Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Apology from John Vandenberg

Original announcement

Are you talking about your own abuses or someone else's? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
CoM, that was in no way helpful. Your case is being dealt with elsewhere; please confine your remarks here to the issue currently being discussed. Thank you. GJC 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right Gladys, but the double standards and hypocrisy can be a lot to witness without feeling a need to comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think two things drive personal emails like these. First, it is my understanding that the arbs get about 200 list-based emails a day (arb-l, clerks-l, func-en, etc), so a personal email tends to stand out more. Second, there have been instances in the past of the arb-l list being leaked and of course there are over 30 people on clerks-l and more than 60 on func-en, so the sender may not trust at least one person among those large sets and prefer a personal email to avoid a direct confrontation with someone they do not trust. MBisanz talk 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

DuncanHill hits the nail on the head here. Disappointing, but at this rate there's a serious risks of running out of Arbs and I do believe that John is one of the best. Seems unlikely to make this mistake twice... WJBscribe (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for John

Thanks for explaining this. I see no reason you should resign for a simple oversight. But I'd like to ask you why the functionary was telling you by email that Law was The undertow, and didn't simply block him, or take it to AE. This seems to me to go to the heart of the problem here. There's a feeling that The undertow was being treated differently from any other editor violating a ban, and it would be good to know why. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the functionary? This should not need to be confidential. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, not a functionary and wasn't involved in the Law/Undertow matter. MBisanz talk 13:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly I misconstrued some of his comments here and on your talk page. My apologies. Could you let us know what the other similar cases were that he referred t previously? DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
John, can you explain why the functionary didn't act himself? It's not clear that he elevated it appropriately, or that "elevated" is the right way to look at this. There had been an ArbCom ban, it was violated, and an illegitimate adminship had been gained. The person behind it needed to be blocked. I need we need to know why it was dealt with privately by email to one Arb, and then not followed up. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec3) Well, that's interesting. I count roughly sixty functionaries at WP:FUNC. Now that you've cast some generic suspicion over all of them, what's the next step? What possible use was there in making a useless announcement like that? Are you asking for a community witch hunt? Was Casliber correct in his behaviour inasmuch as the ArbCom couldn't be trusted to handle sensitive information without making premature, incomplete, drama-generating pronouncements? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
np DuncanHill. Matt has identified a few problems, of various severity. Some are very important and some (I think) are the run of mill admins overstepping appropriate boundaries. Admins do this regularly, often with the encyclopedia at heart. An occasional overstepping is "testing" the boundaries, and can be excused as admin discretion. I appreciate Matt (and others) highlighting these to the committee (or myself directly), as a pattern of overstepping the boundaries, even with the best of intentions, is an indication that an admin is on a mission which is at odds with the community at large. A pattern of that is an admin that is going to incite a counter-offensive from the community, and that admin needs to be alerted to the end game of their actions.
Some of the problems that Matt identified had not made it to my inbox until this morning, and some have and not been adequately actioned (yet?, again, my fault). I have long known that there are people like Matt who knew of problems but I have not gone seeking to learn of them. (my fault again, as this is what I had hoped to fix).
