and never received any one-sided evidence. If your response is to assert that the other portion of the question (that one of the editors was topic banned from an unrelated area) is still sufficient cause for concern, then that NIGYYSOB attitude reflects more poorly on you and the nature of your questions than it does on me. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it looks like I skipped over the diffs presented on the questions page - I apologize, Skinwalker. As far as the above I do agree with Skinwalker that the handling of that question from TenOfAllTrades about WMC's sanctions being lifted wasn't very good, and the responses which (eventually) include lying accusations and thoughts on upbringing basically seem uncivil, and it appears that these comments are the basis for many of the comments. In my upbringing, my questions were always answered, even if it is a simple no. The wording by Skinwalker above exaggerates the issues, but it's nonetheless troubling. My interest in this discussion was provoked mainly by things which I have some experience in, and the idea that holding Orangemarlin accountable for behavior was a bad thing - and I'm not nearly as familiar with recent politics or Jclemens. If one is going to take a strict line towards civility and treating fellow editors with basic respect, it's important to not brush into the civility grey area. II | (t - c) 20:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why I should be retained
The level of negative campaigning against me this election has far exceeded last year, quite possibly because those opposed to my values and stances didn't actually envision that I'd win a seat last year. Interestingly enough, the opposition is not particularly based on positions I actually hold. In order to give folks a decent reason to decide on my candidacy, here's my take on what I accomplished this year:
Advocated taking unpopular disputes that came to the committee's attention. I did not oppose accepting any case that we opened, demonstrating my willingness to take on the tough questions.
Pushed for sanctions on users who've flagrantly, serially, and unrepentantly violated civility standards, even when others are making excuses for them.
Opposed relaxing sanctions on users who failed to demonstrate learning from their sanctions.
Politely but firmly held to my positions in the face of opposition from within the committee, yet been willing to compromise on outcomes and sanctions to achieve the greatest good for the project.
Balanced concerns between belief-based and evidence-based worldviews in my decisions, while demonstrating how existing conduct expectations can apply fairly to all.
Proactively recused myself (or offered to) with respect to users and topics with which I'd personally been even tangentially involved.
Continued to participate in AfDs and DRVs, as a voice of moderation and pushing for ways to retain worthy content by merging or otherwise reconstructing defective articles.
Continued to help improve content, working to take some relatively good existing articles to GA despite the unpredictability of time to do so.
Failed to overreact at the mailing list leaks, advocating a measured response. More importantly, I had nothing particularly to apologize for in the leaked material.
Stood up for the appropriateness of private deliberations, and held to the necessity of keeping email correspondence private, even when one user was actively lying about the contents of our correspondence in an attempt to publicly discredit ArbCom.
Worked behind-the-scenes at OTRS, seeing and interacting with a whole different side of project support that is not seen on-wiki.
Talked about my learnings from, rather than providing excuses for, the delay in the Abortion decision. Rather than blaming others for the parts of the delay for which I was not responsible, I've accepted my responsibility to drive the decision, and my own failings in doing so.
Taken on the Checkuser and Oversight tools and learned their intricacies (well, Checkuser is complex, Oversight is not) by supporting the non-Arb functionaries in their roles.
Never gone inactive on the committee, despite multiple periods of extremely high non-wiki time obligations, like working 60+ hour weeks.
Overall, I've learned much from this year on the committee, such that I'm a much better candidate this year than last, and far better able to discharge the duties of the office than any of the newcomers, no matter how well-intentioned and enthusiastic they are. Likewise, having an insider's view of how the Arbitration Committee actually works, I won't promise things that neither I nor any individual arb can deliver. Despite these improvements, the people whom I've offended by doing the best thing for the project don't seem to agree, and a number of them have publicly opposed my re-election. That's their right, of course, but it's my hope that the electorate will see through the half-truths and actually examine my record for themselves. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens seems like the precisely right person for this job - a skeptical inquirer looking to do what is right rather than what is popular. While it may seem contradictory for me to express support fot the above comments, which lack diffs (and cannot be summarized by single diffs), I think that angry accusations, especially very specific ones, deserve a different sort of consideration than defensive summaries. I hope that Wikipedia members, who are by and large are dedicated and insightful, will be able to see through emotion and see that an independent thinker is important in the Arbritration committee, as such thinkers have been throughout insitutions in human history, despite the difficulties such individuals face. Wikipedia faces a very big problem in its stark unfriendliness and lack of teamwork. Civility is important. It is important to enforce rules. And Orangemarlin is not, regardless of what anyone says, essential to the project. I'm not an enemy of Orangemarlin; we got along OK even if we don't agree entirely (see diff or or two for example). Orangemarlin is basically a very crotchety old man who can cause a lot of distracting, damaging personal attacks. I don't think he would deny it, and I don't think he's unjustified in being irritable. Wikipedia does have a lot of pseudoscience. The internet has a lot of pseudoscience. It's frustrating. But that doesn't excuse a lack of decent behavior. II | (t - c) 12:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my fellow Wikipedians:
I also endorse JClemens, despite my having disagreements with some of his initial statements on mathematical/vital issues. His statement above is fair and accurate: He does sometimes state "outlier" positions, which help to provoke more thoughtful decisions (reducing groupthink).
JClemens has proved that he will do an honest job and take due care in assessing evidence and discussing issues with an aim towards the good of Wikipedia and the parties to the conflict, rather than in an adversarial or partisan manner. This shows intellect, character, and true grit.
I am afraid that the community will over-react to the shameful theft and promotion of confidential correspondence that we have no business reading.
There is no evidence that any "fresh blood" would have behaved better this past year, either. Where are the new candidates that have voluntarily published all of their emails?
On the contrary, we see abundant evidence that many of the new candidates have difficulty reading and negligible experience writing quality articles. My fellow Wikipedians, you should express anger at ArbCom members publicly and intelligently, if you must, but not by saddling ArbCom with immature editors with little experience, little evidence of sustained effort at accomplishing goals, and frankly of dubious intellectual maturity. How many of the new candidates can you imagine reading through the Global Warming case or the Monty Hall problem case, honestly?
Jclemens would be an ideal Arbitrator in an ideal ArbCom system that I have in mind, one that actually gets to the bottom of a dispute. But ArbCom as it exists today, typically doesn't do this. But then the problem is that Jclemens will still take some previous ArbCom ruling as having arrived at after meticulous investigations. This explains his stance on William's request for the CC topic ban to be lifted. Even without Jclemens this is a problem, as I experienced, so let's not make this problem any worse than it already is. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made (then later apologised for) a number of critical remarks posted on Jclemens page. They were of course made in the heat of the moment. They were not directed at him personally, or any other Arbitrators. If I might be permitted to comment without breaching a topic ban. I do not know the ins and outs of what goes on here, perhaps just as well. I have only just over a year of experience, and I don't intend to waste my time digging into a lot of old discussions to find out who has had fallings out with whom and what they were over (perhaps that is a obsession with some, but I don't intend to go down that road myself). Old discussions over content are a different matter.
Given the scope of the Abortion Arb., and the number of editors it involved, it was a complex case (and perhaps one of the most difficult) and I don't think by itself it should be taken as an example of ability. I have rather more issues with the current process (I'd prefer three drafting arbitrators one selected by each side, and the third selected by the two arbitrators chosen. Also some checks on those involved to prevent them from acting like prosecutors). As it was I was only made aware of the abortion arbitration (which has resulted in a topic ban for myself) after it had been going for some time. Though I have no doubt my talk page etiquete was remiss at points and that some duration of block or ban was warranted in my case. I think given the long drawn out debates on that article, there was a considerable amount of discussion to review, and I'd be surprised if any arbitrator found that easy.DMSBel (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the incivil behaviour, and very poor example set by one editor, Jclemens is not I believe responsible for a lack of support for his proposed remedy in regard to that behaviour. Benefit to the project and popularity have nothing to do with each other, the one is not measurable in relation to the other. DMSBel (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply for Bishonen
[Copied from questions page, hence the confusing mention of "this page".] Casting accusations in the form of rhetorical questions doesn't make them actual questions, FT2, and this should have been taken to the talkpage from the start. Though I don't suppose your classic question-begging techniques will... oh, never mind, just move the whole shooting-match to Talk. This page is for bona fide questions. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your help over these many years Bishonen. You're right, unevidenced accusations in the form of polemic wouldn't be any help in assessing a candidate's suitability. Specific checkable Arbcom emails, with dates and email cites provided to allow easy verification of misconduct, and asking the candidate to explain their acceptance of it, makes rather better evidence and that's what we have. FT2(Talk | email) 17:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, thank you for your inspiring clarion calls for integrity over the years, FT2. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Question from FT2
moved from question page and archived
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi,
This question is about a dubious case held by email, so I'm asking all candidates who were sitting arbs. My apologies for timing (see "notes").
Cases held by email or involving private information need special care since they lack public scrutiny. In a major email case this year any arbitrator applying basic due diligence would have spotted very serious errors. Instead you ultimately went along with the following lapses on your watch.
No proper case was presented although repeatedly requested, nor evidence backing defamatory claims.
The party received evasive and ultimately dishonest answers from Arbcom to inquiries.
No actual firm evidence that would stand the light of day existed on the discussed matters. You did not protest at the unsupported or unchecked claims, claims deliberately never specified or evidenced, or matters formally consulted, disclosed, and endorsed by arbs and equivalent, that can at best be seen as legitimate differences over approach.
The Committee tried to backtrack and break its word (or argued it hadn't agreed when it very explicitly had) - multiple arbs knew this.