In part this is because we (the committee) haven't been short of problems to do deal with this year. We have been progressive in some areas, but still reactive in many areas. Sadly this morning Matt let me know about a few issues which shocked the crap out of me. A few other emails have also come in letting me know about issues that were not on my radar. There is more work to do; I hope the community feels I am still part of the solution. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, the functionary who told me thought that they had offloaded it ... onto me. They did the right thing. It is my fault that I didnt action this email, and I think they did the right thing by staying silent afterwards. They could have poked me to see if I had understood the email, but I can understand that they wanted nothing further to do with this mess beyond letting me know. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Who was the functionary? Why is this information secret? If people have acted properly, they have nothing to hide. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered the exceptional chilling effect outing anonymous tipsters would have? We don't know why they wanted to remain anonymous, but can we respect their wishes? –xenotalk 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Per Xeno. Durova320 13:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Xeno, the thing is that a functionary is an admin plus a CU or oversighter too. They're elected to deal with these issues, so the "anonymous tipster" analogy doesn't really hold. John, with respect, I don't think this is a good time for secrecy. Would you please ask the functionary to step forward and explain? We need to know why issues involving The undertow seemed so hard to sort out. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec2) Anonymous tipster? Just above I read that this was a functionary, not a tipster. If a checkuser was run, that checkuser should be prepared to explain their actions. It's a reasonable question. (Durova, would you please stop stalking me.) Jehochman Talk 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, please keep it topical. Xeno raises a good point about chilling effects. When two active editors disagree it is probably because they have different wikiphilosophies. Maybe I should say no more but I will: the thing that sparked my interest in this particular situation is that Law happens to live in my geographic area. We've made several plans to go to the zoo together over the last few months, but each time the plans fell through. I didn't know he was The Undertow until it arose at ANI. He's very remorseful about how his mistakes are affecting other people and I'll probably go out of my way soon to meet him in person for the first time, just to take him to Starbucks. This is not all about you. Wikipedian decisions are based upon open discussion; administrators do not get to exclude experienced editors from even writing the words "per Xeno". If the stress is so bad that you've lost sight of those fundamentals, then consider a wikibreak. Have a breather; I'd support the removal of your name from both cases if they open. Durova320 —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
(re both) Perhaps they are friends with the user? People have been clamouring that duty should trump friendship, and perhaps it did in this case, but they did not want to act on it themselves. Asking the functionary to step forward is one thing, and I don't necessarily disagree, but announcing it against their will is not on. –xenotalk 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine, let the functionary step forward. We don't need any more cloak and dagger stuff around this matter. I suspect there is a simple explanation. Nobody is calling for heads on pikes here. Mistakes and snafus are allowed. We need to understand what happened so we can strengthen processes going forward. Jehochman Talk 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"Nobody is calling for heads on pikes here." What? Did you forget "yet"? I'm sorry, Jehochman, but I simply don't trust that if someone steps forward, you're not going to file yet another Arbitration request. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. An arbitrator who knew Law was a ban evading sockpuppet, objected to his RFA but did not take effective corrective action, and endorsed Lara as an oversight candidate knowing that Lara was enabling a ban-evading sockpuppet.
  2. An admin who nominated Law for RFA knowing he was a ban-evading sockpuppet.
  3. Multiple admins who knew Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet and supported his RFA without saying anything.
  4. Possibly additional admins who knew Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet and either were silent on the RFA, or who found out more recently, and remained silent.
  5. An arbitrator who was informed of a functionary action that suggests the functionary knew Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet.
What are the appropriate responses for each of these levels of knowledge? Should A be held to the same standard of responsibility as Cas simply because A emailed one arbitrator instead of filing a public report? Should Jayron, who has admitted voting for Law knowing he was a ban-evading sock, be held to the same standard of responsibility as GlassCobra, who nominated him? What about the many many other incidents involving Admin friends who stick together, but which did not rise to the level of a misleading RFA? Friends stick together, apparently, and I don't know of any easy answers to these questions. Thatcher 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont want secrecy. Lessons will only be learnt if we can unravel this mess and have a frank discussion about it. However the functionary involved did the right thing, and wants to stay out of the limelight, and I don't see any benefit in denying them that for the time beaing. It is my fault that their action wasnt actioned.