The Committee did not act over non-neutral arbs with heavy involvement in the issue, later found not to have recused. (As came out afterwards.)
You did not openly protest at the refusal of fair hearing, nor at the tendentious way these were gamed - such as refusing for 6 months to provide details of defamation or any formal case, then claiming untruthfully they had been sent, finally then claiming the matter was closed so none needed to be provided, and other steps taken by the Committee to obstruct fair discussion.
You did not protest when your colleagues showed a gross breach of neutrality by revealing their eagerness and desire to find something actually wrong and their despair at being unable to do so.
You either didn't check "facts" in the case yourself, or protest at Committee emails that were grossly in error or "straw men". (Your colleagues didn't check basic facts much either.)
When the Committee engaged in strenuous bad faith and games and could not be persuaded to cease, you didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen.
We trust Arbitrators to make evidence-based and fairly considered decisions in private and check facts. If the Committee fails at this and abuses its trust we need arbs who will prevent it.
The lack of genuine case, evidence or reasonable discussion, and its replacement by unfounded defamatory claims, pretexts and assumptions, was a lapse to a point that you as a diligent member should have expressed serious concerns. You should have sounded the alarm externally. But you did not. You were silent.
Details of example lapses
The Committee sent a proposed AC/N statement in December 2010 stating the Committee "has become aware" of some matters, worded as if to imply something hidden. This was grossly misleading since I had myself notified the Committee almost 2 weeks before, in accordance with usual standards, to check if the matter should be disclosed. The Committee's email - containing a 24 hour ultimatum - was delayed nearly 2 weeks then sent at 1 AM UTC on the Saturday of the one weekend I had specifically said I was unlikely to be able to receive or read email.
A second email in January 2011 (same matter) was also grossly in error. Its contents were blatantly contradicted on Arbcom's own records and agreements, to the extent that any diligent Arbitrator checking however briefly would notice. Again it seems no fact-check took place.
In January 2011 a blatant defamatory statement which I won't repeat here (same matter) was made in a Committee email. I asked the Committee to let me know specifics and evidence. The reply was a "straw man" giving no comment on the specific defamatory claim I asked about. I asked again, pointing out that an opinion of this defamatory kind needed to be evidenced; without details I could not respond. It was clear and specific as to the defamation being asked about, but the reply was again evasive as to my actual question. I asked a third time for details to back up the defamatory claim -- and was surprised now to be told it had been answered "repeatedly and at length", which was categorically untrue and the Committee knew it. So I pointed out that I had merely received emails answering questions I hadn't asked. The next reply appears to be a subtle coercive threat based on an assumption I would not wish details made public and stating an answer would only be provided - if I insisted - publicly. I ignored it and pointed out (5th attempt to get a reply) that if a reply had ever been written as claimed to my actual inquiry then anyone could cite a date it was sent or forward it, but the Committee would be unable to as none had been. Awkward silence fell. The Committee, and every Arbitrator on it knew the Committee's claim of having sent details backing the defamatory comments were untrue.
To a final request to back up the defamatory claim it had made over 6 months ago, the Committee's response was effectively dismissive, a one line statement that any defamation resulting from the Committee's statements or handling was not the Committee's problem. No explanation, case, or evidence backing any defamatory claim had been sent in all that time.
In the same issue as above, the record shows the underlying matter was legitimate and consulted, and considered by those in senior positions as being correctly consulted, handled, and endorsed. Names, cites and checkable details of those users were provided. At least one arb with close knowledge stated this as well. That should have been the end of the matter. It would have been on any neutral review of evidence. Several had placed their view on verifiable record, including a member of WMF staff. The Committee not only continued to maintain an impossible claim that the matter was a unilateral decision (against the evidence of many users of senior standing who had endorsed or been consulted) but also "circled wagons" around a sitting arb who had been involved, consulted, and had endorsed and "signed off" on the matter.
Specific tactics were apparently discussed to frustrate ongoing attempts to obtain a proper case statement or hearing.
In March 2011 an arb apparently stated "The trouble is that (the user) does deserve a hearing" - evidence that none had been given. (And why would giving a hearing be "trouble"?)
Similarly to cap it all, it seems that after most of the above, a sitting arb then commented that they would have "loved it" if there had been evidence of a specific wrongdoing. If accurate this makes clear that there was an eagerness to find some fault although in reality there was nothing but high quality conduct. No wrongdoing had ever existed - one does not express a wish for evidence to exist if it already exists. More seriously how can any arb be "neutral" who is expressing how they would "love" to find adverse evidence in their off-wiki communications? Other arbs had apparently also expressed such a wish.
Instead conjecture - mostly wrong - filled the gap. Grossly wrong assumptions were apparently made in secret and treated equivalent to evidence, but with no checking of their accuracy, and with no notification or opportunity to rebutt with good evidence.
Notes
Checkable details (dates, cites, etc) sent by email; I will gladly hear explanations off-wiki to avoid placing you in any privacy-related catch-22. Errors will be retracted a.s.a.p., though I expect none. I accept I can't know what you did internally, that's only one part of it. Ultimately you were not diligent, did not protest firmly, or acquiesced in allowing gross errors and clear abuse to go ahead. Facts stated can be unambiguously substantiated, mainly from Arbcom's own records. Straw men (ie arguing points I'm not actually raising, as happened in this case off-wiki) will be met with disclosure as needed to show accuracy of statements, and if needed, with Jimmy Wales' recommendation of public scrutiny of the matter such as RFC. Impersonal pronouns used at times to keep it neutral in tone. Defamations and underlying case specifics not posted to keep the focus on the issues of arbitrator responsibility which is what matters here. I apologize for the timing, which should have been earlier (I had hoped to have it done well in advance for 31 Oct).
That reflects poorly on your conduct as an arb in 2010 - 2011. It seems you can be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity, and you don't diligently check facts or Committee emails. You are asserting that you can be trusted to hear cases conscientiously, neutrally, fairly, to a very high standard, and watch for the community over Arbitrator standards in non-public matters, for another two years, but these inevitably raise doubt.
The start of this saga (which was never a case, to the best of my knowledge) predates my election to the committee. Indeed, we were at one point running with (against?) each other, near this time last year. As such, the principal events predated my tenure, and the discussion about what to do about the situation after I was appointed was generally amongst the senior arbitrators. Since you've apparently asked the same questions to four other arbitrators who were there for the entire series of events, I think I'll defer my answers. I reserve the right to answer the question more fully later, but it is conceivable that a complete explanation of this matter may require your permission for disclosure of private material. Would you grant that permission if it became necessary? Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in re-reading the above, I don't see a specific question. Is it anything more than "Can you please explain your actions or lack thereof"? Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the question. But I'm asking you why you didn't call time on it. These things happened on your watch. Although the initial events predated your tenure, the gross mishandling this year did not (eg the defamation and subsequent gaming all happened from January 2011), and I am asking why you as one of our best, those with integrity, didn't speak up when events so clearly showed mishandling? Isn't excusing it by basically seeming to say you just went along with so-called "senior" arbitrators' questionable behavior the plainest evidence of lapse? Didn't you ever check the correctness and factual basis of emails the Committee drafted? Did you not notice valid case questions incoming and evasions outgoing, or that colleagues virtually never actually discussed confirmed hard evidence or gave "normal" straight replies? Where was your diligence, for the community as well as all involved persons? Why, when you had no real way not to have seen enough clues to have the thought it was badly suspect, did someone whose role requires great wiki-awareness and integrity and a fierce care for our project and its norms, elected to a position of "final resort" over disputes, ultimately opt to stay silent and go along with it? In light of the fact you did, a request to be trusted in that role of care and scrutiny in 2012 - 13 needs some explaining of apparent lapses in undertaking the role in 2011.
This was the core role. It's why we have such scrutiny over appointments, because the community and all users have to trust arbs do right "in private" once elected.
As said the aim is purely to get clarity on your request for a further term given the repeated failure to perform the role properly this time round - so if anything privacy-related would clarify but you feel you cannot talk about it here, allude to it in email or ask colleagues, or something - my word that if you need to, any good-faith explanation in email with a request to keep private will go no further and will be quickly and fairly responded, or reflected in a (non-privacy-breaching) post on-wiki if it genuinely explains anything. I fear it cannot but that ball must be left in your court. FT2(Talk | email) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be perfectly clear here: Until and unless I receive your permission to specifically and completely disclose private material which I expect to be damaging to you, involving your conduct as a functionary, which may well lead to community sanctions on you despite the age of the conduct, I'm not free to answer the question. My recollection of the case (I no longer have ready access to the online archives) is that the discussions in 2011 were substantially about how to keep you from ever getting access to the functionary tools again, given what was perceived as a gross breach of trust, without the drama of an after-the-fact case which would not prevent future misuse, since you no longer had functionary tools when evidence of the misconduct was uncovered. Do you want the genesis of that dispute aired in public? If so, then I will answer your questions in full. If not, then my brief description of my recollection is all you will be getting. You've now posted a rant to five individuals, accusing each of us of gross malfeasance without any evidence. Would you like to see the evidence posted publicly, or not?
I should be clear in turn. I don't do things I would be ashamed of publicly. I would wish to consider how to handle the matter properly but my own preference would be daylight and the judgment of neutral users or the community, if the Committee were agreeable. I do agree the debate got toxic and polarized; it's inherent that where one side acted in a way that appeared dishonest or gaming, the other would feel a need to rebut more firmly, leading to strong divisions.
I would not make claims I could not support on a public venue like this, nor so specifically, nor if there was anything to hide. As I don't, you have my exact concerns and your suggestion of letting the entire matter be dealt with openly in public is acceptable in principle. I will say your colleagues internal "take" on the matter is badly flawed and I think they (and you too) have enough evidence to see that, if seen from scratch and in context.
It's accepted you are bound by privacy. That's why I said I'd be fine accepting a valid explanation why Arbcom's conduct in case handling wasn't dishonest, wasn't gaming or why case handling was fair. You can give me that by email if you like, or outline it here, or we can present the entire background to neutral parties or the community if preferred. However the underlying case issue itself is all separate from WP:ACE and your conduct as an arb. Above is a clear summary of where case handling was dubious or dishonest. You have exact dates and cites for each in email. That's the issue for today. You don't need to break privacy for that. What you do need to do is explain why you, as a sitting arb, did not take action when you saw such case handling, why you allowed emails as described to be sent with your apparent approval, and what that says about your handling of the role in 2011.
How about me just linking to the place on Wikipedia Review where all of this was discussed, by way of background? (The irony being, that, post-leak, that's an easier place for me to find this content) That seems like the simplest way to get the background out in the open, but I would like you to find and review it first to make sure it's not misquoting you in any way, or otherwise mischaracterizing the email you sent. Does the thread in question (which I will not link to here, but I'm sure you can find it) accurately represent your correspondence with the committee up through 2010? I have copies of everything since my appointment in my personal archives. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it's not clear if you are requesting verification of anything on WR about the original email, links to leaked emails that are salient, the dialog prior to your appointment, or background for statements about Arbcom case handling, I'll summarize all of these by email and please let me know by return which you need more clarity on.
The fact the leaker provided corroborative evidence to my benefit does not make any of his/her actions even slightly more acceptable. It was a gross breach of trust and I would not willingly link to or give it oxygen if you paid me, since I can point you to the original list versions instead. Assuming the few parts I took note of are accurate (based on Arbcom and others' reactions and the context) you already have exact snips by email so a search the usual way in your usual email will do what you need.
I would underline though that the actual case is a distraction here; the issue at ACE is why the unambiguous gaming and other case lapses by arbitrators during case handling were allowed to happen repeatedly on your - or anyone's - watch. FT2(Talk | email) 13:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casting accusations in the form of rhetorical questions doesn't make them actual questions, FT2, and this should have been taken to the talkpage from the start. Though I don't suppose your classic question-begging techniques will... oh, never mind, just move the whole shooting-match to Talk. This page is for bona fide questions. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
(Side-thread replied on talk page - FT2 17:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I have moved this thread to the discussion page, further discussion on this topic will likely breach privacy policy.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi,
This question is about a dubious case held by email, so I'm asking all candidates who were sitting arbs. My apologies for timing (see "notes").
Cases held by email or involving private information need special care since they lack public scrutiny. In a major email case this year any arbitrator applying basic due diligence would have spotted very serious errors. Instead you ultimately went along with the following lapses on your watch.
No proper case was presented although repeatedly requested, nor evidence backing defamatory claims.
The party received evasive and ultimately dishonest answers from Arbcom to inquiries.
No actual firm evidence that would stand the light of day existed on the discussed matters. You did not protest at the unsupported or unchecked claims, claims deliberately never specified or evidenced, or matters formally consulted, disclosed, and endorsed by arbs and equivalent, that can at best be seen as legitimate differences over approach.
The Committee tried to backtrack and break its word (or argued it hadn't agreed when it very explicitly had) - multiple arbs knew this.
The Committee did not act over non-neutral arbs with heavy involvement in the issue, later found not to have recused. (As came out afterwards.)
You did not openly protest at the refusal of fair hearing, nor at the tendentious way these were gamed - such as refusing for 6 months to provide details of defamation or any formal case, then claiming untruthfully they had been sent, finally then claiming the matter was closed so none needed to be provided, and other steps taken by the Committee to obstruct fair discussion.
You did not protest when your colleagues showed a gross breach of neutrality by revealing their eagerness and desire to find something actually wrong and their despair at being unable to do so.
You either didn't check "facts" in the case yourself, or protest at Committee emails that were grossly in error or "straw men". (Your colleagues didn't check basic facts much either.)
When the Committee engaged in strenuous bad faith and games and could not be persuaded to cease, you didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen.
We trust Arbitrators to make evidence-based and fairly considered decisions in private and check facts. If the Committee fails at this and abuses its trust we need arbs who will prevent it.
The lack of genuine case, evidence or reasonable discussion, and its replacement by unfounded defamatory claims, pretexts and assumptions, was a lapse to a point that you as a diligent member should have expressed serious concerns. You should have sounded the alarm externally. But you did not. You were silent.
Details of example lapses
The Committee sent a proposed AC/N statement in December 2010 stating the Committee "has become aware" of some matters, worded as if to imply something hidden. This was grossly misleading since I had myself notified the Committee almost 2 weeks before, in accordance with usual standards, to check if the matter should be disclosed. The Committee's email - containing a 24 hour ultimatum - was delayed nearly 2 weeks then sent at 1 AM UTC on the Saturday of the one weekend I had specifically said I was unlikely to be able to receive or read email.
A second email in January 2011 (same matter) was also grossly in error. Its contents were blatantly contradicted on Arbcom's own records and agreements, to the extent that any diligent Arbitrator checking however briefly would notice. Again it seems no fact-check took place.
In January 2011 a blatant defamatory statement which I won't repeat here (same matter) was made in a Committee email. I asked the Committee to let me know specifics and evidence. The reply was a "straw man" giving no comment on the specific defamatory claim I asked about. I asked again, pointing out that an opinion of this defamatory kind needed to be evidenced; without details I could not respond. It was clear and specific as to the defamation being asked about, but the reply was again evasive as to my actual question. I asked a third time for details to back up the defamatory claim -- and was surprised now to be told it had been answered "repeatedly and at length", which was categorically untrue and the Committee knew it. So I pointed out that I had merely received emails answering questions I hadn't asked. The next reply appears to be a subtle coercive threat based on an assumption I would not wish details made public and stating an answer would only be provided - if I insisted - publicly. I ignored it and pointed out (5th attempt to get a reply) that if a reply had ever been written as claimed to my actual inquiry then anyone could cite a date it was sent or forward it, but the Committee would be unable to as none had been. Awkward silence fell. The Committee, and every Arbitrator on it knew the Committee's claim of having sent details backing the defamatory comments were untrue.
To a final request to back up the defamatory claim it had made over 6 months ago, the Committee's response was effectively dismissive, a one line statement that any defamation resulting from the Committee's statements or handling was not the Committee's problem. No explanation, case, or evidence backing any defamatory claim had been sent in all that time.
In the same issue as above, the record shows the underlying matter was legitimate and consulted, and considered by those in senior positions as being correctly consulted, handled, and endorsed. Names, cites and checkable details of those users were provided. At least one arb with close knowledge stated this as well. That should have been the end of the matter. It would have been on any neutral review of evidence. Several had placed their view on verifiable record, including a member of WMF staff. The Committee not only continued to maintain an impossible claim that the matter was a unilateral decision (against the evidence of many users of senior standing who had endorsed or been consulted) but also "circled wagons" around a sitting arb who had been involved, consulted, and had endorsed and "signed off" on the matter.
Specific tactics were apparently discussed to frustrate ongoing attempts to obtain a proper case statement or hearing.
In March 2011 an arb apparently stated "The trouble is that (the user) does deserve a hearing" - evidence that none had been given. (And why would giving a hearing be "trouble"?)
Similarly to cap it all, it seems that after most of the above, a sitting arb then commented that they would have "loved it" if there had been evidence of a specific wrongdoing. If accurate this makes clear that there was an eagerness to find some fault although in reality there was nothing but high quality conduct. No wrongdoing had ever existed - one does not express a wish for evidence to exist if it already exists. More seriously how can any arb be "neutral" who is expressing how they would "love" to find adverse evidence in their off-wiki communications? Other arbs had apparently also expressed such a wish.
Instead conjecture - mostly wrong - filled the gap. Grossly wrong assumptions were apparently made in secret and treated equivalent to evidence, but with no checking of their accuracy, and with no notification or opportunity to rebutt with good evidence.
Notes
Checkable details (dates, cites, etc) sent by email; I will gladly hear explanations off-wiki to avoid placing you in any privacy-related catch-22. Errors will be retracted a.s.a.p., though I expect none. I accept I can't know what you did internally, that's only one part of it. Ultimately you were not diligent, did not protest firmly, or acquiesced in allowing gross errors and clear abuse to go ahead. Facts stated can be unambiguously substantiated, mainly from Arbcom's own records. Straw men (ie arguing points I'm not actually raising, as happened in this case off-wiki) will be met with disclosure as needed to show accuracy of statements, and if needed, with Jimmy Wales' recommendation of public scrutiny of the matter such as RFC. Impersonal pronouns used at times to keep it neutral in tone. Defamations and underlying case specifics not posted to keep the focus on the issues of arbitrator responsibility which is what matters here. I apologize for the timing, which should have been earlier (I had hoped to have it done well in advance for 31 Oct).
That reflects poorly on your conduct as an arb in 2010 - 2011. It seems you can be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity, and you don't diligently check facts or Committee emails. You are asserting that you can be trusted to hear cases conscientiously, neutrally, fairly, to a very high standard, and watch for the community over Arbitrator standards in non-public matters, for another two years, but these inevitably raise doubt.
I find it rather ironic that you would accuse me of taking part in "a dubious case held by email", and insinuate that I "didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen". You recall, do you not, the Orangemarlin affair? I have never shied away from sounding external alarms when something untoward is taking place.