fwiw, they functionary who informed me is asleep right now, and I am not going to mention names until I talked with them, and I am not going to ask them to put their name on the dotted line unless they are happy doing so, unless I see some reason to do so. I will probably be asleep before they are up, so the curiosity may have to wait quite a while. Enjoy the delicious wait ;-) I should mention that at the same time that I informed arbcom, I also informed all functionaries-en of who it is. (minor guess work involved..) bear in mind that there are still functionaries who have not stepped forward yet. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a related issue that's relevant to the admins who found very late game that Law was Undertow and didn't do anything. If I (and I suspect many other people) saw that a given person was a returned individual who had now passed RfA and that people who knew him in real life hadn't said anything I would very likely have assumed that the process had been quietly oked by ArbCom or others who were relevant. We shouldn't have a witch hunt for people who didn't have all the facts post the RfA. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I am leaning towards agreeing with Joshua here. Knowing at the time of the Rfc is one thing; puzzling it out later might lead to the impression that undertow was given a discreet "fresh start" by ArbCom. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for John, in your apology you write: I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning. What exactly does that mean, couldn't you see whether you have opened the letter before this morning or not? Loosmark (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If his program is like mine, once you click there is no telling whether you'd previously viewed the email - there is no datestamp for "first clicked on". Also, there is the scan, scan, scan method of going through a long list of emails - he could have clicked, scanned, missed the import, and moved along. That could hardly be called reading the email. In short, I don't see how anyone could reasonably expect him to answer this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Well then you have a different program than me. In my program the subject of the letter is bold until you have opened it at least once and personaly whenever i open an email i always read it. But anyway I didn't mean to imply anything I was just curious that's all. Loosmark (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't determine whether I had read the email, and I can't recall whether I did either.
I use gmail. The email that I received yesterday morning from Keegan was a reply to the email that he sent on August 21. I had starred the original email, which means that when I clicked on the item in my Inbox yesterday morning, both emails were displayed. As far as I know, there is no way to find out when I opened it. If I had opened it when it arrived, it was promptly pushed onto the todo list, and then not done. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Thatcher seems to be saying that functionary B appears to have used CU or oversight in the interests of The undertow/Law on or before August 21, though there may be an innocent explanation. Have I understood correctly? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, yes, although we don't yet know the circumstances, and Joshua raises a good point. Thatcher 14:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Does this concern the oversighted revisions made on 16 August 2009 at User:Law and User talk:Law ? Cenarium (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For a supposedly flat project governance system, and for a culture that generally aspires to openness, all this secrecy and anonymity sounds a pretty discordant note for me. So and so knows this, but can't say, and other people knew this, but we can't tell you who. Even I got caught up in it on this board, because someone relayed to me the comments of a checkuser that admin socking had been discussed and dismissed on mailing lists. I don't want to identify the people involved, and I understand the impulse of John and Thatcher and others to protect the identity of people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong but who would nonetheless be subject to some vilification if their name came up here. Yet the whole atmosphere of secrecy here, of withholding information when you've decided everyone else doesn't need it, leaves me cold. It also may contribute to why some administrators believed they could withhold obviously relevant information from the community based on their own personal evaluation of "need to know." Nathan T 16:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we have an obligation to determine whether there is actual wrongdoing before naming names, particularly in an atmosphere where head-hunting is a predominant theme. Thatcher 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a general principle I agree with, but I can't say I like the atmosphere we've got now where practically any information is withheld unless there is a strong, continuing demand for its release. Everyone is afraid of being hung out to dry for minor errors or nothing at all, so nothing gets said. Protonk's statement on the case request should be required reading for practically everyone, perhaps. Nathan T 17:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Nathan makes a very good point - and let us not forget that it was in large part poor communication and secrecy that led last year's Arbcom to virtual implosion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on. Suppose I run a checkuser on a vandal and find he shares an IP with you. Should I publish that fact before or after I discuss it with you and you tell me it was a public library. Thatcher 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I'd rather you published straight away than made nebulous "we know something, but can't tell anyone" or "An accusation has been made by someone who won't say who they are, against someone we won't tell you who it is, and anyway we don't quite know if this is covered by policy anyway" type statements. And