But I digress.
Let me begin by correcting an apparent misunderstanding in your comments: there was never a case against you, by email or otherwise. You made a certain request of the Committee, which the Committee declined. Now, you might think that our doing so was unfair, that we ought to have held a hearing about it, and so forth; but the point is that the request was the Committee's to grant or decline, and that the Committee is under no obligation to explain itself to your personal satisfaction.
As for why we declined your request: the various minor concerns aside, the substantive deciding factor was a particular email which you had written some time prior; no doubt you are aware of it. Having examined that email, it's my opinion that no further discussion is necessary; there is, quite simply, nothing that you could possibly say in your defense that would cause the Committee to find in your favor.
If you honestly believe otherwise, then all you need to do is to publish the email in question. Let the community see why we have treated you thus; if, as you apparently believe, your actions were justified, then you should have nothing to fear.
But of course we both know you won't do that. Kirill[talk][prof] 13:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Orangemarlin case did occur to me, with irony. The difference is I spent the whole of the rest of that year trying to ensure such a mistake could never happen again, and I didn't try and justify or evade responsibility via ARBCOM:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While I had relied on responses and input from others, I had also been concerned enough to recheck and re-recheck before accepting them and when it turned out they were flawed I didn't argue that other things somehow made that okay.
As you surely saw, knew and appear to have endorsed, the Committee attempted to argue by pretext and by gaming, and it's that which you - a highly experienced arb - tolerated without protest for months, which makes your fitness for another term questionable. Even the "substantive deciding factor" (as you describe it) was weak enough to need propping up by blatant unfounded pretences. It was co-authored and endorsed by a peer of yours, a sitting arb whom I see was not considered at fault for doing so. Wagons were circled. Should that sound like double-standards and gaming? It does.
As to the email you mention, indeed it won't be posted, and we do both know why. It was circulated off-list and off-wiki to protect people. The total focus of that email was to protect innocent non-users from very severe imminent malicious real-world harm to their lives, and that is very thoroughly documented - it included one or more children (under 13) whose identities were stolen and whose email addresses were used in a sexual context, and professionals whose jobs were at imminent risk. The email was consulted and aimed to procure an immediate stop to that horrible outcome. It was discussed carefully over an extended time by multiple users of very high standing from multiple projects as a last way to prevent severe long-lasting real-world harm to children and others after all else failed. Many of those consulted were deliberately independent/uninvolved to ensure it was not sent by mistake as being "too close" to matters. (enwp Arbcom can leak and this couldn't be allowed to.) As if that was not enough, it was also disclosed promptly on sending and resignation offered to WMF. You know and have seen the responses, the users confirming their scrutiny and views - they were solid endorsement whether before or after. I had sent you the evidence that your own colleague, a 2011 sitting arb and then-functionary, had even co-authored and thoroughly endorsed the very aspects you complain of, that he was asked as a final check "should it be sent" and stated it should, and he stipulated in final discussions the handling of disclosure to WMF staff which was scrupulously followed.
You saw the WMF email being misrepresented within Arbcom - how do I know that? Because I checked myself with the WMF staff member -- and that reply is on record too. (Your colleagues should never try to make false claims about evidence, it gets found out.) His actual stance? He not only endorsed too, but was severely critical of you and your colleagues at Arbcom. That's how bad judgment was at Arbcom here. I won't post that or the original email on-site, but you knew beyond doubt from your own records that my statements here (except one you lack sight of the evidence) are accurate.
Fast forward to 2010/2011. You allowed or condoned a dishonest case to be built up and allowed or condoned case handling intended to prevent any fair discussion. You were aware of the matters above and allowed them. You saw subtle but unmistakable threats and didn't object, internal agreements or proposals to prevent a proper case and didn't object, straw men and evasions and didn't speak out, unchecked and grossly untrue assertions treated like evidence and didn't object, and the rest. I expected better of you then and I expect better now. Trying to ignore the 90% of the case by arguing on one point, when even your sole "deciding factor" was exceedingly unfounded, and at worst a legitimate difference of opinion with many views on both sides, is close to 'lawyering. The rest just shows some arbs had an eager wish to find wrongdoing despite evidence, and others went along with it. That is something I never did. Jclemens' excuse is that he left it to "senior Arbitrators" - you included.
Back to Orangemarlin. I accepted the f***up in 2008 and I diligently used the rest of my term to try and change the Committee so it could never happen again to any user. That's how you do honest regret. That's integrity. What did you do when you had wrongful Arbcom process very strongly drawn to your attention? Did you not just accept and endorse it? FT2(Talk | email) 15:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your unwillingness to let the community see the email in question, I think we have nothing further to discuss. Suffice it to say that I reject, categorically, your assertions that it was in any way necessary or appropriate, or that the discussions you may or may not have had with certain other individuals regarding it somehow absolve you of the ultimate responsibility for having sent it. Frankly, had I known of your actions at the time, I would have banned you myself. Kirill[talk][prof] 15:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, the email is not publicized because among other reasons it's not relevant to the question of your conduct. Arbcom is full of strongly argued diverse views and even in the underlying case I have provided exceptionally strong evidence. Discussion on the underlying case can happen another time.
The ACE 2011 issue is your conduct in reviewing that matter, as someone trusted and responsible for ensuring fair and honest case handling. You were a "senior arbitrator" (Jclemens) - someone others looked up to and possibly placed too much trust in. These emails by the committee, the tactics of goal-shifting, untruthful pretexts and defamation with no willingness to discuss or even explain, were very greatly your responsibility.
You watch Arbcom's mailing list in depth and you know the standards expected. You know what honest case handling is and that this wasn't. You have been the co-ordinating or deputy co-ordinating Arbitrator for 2.5 years. You "manag[ed] the organizational and procedural aspects of the Committee's day-to-day work", drafted some 60 cases, and have "participate[d] in just about every possible aspect of an arbitrator's role" (candidate statement). Your scope for excuse is very narrow since of all arbs re-standing this election, you had perhaps the most experience and chance to say "this isn't how it should be". But it happened on your watch.
Even on your own premise, you were badly out of step. Your other colleagues at the time who knew the case were firmly against you. Your fellow arb jpgordon had full disclosure, your current fellow arb John Vandenberg actually co-authored and signed off on it ("It is good"), another fellow arb in 2009 endorsed it in advance for sending ("Commend"), a 2007 arb attested to you that he had been consulted throughout on all ethical issues and endorsed it ("honorable, ethical"), a 2010 - 11 arbitrator lamented in both an external and an internal email that he had tried to whip up disapproval of it and failed ("nobody seemed to mind", good evidence I had not merely selected favorable views). So let's leave aside the hyperbole about bans - too many people throughout sided against your view and went on verifiable record, while the one who objected a year complained he had no support.
It is 2011 and you are standing again. Private cases are the ones needing the very highest standard of care and conduct since the community cannot review them. In this case there was severe gaming at Arbcom level. With your experience you knew precisely what you and others were doing all that time (it lasted months and involved many examples). It needs a very good explanation. You enabled, personally participated in, and endorsed your colleagues' gaming in a case. That's the issue here. Why? FT2(Talk | email) 04:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this thread to the discussion page, further discussion on this topic will likely breach privacy policy.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to drop by to voice my support on the grounds that this is a solid content creator. I urge all voters to click USER CONTRIBUTIONS for each candidate, then to scroll down and take a look at the EDIT COUNT link, which is instructive as to where a Wikipedia participant places their effort. This is a person who does more than half his work in mainspace. There need to be more such individuals on ArbCom, in my opinion, which sometimes seems overly populated by technicians and bureaucratic sorts. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why Kww, I never knew.... :) - my opinion of the deletion-inclined is always ameliorated by content work. But seriously, I've found Kww an independent thinker and pretty scrupulous, so I tend to think he'd be a good addition to the arb ranks. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I considered replying to this comment, but one of the basic rules of politics is that you don't point out when a supporter is mistaken. I do point out in my Q&A page that the vast majority of my edits are removing edits by banned and blocked editors. That certainly skews my edit count statistics.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, shucks, now I feel like an idiot. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that Kww has a star for Natalee Holloway, shared with me and AuburnPilot, and as a content contributor, I strongly endorse his candidacy. We went through hell on that one; at the time AuburnPilot was the only admin of us (now we all are) and Kww remained calm under tremendous pressure (see here generally and also other threads on the page). Frankly, I think we need to throw the bums out, ArbCom has shown major problems with confidentiality the past year and the decline of the Enabling case showed that they are not responsive to community concerns. Wiki has changed. It is time for new blood, not the same old sigs. Kww will make a fine arb, and remain grounded despite the august position. And I should say I was not prompted in any way for this; I don't think I've had any contact with Kww in six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
When Kww was in the large minority that wanted to end Pending changes without further trial in September 2010, He used insulting inflammatory language while insisting that the only way to meet his concerns was for WMF to do exactly as he wanted.[[15]] I consider the quoted diff characteristic of his attitude in the discussion. KWW had a case against Pending changes, he just stated it poorly. He does not show the qualities we need on the Arbitration Committee. Fartherred (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That misrepresents events. Would you deny that that trial was anything other than a "clusterfuck of unprecedented proportions"? Colorful language, perhaps, but I don't think it got to the "inflammatory" statge. At what point did I insist on anything other than people living up to their original agreement to have a trial of a specified duration?—Kww(talk) 01:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing colorful in claiming that people lied. People have been killed in duels for such an insult. You made your insult general by not specifying who is supposed to have lied. Now let us consider the truth of the suggestion that your opponents in discussion lied. To lie is to intentionally deceive. Unless you assume bad faith, the most that you can claim of those who did not stop the trial is that they failed to keep a promise. That is a different from lying. So your suggestion was either false or resting on an assumption of bad faith. Notice that I did not claim you lied. I am perfectly willing to believe that you were ignorant of the falsity of your suggestion. A fit candidate for the Arbitration Committee does not casually throw out the term "lied" and does not casually assume bad faith. There were a great many people involved in the pending changes trial, clerks, developers, WMF. Just who is supposed to have made a promise is hard to pin down. Things were not handled as well as they might have been, but there was no call to insult people by suggesting that people lied. Fartherred (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Kww should have done was get rid of pending changes in pages that he was concerned with, state his objections to pending changes civilly, and accept the outcome of the process, even if flawed. He certainly was not using a good strategy for bringing about consensus.
Once upon a time there was a six year old girl who wanted a pony. After considerable effort on her part her father said, "Well, we'll see." He fully intended to get a pony, or he would not have said that. However, a director of operations for his company in a distant city had a heart attack and had to be replaced. The girl's father was the replacement and the pony plans had to change. The girl said, "You promised me a pony. You promised. You promised." Throwing tantrums, misrepresenting another's position, and making nonnegotiable demands of people from whom you have no right to make such demands are perhaps excusable in a six year old girl. Those things are not excusable in a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Fartherred (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, there were no such changes or extenuating circumstances. The consensus was for a trial of a fixed duration. The fixed duration had passed. People were refusing to end the trial. What's the polite word for someone that refuses to honor an existing agreement when there are no extenuating circumstances? What should I call the people that attempted to claim that an agreement for a two-month trial didn't include an agreement to stop the trial after two months? You seem to see bluntness as an inappropriate quality for the Arbitration Committee. I strongly disagree. There was no consensus to continue the trial, and most everyone involved recognized that. Refusing to end the trial at that point was dishonest, deceitful, and shameful. There's no reason to be gentle about that.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let us be blunt. Who promised and when that the decision to end the trial of Pending changes or continue would require a consensus to continue but only a large minority to end? Is reneging on a promise the same thing as lying? Should someone carrying a grudge against WMF be on the Arbitration Committee? Fartherred (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: If you are elected to the Arbitration Committee, do you plan to call anyone who disagrees with your personal definition of terms a liar? Fartherred (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The convention that a lack of consensus leads to a maintenance of the status quo is so standard throughout Wikipedia that to repudiate or ignore that principle would be unprecedented. I will generally claim that anyone that refuses to honor the terms of their agreements is dishonest, and, if I believe they intended to do so when they entered the agreement, the word "liar" is appropriate. I'm not sure why you think I nurse a grudge.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the idea that "status quo" is specially protected in decision making on Wikipedia? Did you make that up? Read WP:Consensus. See if you can find "status quo" mentioned at all. Editors are invited to make changes boldly and then discuss any disagreements that might arise seeking a consensus. Nowhere does it say that the original form is favored. I disagree with you on the meaning of trial. You say the trial was not ended at the agreed upon time. I say the trial was ended because pending changes was no longer being considered for a future poll on its merit in the form that it had after the poll. It remained implemented in software for the convenience of implementing planned changes to be the subject of a future trial. There were two trials, implementation continued between the two trials. Having the software implemented in the intervening time did not injure you at all since the software could be dropped from any page where it was seen to cause problems. No one ever promised you that there would need to be 2/3s support to continue pending changes. This is the way things really are: WMF can do anything it likes with the Wikimedia software, with or without consulting users. Users were consulted in the pending changes straw poll just to see what people's feelings about the software were, so that WMF could avoid alienating the contributors on whom the expansion and currency of Wikipedia depends. This is why it was called a straw poll and not an election. Look up straw poll in a dictionary. As it turns out the consulted opinion of editors turned against pending changes and it was dropped because WMF respects the editors' opinions.
Are you unsure what causes me to think you have a grudge against WMF? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is someone else that you have a grudge against. Since we are being blunt, I would like to know exactly who you consider "dishonest, deceitful, and shameful" for refusing to end the trial? Is it WMF, Jimbo Wales, the developers, the 407 users who voted to continue implementation against the 217 who like you and me voted to disable the feature entirely, or some combination of the preceding. You cannot claim to be truly blunt if you keep refusing to specify the target of you insults.
This is my take: You just imagined a promise to stop the implementation of pending changes with less than consensus for it then you imagined that those who made the promise did so in bad faith then you called them "dishonest, deceitful, and shameful". Beyond that, you are too cowardly to say who it is that you are insulting. You are absolutely the most poorly qualified candidate for Arbitration Committee that I have ever had the misfortune to examine. Fartherred (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine: the users, WMF, and Jimbo Wales all had varying degrees of culpability, ranging from being actively deceitful (Jimbo, when he claimed that describing a trial as a two-month trial didn't mean that the trial would end in two months), to simply not caring what the original agreement had been (shameful behaviour, but not actively deceptive). The developers are just code writers: they aren't responsible for the decision to turn a feature on or off. I have no idea what a "two-month trial" is if isn't a trial that ends after two months. It certainly isn't a trial that continues forever until there's a consensus to turn it off. If you think that believing that "two months" meant "two months" is imagining things, I think your definitions are a bit off.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am continually surprised by your concepts of the definitions of English words. How can you consider that trial and implementation are synonyms. Even if someone said a trial would end in two months, that does not mean the implementation of the software would end. You constantly ignore that there is no policy requiring consensus for change but not requiring consensus for the status quo. You would have forced the status quo on the majority who wanted to continue implementation in complete violation of settling disputes by consensus. How could anyone vote for a candidate that not only has no respect for consensus but no understanding of it? Fartherred (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you continue to amaze me: when did I ever ask for the implementation of the software to be removed? When did I treat the trial and the implementation as synonymous? All I ever asked was for the trial to end on schedule. I have a full grasp of consensus,. The trial was supposed to end after two months. There was no consensus to extend the trial beyond that point. Therefore, the trial should have ended on schedule. That didn't mean to rip the software out of MediaWiki, and I've never claimed that there was any need to do so. The software lingers today, and I don't raise a fuss or consider it to be a problem. I'd have a grave problem with any admin that put an article on pending changes today, but that's a different thing. An enormous part of ruling by consensus is the ability to trust the other side of a dispute to abide by their word, and to do the things they agreed to do. In this case, they didn't. You, by the way, seem to have "consensus" confused with "majority rule". That's not how Wikipedia works. By nose count, support never crossed the 60% margin, and there are very few vote-based decisions where a 60% is considered consensus. By strength of argument, the normal measure of consensus, the supporters of PC were never able to demonstrate that the trial version of the software had any noticeable impact on the problem they were attempting to solve. Consensus for PC simply didn't exist. Consensus for ending the trial at two-months was generated when the trial was set as being a two-month trial, and there was never a consensus to change that.—Kww(talk) 01:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you fail to see is that the trial of pending changes as it was at the time did end on the 27th of September 2010. The result was temporary continuation of pending changes. The purpose of the temporary continuation was keeping those in practice using PC who were willing to use it so a new version could be tried later. A minority, including Kww, insisted that it required a clear consensus to continue using the software anywhere on Wikipedia after the trial. That was never promised. If you are familiar with articles for deletion discussions, there has to be a consensus to delete the article. If there is no consensus, the article remains. If the pending changes trial were handled the same way, it would take a clear consensus at the end of the trial to get rid of pending changes. However pending changes was not an article for deletion. We had a trial and the outcome, after consideration of a straw poll, was determined by WMF which had full authority to do so. Their determination was a temporary continuation. The idea that you were promised that pending changes would not run anywhere on Wikipedia after the trial without full consensus in favor at that time was just something you made up. There is no evidence of any kind that you were promised that. Your continued insistence on that is simply irrational. Fartherred (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Irrational" is the word I would use for claiming that a two-month trial permanently modified the default state of Wikipedia's configuration and policies. It didn't: the non-trial configuration had no pending changes, and, failing consensus, that's the state it needed to return to. Note the text at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Trial:"The trial will last for two months and then a community discussion will decide the future of the implementation, the default being deactivation." There's no clearer way to say that the trial would last for two months (i.e. stop after a two month interval), and, subseqent to that, we would have a discussion. Failure to reach consensus in that discussion would result in deactivation of the feature. At the end of the trial, supporters of the feature changed the rules, used the same distorted logic you are using that the default was to have a trial, and continued the trial. Even when Nov 9 came and went (the final date of the extension by Jimmy's fiat), feature supporters wouldn't agree to allow the trial to end. It wasn't until May 22 that the trial finally gave to an end. I'm sorry that you don't believe that moving the goalposts is dishonest, and I'm even more regretful that you consider it a bad thing for an Arbcom candidate to condemn dishonest behaviour. If you would prefer to vote for people that endorse dishonest behaviour, go ahead. You deserve the governance you receive as a result.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of opposition