again, it was poor communication and secrecy that nearly scuppered Arbcom, please don't let the same cock ups be made again. DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What you describe is nothing like the situation we're dealing with here, in which admins and arb(s) knew for certain what was going on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I find the head-hunting atmosphere here quite disturbing. You might want to address yourselves instead to my comments above about different levels of culpability. John V. received an email containing a suspicion and did not act on it. The sender suspected the accounts and sent a message to an arbitrator rather than blocking the account directly. Someone else took action that looked suspicious but which has not been investigated yet. Do you really want to hold those people to the same standard of responsibility as a person who submitted an RFA nomination that was fraudulent by omission? I don't think any further comments by me are likely to be helpful at the present time. Thatcher 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite aside from the fact we are not looking at criminal investigation standards but rather alleged misbehaviour on a website. I agree with Thatcher's comments on cautious disclosure - I was once at the wrong end of one such disclosure by a checkuser some years ago and it took several hours and a lot of drama to get it sorted out, and there is a permanent "mark" on my record as a result of it. If someone had have contacted me and asked me straight out, I could have told them. Had I clearly not been straight with them and the evidence was rather clear, well, the ball would have been in their court to reveal to arbcom or AN/I as they saw fit. Some lessons were learned from my case and I hold nothing against any of the individuals involved, some of whom I actually get on well with today. Orderinchaos 08:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I believe I fall into category 4 (out of the 5 categories listed by Thatcher above). I didn't reveal that Law was the_undertow when I knew and I'm not apologizing for not saying anything. There are a great deal of other secrets that I know as well that I won't be revealing. Focus on creating an encyclopedia. If the actions of others cause an issue doing that, I'll be first in line to speak up against the troublemakers. Otherwise, assume every user is a sock of another and stop caring. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we have a problem. At the very least you should not have participated in defending Law here[1] against a claim that he was acting like a cowboy administrator, if you knew he was The undertow, and that's why he was blocked in the first place. Further, the conversation also involved discussion that the editor Law blocked was a sockpuppet. In so doing you effectively played other participants in the conversation for suckers. The right response would have been to say that you endorsed the block, but the administrator doing it is himself a sockpuppet and should not be blocking anyone -- or else, if the community decides this is okay, simply recused yourself because of your familiarity with the parties. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really going to dignify your reply with a response other than to say that I think it's time you found a new hobby. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A while ago you defended Law on a notice board, knowing that Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet of The undertow. You announce above that you held that and many other undisclosed secrets but you will continue to hold them and have nothing to apologize for. I don't think it's okay to knowingly defend a ban-evading sock so I feel my question is reasonable. It's not a huge transgression under the circumstances but it's something that I don't think should happen. You seem to think it's okay. If you don't want to answer that's your choice. If you think my analysis is wrong you're free to set the record straight. But you seem to be accusing me of something for asking the question. Do you think the question's wrong? As others have noted, a number of administrators shielded or supported Law, or looked the other way, and there are probably other undiscovered socks as well. Either we're going to have a policy against sockpuppet administrators or not. If we are, we must ask administrators have to honor and enforce it - who else can enforce that policy? We're not going to de-sysop every admin who knew the truth about Law, but some amount of coming clean, rooting out any other known cases, and agreeing that this will not happen again, is necessary if we're going to bother with that policy. Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As an admin or long term user one comes to know a hell of a lot of stuff that one doesn't necessarily need or want to know. (Note I say "I" here but it could be written by just about anybody - and I knew nothing about this Law situation until after it broke.) I know a fair bit of secret information. Much of it is hearsay, a fair bit probably false, some of it is more than likely true but only on the basis of very esoteric circumstantial evidence or a gut hunch. If I was to reveal the information I know, those who told me would not feel comfortable telling me more information, the people it's about could rightly say it is hearsay, probably false and with only esoteric circumstantial evidence or a gut hunch, I would probably be hunted down by the AN/I lynch mob and have to face days of drama for making unsustainable accusations against people with lots of friends, and nothing would happen to the person at the centre of it all. There is a difference between "transparency" and "appropriate discretion". Nevertheless, I do take the point that *acting on such knowledge* (as in, aiding and abetting) and *simply knowing it* are two different things - the former has some level of involvement or investment whilst the latter is probably a wish to avoid Wikipolitics as a domain in favour of more productive uses of one's time. Orderinchaos 08:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond this case