After first basing his argument on the wholly imagined principle that "a lack of consensus leads to a maintenance of the status quo", Kww managed to document a reasonable expectation that the pending changes question would be decided by community discussion. According to WP:Consensus, closers of debate in "determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments...". WMF closed debate and apparently considered the quality of Kww's arguments. They had the authority to do so. Kww disagreed but lacked the authority to have the closure determined as he favored. Wikipedians ought to be used to it. People do not always get their own way and calling people liars is not apt to help one advance a point of view in any helpful way. Kww wrote above that there were "no extenuating circumstances" causing the trial to be closed as keeping pending changes temporarily. I ask you to consider WMF's position that there was a prospect of getting software changes to address the concerns of people who disliked pending changes. Developers suggested that removing the software and putting it back for a second trial would be more trouble then just letting it run until updates could be added. Kww may not consider these extenuating circumstances or good arguments for keeping a form of pending changes, but he lacked the authority to determine which arguments were high quality arguments. One might disagree with WMF on what constitutes consensus, but legalistically, Kww's argument of lying does not have a leg to stand on. However, I would rather appeal to human tolerance. WMF was trying to do something good by their lights and it failed. They hoped the upgraded software would win a consensus for permanently keeping it by its working well, satisfying most complaints, and being removable from any page where it still caused trouble. Jimbo and WMF made Wikipedia possible as it is today. It is ingratitude not to give them some consideration in human imperfections. Kww shows no sign of being ameanable to seeing anyone's point of view but his own. He assumed bad faith on the part of WMF. He said that he considers it appropriate to use the word liar if he thinks someone intended to not honor agreements. His judjement about people having followed agreements and about people's intentions is certainly questionable. He has quoted a completely false notion of policy in this discussion. Do not send him to the Arbitration Committee. Working on sock puppet investigations he might still provide valuable service, but in the Arbitration Committee he would be like a fish out of water. Worse, I believe he would be an obstacle to the efficient governing of Wikipedia. Fartherred (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great enthusiasm but I'm not buying what he's selling. -- Ϫ 10:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I can assure all of you that my candidate statement is not just empty promises. It should be obvious from my track record that I have no fear standing up to the powerful to uphold principles.--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed your account
Hate to break it to you but, your statement, your blocks, and your attitude towards this doesn't seem to make you a great candidate.—cyberpower(Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is proud of displaying "China=shame" on their userpage will have ridiculously insane POV problems if they ever get elected to ArbCom. →Στc. 03:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't really stop User:Jiang from becoming an admin even though he had Taiwan=shame on his userpage and still has an offensive image on his userpage accusing Dalai Lama of owning slaves, cursing President Chen, and celebrating 921 earthquake. But then again there are 1.3 billion Chinese and only 23 million Taiwanese, so I guess no one in Wikipedia cares about Taiwanese given that he got the mop and has been gang patrolling Taiwan-related articles for years. So much for NPOV. As for my blocks, all of them were addressed in my statement subpage. Every single one of them was controversial due to either deliberate baiting from members of WP:China or admins' double standard or overstepping their boundaries.--NWA.Rep (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom has a lot more responsibility then a measly admin. Also I presume you're referring to Jiang's current user page since it hasn't changed since 2009 [16]. I've seen that photo before, I think from Jiang's user page. I never got the impression Jiang was intending to endorse the messages the person in the photo is spreading. In fact the file itself when it uploaded by Jiang says the these are ultra Chinese nationalism slogans [17] although as I remarked in the talk page a long while back, that's obvious from the English slogan. I expect most people just laugh at the photo (not because of the message but because of the the person saying 'happy, happy, happy' while making some rather extreme claims or simply the oddity of some random dude espousing Chinese nationalism in the street) rather then taking any sort of serious political message from it and in fact in the deletion discussion Jiang said it was meant to amuse. In other words, there is a very big difference between Jiang's userpage and yours. And IMO suggesting they are comparable doesn't bode well for you as an arbitrator (although I decided to oppose you before I read any of this). Edit: Looking in to this some more, Jiang's RFA was back in 2003 with 8 supports and no opposes Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship/2003. Whatever rights or wrongs were made in that decision, suffice it to say wikipedia was a very different place then. Also Jiang didn't even have a user page [18] then. Really the more I look in to this, the worse a comparison it seems to be. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if anyone will read these discussion pages, but I thought I'd put this here anyway. Since her election to the committee, Risker has been a massive help to me in fulfilling my role as a checkuser. She has written me emails personally telling me about important news, and has either helped me herself or enabled the ArbCom to help me whenever I have had any issues related to the checkuser tool. I am quite serious when I say that I would have resigned as a checkuser over a year ago had she not been there to help me sort out issues that arose. Anyone who I've helped with checkuser requests over the past year has Risker in particular to thank for it, and people should bear this in mind when placing their votes for this year's election. She certainly has my vote. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your kind words, Deskana. It's good to know that I was able to help resolve the issues with the checkuser tool in a way that made your job (and the job of other checkusers) easier. Risker (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not sure if anyone will read these discussion pages" And that's why I hate these secret ballots. These pages are almost entirely ignored. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 22:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing all of my voting on this page alone. Deskana has convinced me to give my vote. Outback the koala (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad some are. That's the way it was in the past with all voters. Now most of them don't even bother with this page, as evidenced by the mostly bare comments sections from the last few years. As a result, I think we've passed several candidates that definitely would've failed had we not had secret balloting and instead had open discussion that put out in the public information that would bring up an easy red flag to voters. Oh well, it is what it is. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 01:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I am torn as to whether or not to leave this comment. It's a difficult situation, because I want to be clear that I speak for no-one but myself. I don't endorse, ever. But I'm making an exception for Risker. I can tell you that from my perspective at the WMF, the time and energy that Risker pours into the committee (and I'm sure there are others who do as much - I'm just not as exposed to them) and her level of dedication frequently are inspirational to me.
If you need to remember why we do this labor of love, talk to Risker. She (and everyone on the committee) is exposed to the worst, the seediest, and the ugliest - those are the cases that never make it, that aren't discussed - and yet she is perpetually thrilled to be a part of this project. If I could bottle her dedication and enthusiasm, I would. I will be voting wholeheartedly to put her back on the committee, and I urge others to do the same. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. - Philippe 03:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question from FT2
moved from question page and archived
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi,
This question is about a dubious case held by email, so I'm asking all candidates who were sitting arbs. My apologies for timing (see "small print").
Cases held by email or involving private information need special care since they lack public scrutiny. In a major email case this year any arbitrator applying basic due diligence would have spotted very serious errors. Instead you ultimately went along with the following lapses on your watch.
No proper case was presented although repeatedly requested, nor evidence backing defamatory claims.
The party received evasive and ultimately dishonest answers from Arbcom to inquiries.
No actual firm evidence that would stand the light of day existed on the discussed matters. You did not protest at the unsupported or unchecked claims, claims deliberately never specified or evidenced, or matters formally consulted, disclosed, and endorsed by arbs and equivalent, that can at best be seen as legitimate differences over approach.
The Committee tried to backtrack and break its word (or argued it hadn't agreed when it very explicitly had) - you knew this from personal knowledge.
The Committee did not act over non-neutral arbs with heavy involvement in the issue, later found not to have recused. (As came out afterwards.)
You did not openly protest at the refusal of fair hearing, nor at the tendentious way these were gamed - such as refusing for 6 months to provide details of defamation or any formal case, then claiming untruthfully they had been sent, finally then claiming the matter was closed so none needed to be provided, and other steps taken by the Committee to obstruct fair discussion.
You did not protest when your colleagues showed a gross breach of neutrality by revealing their eagerness and desire to find something actually wrong and their despair at being unable to do so.
You either didn't check "facts" in the case yourself, or protest at Committee emails that were grossly in error or "straw men". (Your colleagues didn't check basic facts much either.)
When the Committee engaged in strenuous bad faith and games and could not be persuaded to cease, you didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen.
We trust Arbitrators to make evidence-based and fairly considered decisions in private and check facts. If the Committee fails at this and abuses its trust we need arbs who will prevent it.
The lack of genuine case, evidence or reasonable discussion, and its replacement by unfounded defamatory claims, pretexts and assumptions, was a lapse to a point that you as a diligent member should have expressed serious concerns. You should have sounded the alarm externally. But you did not. You were silent.
Details of example lapses
The Committee sent a proposed AC/N statement in December 2010 stating the Committee "has become aware" of some matters, worded as if to imply something hidden. This was grossly misleading since I had myself notified the Committee almost 2 weeks before, in accordance with usual standards, to check if the matter should be disclosed. The Committee's email - containing a 24 hour ultimatum - was delayed nearly 2 weeks then sent at 1 AM UTC on the Saturday of the one weekend I had specifically said I was unlikely to be able to receive or read email.
A second email in January 2011 (same matter) was also grossly in error. Its contents were blatantly contradicted on Arbcom's own records and agreements, which you personally endorsed and hence knew about beyond doubt, but you didn't speak up externally despite personal knowledge that an Arbcom email was fundamentally in error.
In January 2011 a blatant defamatory statement which I won't repeat here (same matter) was made in a Committee email. I asked the Committee to let me know specifics and evidence. The reply was a "straw man" giving no comment on the specific defamatory claim I asked about. I asked again, pointing out that an opinion of this defamatory kind needed to be evidenced; without details I could not respond. It was clear and specific as to the defamation being asked about, but the reply was again evasive as to my actual question. I asked a third time for details to back up the defamatory claim -- and was surprised now to be told it had been answered "repeatedly and at length", which was categorically untrue and the Committee knew it. So I pointed out that I had merely received emails answering questions I hadn't asked. The next reply appears to be a subtle coercive threat based on an assumption I would not wish details made public and stating an answer would only be provided - if I insisted - publicly. I ignored it and pointed out (5th attempt to get a reply) that if a reply had ever been written as claimed to my actual inquiry then anyone could cite a date it was sent or forward it, but the Committee would be unable to as none had been. Awkward silence fell. The Committee, and every Arbitrator on it knew the Committee's claim of having sent details backing the defamatory comments were untrue.
To a final request to back up the defamatory claim it had made over 6 months ago, the Committee's response was effectively dismissive, a one line statement that any defamation resulting from the Committee's statements or handling was not the Committee's problem. No explanation, case, or evidence backing any defamatory claim had been sent in all that time.
In the same issue as above, the record shows the underlying matter was legitimate and consulted, and considered by those in senior positions as being correctly consulted, handled, and endorsed. Names, cites and checkable details of those users were provided. At least one arb with close knowledge stated this as well. That should have been the end of the matter. It would have been on any neutral review of evidence. Several had placed their view on verifiable record, including a member of WMF staff. The Committee not only continued to maintain an impossible claim that the matter was a unilateral decision (against the evidence of many users of senior standing who had endorsed or been consulted) but also "circled wagons" around a sitting arb who had been involved, consulted, and had endorsed and "signed off" on the matter.
Specific tactics were apparently discussed to frustrate ongoing attempts to obtain a proper case statement or hearing.
In March 2011 an arb apparently stated "The trouble is that (the user) does deserve a hearing" - evidence that none had been given. (And why would giving a hearing be "trouble"?)
Similarly to cap it all, it seems that after most of the above, a sitting arb then commented that they would have "loved it" if there had been evidence of a specific wrongdoing. If accurate this makes clear that there was an eagerness to find some fault although in reality there was nothing but high quality conduct. No wrongdoing had ever existed - one does not express a wish for evidence to exist if it already exists. More seriously how can any arb be "neutral" who is expressing how they would "love" to find adverse evidence in their off-wiki communications? Other arbs had apparently also expressed such a wish.
Instead conjecture - mostly wrong - filled the gap. Grossly wrong assumptions were apparently made in secret and treated equivalent to evidence, but with no checking of their accuracy, and with no notification or opportunity to rebutt with good evidence.
Notes
Checkable details (dates, cites, etc) sent by email; I will gladly hear explanations off-wiki to avoid placing you in any privacy-related catch-22. Errors will be retracted a.s.a.p., though I expect none. I accept I can't know what you did internally, that's only one part of it. Ultimately you were not diligent, did not protest firmly, or acquiesced in allowing gross errors and clear abuse to go ahead. Facts stated can be unambiguously substantiated, mainly from Arbcom's own records. Straw men (ie arguing points I'm not actually raising, as happened in this case off-wiki) will be met with disclosure as needed to show accuracy of statements, and if needed, with Jimmy Wales' recommendation of public scrutiny of the matter such as RFC. Impersonal pronouns used at times to keep it neutral in tone. Defamations and underlying case specifics not posted to keep the focus on the issues of arbitrator responsibility which is what matters here. I apologize for the timing, which should have been earlier (I had hoped to have it done well in advance for 31 Oct).
That reflects poorly on your conduct as an arb in 2010 - 2011. It seems you can be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity, and you don't diligently check facts or Committee emails. You are asserting that you can be trusted to hear cases conscientiously, neutrally, fairly, to a very high standard, and watch for the community over Arbitrator standards in non-public matters, for another two years, but these inevitably raise doubt.
FT2, let's put the cards on the table. At the time that you voluntarily resigned checkuser and oversight, the Arbitration Committee was not aware of a very specific action you took, which at the time you took it you clearly identified as something you were doing on your own initiative without any backing from any other party. You crossed a bright line with that action, and it is one that has almost invariably resulted in the user being banned, no matter how lofty their intentions were. The Committee was hesitant to take that step in your case for two reasons: first, the action did not come to light to the full committee until February/March 2010 although it occurred in September 2008; and second, publicly releasing the information had the potential to inflict further harm on non-Wikipedians, some of whom had already been victimized on our projects. To this day, you still do not recognise how inappropriate your action was, and you have consistently sought to blame everyone else including fellow arbitrators, functionaries from other projects, and even WMF staff, for any consequences of your own action. The Committee does not have to publicly justify a refusal to return advanced permissions to users, but in your case there was ample reason to refuse to do so. The Committee (and when you were still on the Committee, your fellow arbitrators individually or as a group) have asked you questions about this and other issues on multiple occasions going back almost to the beginning of 2008, and you have almost invariably obfuscated, dodged, deferred, dissembled, and postponed responding. Even those responses you've ultimately given to have often been shown to be incomplete or inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the Committee does not require any further information to refuse to grant you access to advanced tools.
Lessons have been learned from the intertwined events that are being obliquely discussed here. The recently ratified arbitration policy now specifically permits the Committee to remove members who do not meet the conduct criteria, something that was not in place in 2008/09 when both your arbitrator colleagues and the community as a whole had expressed such serious concerns about your activities. Criteria are now established for removing advanced permissions from functionaries, and explicitly require that any return of tools is at the pleasure of the Arbitration Committee. The Audit Subcommittee, including representation from the community, has now been put in place to review issues related to checkuser/oversight use. Outside of our own project, the better-staffed WMF community relations groups are in better position to address users who are problematic across multiple projects, stewards are much more willing to act and to participate in (or even lead) such investigations, and WMF-wide terms of service and community-proposed global ban policy are undergoing extensive community comment prior to their formal adoption. But none of this requires that elaborate, detailed processes be used to keep privacy-related tools out of the hands of those who misuse information gathered as a result of using those tools. I'm sorry, but I'm with Kirill here. If I'd known in late 2008 or early 2009 about your personal actions that occurred in September 2008, I would have concurred with site-banning you. I know you took those actions with the heartfelt belief that this was the right thing to do, but at least since February/March 2010 you have consistently been told that they were inappropriate and serious violations of policy, and I have no reason at all to believe that you understand that.
For the record, you have also emailed me personally with a further extremely long, apparently personalized message that repeats several of the points above. Risker (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I stated in my original question that I had emailed you. The email contains dates and cites so that you can check facts without having privacy issues. FT2(Talk | email) 17:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This matter had massive imminent likelihood of enduring real-world harm to non users -- and enduring harm to one or more children under 13. Its handling was judged by many and won wide endorsements and commendations from your peers and others of Arbcom-level standing. Overall, too many people throughout have sided against your view and went on verifiable record saying so to make a case. Enough arbitrators or equivalent knew of it through disclosure (2008). Just the one objected, a year on, and even he complained that nobody agreed with him. You've seen the cited evidence, you cannot argue that I took a view not taken by many others of similar standing to you. Far from unrecognizing the seriousness, you have the evidence showing how very seriously it was taken and the reason those who endorsed concurred on doing so.
The issue here is your conduct as an arb, here at ACE where you argue you hold high standards. I am asking why you tolerated, endorsed, and allowed claims you knew to be dishonest, in Arbcom emails, and why you didn't openly protest when you saw your colleagues engaged in tendentiousness, threats, and defamation. You knew personally, that facts stated in several Arbcom emails were flat falsehoods. You also didn't check evidence carefully and as a result there were numerous wrong assumptions never checked properly which were then discussed as if factual and appear to be relied upon (you had examples of two serious wrong assumptions by email).
Private cases are the most important for Arbitrator integrity since the community cannot scrutinize them. But you didn't. Not one arb has attempted to show that these lapses were at minimum some kind of good conduct, honest mistakes, reasonable errors, or show good faith. It's also notable that every last one of your colleagues here has evaded the question of Arbcom's wrongdoing. Not one has tried to argue these breaches didn't happen.
Now in 2011 you are standing for Arbcom again. It's a role that requires a high level of integrity of your conduct. On your watch, emails with knowingly dishonest statements were sent. You gamed (or allowed gaming) at Arbcom level. You had full knowledge precisely what you were enabling and what was going on all that time and it wasn't fending off improper or already-answered questions, it was unambiguous obstruction of proper discussion of a defamatory claim made by the Committee, and related matters. The ACE question is "You enabled, personally participated in, and endorsed your colleagues' gaming in a case at Arbcom level. Why?" FT2(Talk | email) 17:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FT2, I have no idea on what basis you're making many of your claims, and your point of view is revisionist history at best. You suggest that the entire Arbitration Committee of 2008 not only knew of the email you sent at the time you sent it, but explicitly approved of it in the form in which you sent it; bluntly put, that's nonsense and we both know it. You told *some* arbitrators of that time *some* of the information relating to this investigation, but carefully compartmentalized the great bulk of the information. Even when this matter first came to light in 2010, the sitting arbitrators requested explicitly that you provide ALL of the information that you used to come to your conclusions, and you have never provided it. This has definitely created increased difficulty, not only on our project but on other projects as well, in identifying and addressing continued inappropriate behaviour by the user involved. The information you continue to broadcast on this and other pages contains inaccurate dates, truncates portions of discussions and appears to be based on selectively leaked emails chosen with an agenda in mind. Your insistence that you have been treated unfairly has little resonance when you spent three years avoiding answering legitimate questions from your colleagues on the Committee and later the sitting Committee. More importantly, you keep referring to some sort of "case". There was no case, FT2. When the Committee was trying to figure out what to do with you in December 2008/January 2009, you were right there on the mailing list not answering the questions we were asking, but it was not a case. When you asked for checkuser and oversight back, only then were you questioned about the email: an arbitrator to whom it had been forwarded asked you to verify if you had indeed sent it, because he wanted to believe you wouldn't have done such a thing. Unfortunately, his good faith was for nought; you confirmed you had sent it, and made it clear then that you still believed it was the right thing to do. This too was not a case, it was a discussion about whether or not you were trusted by the Committee with checkuser and oversight tools, and when further questions were asked, you never responded, so you did not get the advanced permissions back. We entertained a further request from you later in the year, when you were asked certain questions which you have never answered. That wasn't a case either. When considering whether or not to post a notice about your candidacy last year on behalf of the Committee, the sole consideration was that you were obfuscating and dissembling in your statements, and failing to tell the truth about your interactions with the Committee; it would have been unethical to permit your version of events to stand uncorrected.