The Committee is important to Wikipedia. We all need to have faith in it. While the Committee can't do much about e-mail sent to individual members, an idiot-proof system to avoid lost and ignored e-mail sent to the list should have top priority. Reduced faith in the Committee is one side-effect. (In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the functionary above mailed JV instead of the list, thinking that mail to an individual was less likely to get lost.)

More important than the Committee's reputation is the resulting time-wasting. In a totally unrelated case, something ArbCom should have done 6 weeks ago isn't done yet because an e-mail wasn't registered. One Committee member has spent hours trying to track down the e-mail, keeping people updated, trying to make good again. Those hours could have and should have been better used; nothing else will get done if arbitrators have to play catchup with many similar cases. This isn't rocket science; clerical routines are essential to avoid bad outcomes and serious time-wasting. Above, users Skomorokh, Jehochman, Ched Davis, and Boris (at least) have made similar points. The Committee needs to solve this problem! - Hordaland (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland, this problem has been solved, and was one of the first things we resolved this year. All mail being received at the official Arbcom-L mailing list is logged and tracked and responded to. There are sometimes delays, but they are taken care of. We recently identified that there were problems receiving mail from certain domains, and we have done some reconfiguration to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. We have usurped User:Arbitration Committee and User:Arbcom specifically to provide an easy way to send emails to the Committee itself; the accounts exist solely as a conduit for communication with the committee. Those who want to communicate with the Committee should find no difficulty in doing so.
Each of us, as individual arbitrators, receive upwards of 100 emails a day, between mailing lists and those addressed to us personally. If someone needs arbitrator action on something, their best bet is always to send it to the committee address, where there's a very good chance someone will read it and respond within a day or so. I won't speak for anyone else, but I know it can take me several days to respond to personal emails. Risker (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Because of the above-mentioned case, I'm not totally convinced. Hoping for continued improvement, yours, Hordaland (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hordaland, the email that John mentions was sent to him personally, not to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Risker (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Please note correction below. Risker (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The email I sent in August was to the clerks list. Has that problem "been solved" too? I don't know the relationship between the various lists and who's responsible for them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the date of the email, I can check the archives quicker. MBisanz talk 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I found one for Sun Aug 2 16:47:59 UTC 2009, but the issue is moot, no? MBisanz talk 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Moot in the sense that the specific email has now been acknowledged, yes. Moot in the larger sense of measures having been put into place to keep email to the clerks falling through the cracks, as well coordination/management the various mailing lists for arbcom, the clerks, etc. -- well, that's what I was asking about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, nope nothing official on that front, although now that arbom just brought in new clerks, we are discussing ways to better ways to manage emails, so hopefully the clerks-l will be a bit more responsive to requests. And well I have nothing to do with the other lists out there (unless you are counting dal). MBisanz talk 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
My apologies to you Hordaland. My colleague Carcharoth has correctly pointed out to me that you were speaking of a very specific situation. Indeed, that is the situation I allude to in my message, where we became aware that messages from a specific user were not getting through. The email domain he used, one that is frequently associated with mass spamming, had been placed in the spam filter at some time in the unknown past; none of the current list admins had added anything to the spam filter, but when it became apparent this might be the problem, we wiped the spam filter completely and are going to let things run for a while to see if any specific domains really need to be included. So far, I don't think we've identified any. Risker (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Aaahh, that explains a good deal. Near perfection is as good as it gets. Keep up the good work. - Hordaland (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a little bit more to it than that. I believe I am the arbitrator Hordaland is referring to above, when saying "One Committee member has spent hours trying to track down the e-mail, keeping people updated, trying to make good again." It will take a while to lay out what I think happened here, but because of the nature of the problem, I think it needs doing. I'll do that in a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much. This needs to be done for folks like me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My advice is, if you want all the Arbs to know something send it to several of your favourites individualy, asking them each to send it to the mailing list. Don't trust emailing it the mailing list yourself, and I have reasons for saying that, trust me on that one. Human error occur, errors of judgement occur and so does downright deceit. Just cut out the middle-man and hedge your bets. Giano (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The arbitration clerks also have direct write access to the Arbcom mailing list, so their messages don't get queued or filtered. Asking a clerk to forward a note to the Arbcom list will ensure that it gets posted properly. Thatcher 22:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Then I am glad to hear that things have improved over the last few years. For that was not always the case! I shall certainly always continue to use my own methods. Giano (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I know I took a while to write the promised section that goes into more details (I'm about to save it after reading through it one more time - did I say it was long?), but you guys could have waited. Mattisse and Giano, this year at least, there have been several list moderators and only one example that I am aware of where there was an accidental discarding of a message that should have gone through. If you suspect that any e-mails you sent have not got through, now or in the past, just submit details and that can be checked against our archives - it is a trivial matter to carry out such checks going back many years. Thatcher, although clerks do have write-access, it seems that some actions of the spam filter can over-ride that. It is possible that only list-member access can over-ride spam filter settings, though maybe not even that. I could test that, but don't want to play around with the settings too much and end up blocking half the committee from the mailing list. The point is that the results seen by a sender with write-access (nothing) is the same as that seen by someone discarded by the spam filter (nothing). Ideally, someone with write-access who is not a list member would still get confirmation from the software that their message was accepted and got past the spam filters, but it seems they don't. It is easiest, in my view, to just turn off the spam filters. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Keegan

Wow, y'all have been busy.

I am the functionary that emailed John, I'll go through the sequence of events from my perspective.

I didn't know Law, except for participating in his RfA and doing a couple other wiki-related things with him. I had no idea that he was the undertow, nor any suspicion, nor any reason to suspect.

What occurred was that I was looking through a log trying to find something I did as a noob functionary to submit it for review. I accidentally discovered that an IP had "outed" Law on his talk page. Please note at this point that I was not a participant in any of this action, I just saw it. At that point I sat back for a couple minutes and thought about how to proceed, and for what reasons behind everything in the decision that I made. I decided that the best course of action was to email someone on the AUSC, and selected John to email. My email was two sentences and a link, as he stated it was not explicit nor accusatory, more of a "Hey...uh...I hope you guys know this/see this just in case the shit hits the fan."

At the time my concern was for both our community's integrity as well as for Law himself. It was posted by an IP, so obviously the secret was if not out, going to be out. But, I did not know if the allegation was true. If it was not, it could have damaged his integrity just as badly as if it was true. I didn't email the committee as a whole, because this was all new to me and I thought I'd send the buck up one ladder before trying to make a mountain out of something that might not even be true. I never heard back from John, and I never told anyone I emailed him out of the interest of Law's privacy, not my own. The purpose of the email was not to snitch, but to inform in case this was true and would subsequently needed to be handled by the committee in the most prudent way possible. The fact this one email got lost in the cracks seems to have resulted by the actions of others in the very drama that I was hoping to avoid.

A day or so later I ran into Law off-wiki and talked to him on the phone for about an hour. My concern was that he had put a retired template on his page the same time the "outing" occurred and announced intent to leave Wikipedia. I was interested in maintaining his privacy should this all be subject to off-wiki harassment and how much this might impact his life. Law informed me his retirement was unrelated to anything that may have been said, and he never confirmed to me himself that he was the_undertow.

Since Law said he was retiring and was okay, and I had emailed John, I put the whole gruesome affair behind me and moved on since I had done my duty as a Functionary (at least I believe so, I hope others do). I honestly assumed that the Committee knew, and was working on a strategy to take care of all this in the aforementioned least drama-prone way, as this was going to come up eventually I thought they were prepared. It seems not, I was honestly surprised that the Committee didn't know, and I expressed this surprise to which John wanted to know whom I had emailed. It was him, oops :) He's apologized to me for the miscommunication, and that's an apology I accept. We get a lot of emails, we read a lot of emails, we have lives, and there's only so many hours in the day. I'm not going to discuss the private information about suppression, that's none of my business as I accounted for myself.

Professionalism and integrity is how I try to conduct myself at all times. I am not perfect, I make mistakes like everyone else. I do not expect anyone else to not do the same. This is a colossal sequence of events to lead up to this, as are most major things in history. Hindsight is 20/20, I know I did the right thing and I know that others would have done so as well had they the opportunity.