This discussion is at an end; you've actually not asked anything other than rhetorical questions in this section, and I fail to see why I should not just flip this entire section over to the talk page. Risker (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this thread to the discussion page, further discussion on this topic will likely breach privacy policy.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I've found Risker to be most helpful, swift and efficient in situations concerning OTRS matters including BLPs. I absolutely endorse this candidacy. For the record, I make this statement as an individual editor, not on behalf of any other OTRS agents. Asav | Talk(Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 07:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi,
This question is about a dubious case held by email, so I'm asking all candidates who were sitting arbs. My apologies for timing (see "small print").
Cases held by email or involving private information need special care since they lack public scrutiny. In a major email case this year any arbitrator applying basic due diligence would have spotted very serious errors. Instead you ultimately went along with the following lapses on your watch.
No proper case was presented although repeatedly requested, nor evidence backing defamatory claims.
The party received evasive and ultimately dishonest answers from Arbcom to inquiries.
No actual firm evidence that would stand the light of day existed on the discussed matters. You did not protest at the unsupported or unchecked claims, claims deliberately never specified or evidenced, or matters formally consulted, disclosed, and endorsed by arbs and equivalent, that can at best be seen as legitimate differences over approach.
The Committee tried to backtrack and break its word (or argued it hadn't agreed when it very explicitly had) - you knew this from personal knowledge.
The Committee did not act over non-neutral arbs with heavy involvement in the issue, later found not to have recused. (As came out afterwards.)
You did not openly protest at the refusal of fair hearing, nor at the tendentious way these were gamed - such as refusing for 6 months to provide details of defamation or any formal case, then claiming untruthfully they had been sent, finally then claiming the matter was closed so none needed to be provided, and other steps taken by the Committee to obstruct fair discussion.
You did not protest when your colleagues showed a gross breach of neutrality by revealing their eagerness and desire to find something actually wrong and their despair at being unable to do so.
You either didn't check "facts" in the case yourself, or protest at Committee emails that were grossly in error or "straw men". (Your colleagues didn't check basic facts much either.)
When the Committee engaged in strenuous bad faith and games and could not be persuaded to cease, you didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen.
We trust Arbitrators to make evidence-based and fairly considered decisions in private and check facts. If the Committee fails at this and abuses its trust we need arbs who will prevent it.
The lack of genuine case, evidence or reasonable discussion, and its replacement by unfounded defamatory claims, pretexts and assumptions, was a lapse to a point that you as a diligent member should have expressed serious concerns. You should have sounded the alarm externally. But you did not. You were silent.
Details of example lapses
The Committee sent a proposed AC/N statement in December 2010 stating the Committee "has become aware" of some matters, worded as if to imply something hidden. This was grossly misleading since I had myself notified the Committee almost 2 weeks before, in accordance with usual standards, to check if the matter should be disclosed. The Committee's email - containing a 24 hour ultimatum - was delayed nearly 2 weeks then sent at 1 AM UTC on the Saturday of the one weekend I had specifically said I was unlikely to be able to receive or read email.
A second email in January 2011 (same matter) was also grossly in error. Its contents were blatantly contradicted on Arbcom's own records and agreements, which you personally endorsed and hence knew about beyond doubt, but you didn't speak up externally despite personal knowledge that an Arbcom email was fundamentally in error.
In January 2011 a blatant defamatory statement which I won't repeat here (same matter) was made in a Committee email. I asked the Committee to let me know specifics and evidence. The reply was a "straw man" giving no comment on the specific defamatory claim I asked about. I asked again, pointing out that an opinion of this defamatory kind needed to be evidenced; without details I could not respond. It was clear and specific as to the defamation being asked about, but the reply was again evasive as to my actual question. I asked a third time for details to back up the defamatory claim -- and was surprised now to be told it had been answered "repeatedly and at length", which was categorically untrue and the Committee knew it. So I pointed out that I had merely received emails answering questions I hadn't asked. The next reply appears to be a subtle coercive threat based on an assumption I would not wish details made public and stating an answer would only be provided - if I insisted - publicly. I ignored it and pointed out (5th attempt to get a reply) that if a reply had ever been written as claimed to my actual inquiry then anyone could cite a date it was sent or forward it, but the Committee would be unable to as none had been. Awkward silence fell. The Committee, and every Arbitrator on it knew the Committee's claim of having sent details backing the defamatory comments were untrue.
To a final request to back up the defamatory claim it had made over 6 months ago, the Committee's response was effectively dismissive, a one line statement that any defamation resulting from the Committee's statements or handling was not the Committee's problem. No explanation, case, or evidence backing any defamatory claim had been sent in all that time.
In the same issue as above, the record shows the underlying matter was legitimate and consulted, and considered by those in senior positions as being correctly consulted, handled, and endorsed. Names, cites and checkable details of those users were provided. At least one arb with close knowledge stated this as well. That should have been the end of the matter. It would have been on any neutral review of evidence. Several had placed their view on verifiable record, including a member of WMF staff. The Committee not only continued to maintain an impossible claim that the matter was a unilateral decision (against the evidence of many users of senior standing who had endorsed or been consulted) but also "circled wagons" around a sitting arb who had been involved, consulted, and had endorsed and "signed off" on the matter.
Specific tactics were apparently discussed to frustrate ongoing attempts to obtain a proper case statement or hearing.
In March 2011 an arb apparently stated "The trouble is that (the user) does deserve a hearing" - evidence that none had been given. (And why would giving a hearing be "trouble"?)
Similarly to cap it all, it seems that after most of the above, a sitting arb then commented that they would have "loved it" if there had been evidence of a specific wrongdoing. If accurate this makes clear that there was an eagerness to find some fault although in reality there was nothing but high quality conduct. No wrongdoing had ever existed - one does not express a wish for evidence to exist if it already exists. More seriously how can any arb be "neutral" who is expressing how they would "love" to find adverse evidence in their off-wiki communications? Other arbs had apparently also expressed such a wish.
Instead conjecture - mostly wrong - filled the gap. Grossly wrong assumptions were apparently made in secret and treated equivalent to evidence, but with no checking of their accuracy, and with no notification or opportunity to rebutt with good evidence.
Notes
Checkable details (dates, cites, etc) sent by email; I will gladly hear explanations off-wiki to avoid placing you in any privacy-related catch-22. Errors will be retracted a.s.a.p., though I expect none. I accept I can't know what you did internally, that's only one part of it. Ultimately you were not diligent, did not protest firmly, or acquiesced in allowing gross errors and clear abuse to go ahead. Facts stated can be unambiguously substantiated, mainly from Arbcom's own records. Straw men (ie arguing points I'm not actually raising, as happened in this case off-wiki) will be met with disclosure as needed to show accuracy of statements, and if needed, with Jimmy Wales' recommendation of public scrutiny of the matter such as RFC. Impersonal pronouns used at times to keep it neutral in tone. Defamations and underlying case specifics not posted to keep the focus on the issues of arbitrator responsibility which is what matters here. I apologize for the timing, which should have been earlier (I had hoped to have it done well in advance for 31 Oct).
That reflects poorly on your conduct as an arb in 2010 - 2011. It seems you can be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity, and you don't diligently check facts or Committee emails. You are asserting that you can be trusted to hear cases conscientiously, neutrally, fairly, to a very high standard, and watch for the community over Arbitrator standards in non-public matters, for another two years, but these inevitably raise doubt.
Forthcoming ... still going through all the background to this. Roger Daviestalk 17:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reviewing your statement and the extensive email discussions which form the background to it.
Despite the appearance you seek to create in your 1500-word "question", the core facts of this business have never been in serious dispute. You freely admit that in 2008: (i) you used the checkuser tool to obtain IP addresses and thus extensively research the personal background of a banned user; and (ii) you subsequently made demands and threats in a 3,000-word email you subsequently sent to the banned user. You believed and continue to believe that such behaviour is acceptable, without understanding how it wouyld cast a long shadow over your judgment. You even went so far as to ask for the checkuser tool back for more investigation of the same banned user. You seem to have been – and remain – genuinely surprised that the committee, by now in full possession of the facts, refused to return the tool to you. You have insisted all along that you were authorised to act as you did but I have not seen any convincing evidence of authorisation. In any event, the ultimate responsibility for your actions is yours and yours alone. For the record, there was never a case, simply a series of dialogues as the situation slowly unfolded. Roger Daviestalk 20:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this thread to the discussion page, further discussion on this topic will likely breach privacy policy.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that Content Creators are underrepresented on ArbCom and that there there needs to be more diversity in this, Wikipedia's de facto Supreme Court, so that all angles of issues are examined properly. Consequently, I'm using a very specific metric this year: I am actively supporting those candidates who have made at least 50% of their edits to mainspace (unautomated). SilkTork is one of three candidates this year crossing this threshold, with a total of just over 29,300 mainspace edits since January 2006, about 55% of the total. I am not a copy editor or a quality control supervisor — both very worthy functions — I am a content creator. And I am supporting this content creator for ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like what I see
This user has made an enormous amount of contributions. This user's attitude is kind, friendly, patient, and respectful. This user is not a strict editor and grants second chances if necessary. I see no reason why this user shouldn't be a member of ArbCom.—cyberpower(Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Arbitration Committee Elections
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Happy_Happy_Happy.jpg&oldid=9419525){kind=link}