I love you all, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

*hugs* --MZMcBride (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Keegan, thanks for stepping forward. Can you clarify the issue that Thatcher raised, namely that functionary A saw in the log that functionary B had done something in relation to User:Law that A felt it wise to report? I'm not sure whether Thatcher was talking about you (as A) or someone else. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Keegan was "A". Thatcher 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I am A, and I still assume that B was acting in good faith for basically the same reasons that I was. Keegan (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so piecing this together, Keegan saw that an anon had outed Law as The undertow on Law's talk page. The talk-page history shows that two edits were oversighted on August 16, the page protected, and the anon blocked. The implication is that someone used oversight to hide that Law had violated an ArbCom ban and had gained adminship by lying to the community. And that other admins blocked the whistleblower and protected the page against further revelations.
If the above is anywhere near correct, this isn't something anyone should be covering up. I appreciate your point about the atmosphere of heads rolling, Thatcher, but this is not a good situation. I'm thinking in particular that these admins and the oversighter wouldn't have helped someone violate an ArbCom ban unless they believed the ArbCom was okay with it. What's puzzling me is what was special about The undertow that this would happen. Is it just that he was friendly with people on IRC, or am I missing something? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just to be clear, was Law outed as The undertow, or was his real name posted, or both? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm about to be afk for a few hours, so I'll try to help you out with this. I have no idea the motives of B, I assume good faith. I know that my motives were for the better of Wikipedia's community in how I approached the situation. There was no real name released, just linking the accounts. I fell into this whole thing by accident, but could not reasonably turn a blind eye. Following that, I did what I thought I should and moved on from the whole damn mess. Did I run into Law on IRC? Yes. Do I pal around with him there? No. I idle in #wikipedia-en for the !oversight and !admin pings, I saw him there. That's the extent of my IRC participation in this affair. Hope that helps. Keegan (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's helpful. You told someone, Keegan, so you did the right thing. As for the oversighting, I can't think how that wouldn't be a clear misuse of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Keegan and SlimVirgin, the Audit subcommittee was made of aware of the matter today by John and we will be reviewing the situation according to our usual practices. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, Keegan. You clearly made the right moves with this situation. JamieS93 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Keegan's explanation is perfectly reasonable. If B would step forward with their explanation, that would help eleminate speculations. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Keegan's actions. But I am beginning to notice that many of the participants on both sides of this matter either attended the Nashville Meetup last month, or belong to the Bathrob Cabal.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The timing of this event taking place two weeks before the Meetup is completely coincidental for me, you have my word on that. Keegan (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I totally believe you. That observation includes several people - I just happened to post it here. Nothing personal. Another non-personal point: You say you saw a posting on Law's talk page from an IP which revelaed that Law was The undertow. I checked the history and can't find any such posting. I do see that two edits from an IP on August 16 were oversighted.[2] Does anyone know who oversighted those postings, and why? If it was to hide Law's on-wiki identity then it was probably inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've sent a message to the Audit Committee regarding the oversighting so no answer is needed here.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For communal information: I checked the link above and found the suppressed items. They were correctly suppressed; containing attempts to post purported real-world private information that I have no idea if accurate or not, as well as a long string of invective and offensiveness, gross sexual insults, and several occurrences of "fuck" and "shit".

They mentioned undertow but only in an irrational and mis-spelt context that nobody would necessarily make sense of; for example in the middle of various ramblings, one of them did state "...<blah hate attack><Blah Fuck>Law is the underto!!!!Fuck<blah more hate attack>", which, mis-spelt and in the middle of an outing post and irrational/lengthy swearing and attack vandalism, I would be amazed if anyone specifically noticed or saw other than as meaningless rant. There was no statement in either to alert a reasonable reader that Law was socking; this was in August and both would appear to be strings of random invective plus purported real-world information to any normal oversighter review unless the oversighter had clear prior information of some kind.

The oversighter was not an arb. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that context, which relieves the concern that the oversight was an attempt to hide the previous user name.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Will; that information eases my concerns as well. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Audit Committee completed its review and posted its report here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Reports#User:Law and User talk:Law.   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee mailing list (missing e-mails)

Apologies for the length of this, but I think the details are important here. In a section elsewhere on this page, Hordaland raised the question of 'lost and ignored e-mails'. My response there was this, stating that I would lay out in more detail what I think has happened here (Risker has already stated that the problem was likely to do with the spam filter - I'm going into more detail here and correcting a few mis-statements). The intention had been to prepare a formal notice, but this will have to do.

I first got an inkling that there might be a problem with e-mails to the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arb-l) going astray when, towards the end of the Abd-WMC case, TenOfAllTrades said he had asked Hersfold, one of the arbitration committee clerks, to forward an e-mail from him to arb-l. This was on or around 9 or 10 September 2009. I looked through my records and the archive of arb-l, and could not find this e-mail. So I confirmed with Hersfold that he had indeed forwarded this e-mail but it had never arrived at our (ArbCom's) end, so I asked him to try again. After a bit of testing and back-and-forth, we failed to replicate the problem sufficiently to identify what was causing it. I remained concerned, and said as much to my colleagues on the committee, before moving on to other matters. I did, however, make a mental note to try and sort this out if it happened again.

The next chapter in this story started when an amendment request was filed in September regarding the ADHD case. During that request (which is still open) the issue of mentorship for one of the parties to that request came up. That party (Scuro) said he had e-mailed the arbitration committee on 8 August 2009, saying he had failed to find a mentor. He has since confirmed that he also e-mailed several times earlier, during the actual ADHD case. As far as I can tell, none of these e-mails arrived at the arbitration committee mailing list. While trying to track down the e-mails, I asked Scuro to e-mail the Arbitration Committee again, and to copy me in individually. The e-mail to me arrived, but the copy to the arbitration mailing list did not arrive.

Convinced now that there was a real problem, I went back and looked more closely at the set up of the Arbitration Committee mailing list (I am one of several arbitrators with list admin access). Risker (another list admin) said she thought Scuro might have accidentally been placed on the auto-discard list (a list of e-mail addresses where e-mail from those addresses is automatically discarded), and cleared that list, and added Scuro to the auto-accept list (a list where e-mail from those addresses is, funnily enough, automatically accepted). This didn't, however, fix the problem (yet another e-mail I asked Scuro to send didn't arrive - apologies by the way for asking Scuro and others to send test e-mails, instead of setting up a test account myself, and thanks to Scuro, Hersfold and TenOfAllTrades for being so patient during the testing).

Eventually, I thought to look at the spam filter settings, and was surprised (horrified, actually) to discover that a list of 19 e-mail domain names of varying sizes and popularity (mostly yahoo ones) were in the spam filter, with the setting set to "discard". I suggested to my colleagues that this was the cause of the problem (both Scuro's e-mail address and TenOfAllTrade's e-mail address were from one or other of the domain names there, and seem to have triggered the spam filters). Following my suggestion, the spam filter 'action' setting was switched from "discard" to "hold" (for a moderator to review), and this seems to have immediately fixed the problem.

To confirm this, I asked both Scuro and Hersfold to e-mail again (with Hersfold copying in TenOfAllTrades) and the e-mails both got through this time, with scuro confirming that the e-mail he sent had triggered a moderation message saying his e-mail had triggered a "rule" (i.e. triggered the spam filter). The difference is that the messages were now being held for moderation, not silently discarded (previously, neither Scuro and Hersfold, or the list admins/moderators, had received any notification at all that theses e-mails had not arrived and had been discarded). One of the reasons this may not have been picked up earlier is a presumption that "discard" generated an "auto-discard" notice to the list moderators. It seems that this is not the case for discarding that is done directly by the spam filter (as opposed to discarding done by the auto-discard list).

This all happened around about 8 days ago. Because I was still not 100% sure of this (I don't really know on a deep level how such things work), I suggested doing some more testing to be sure, and asked some of my colleagues with more experience in dealing with such things to comment. Several have since commented, but as some may be aware, the committee has been very busy recently dealing with a series of incidents and large cases. This is partly why I am bringing this here now, as I don't think the follow-up to this should be delayed much longer (I would normally clear a posting of this length and of this nature with my colleagues, but have not done so here, as I think this needs addressing now, with no further delay).

To be clear, the problem seems to have been fixed now (i.e. it is unlikely that e-mails will be lost or discarded in the future for this reason), though to be absolutely sure, I would be happier if someone who understands this more than I do did some proper testing. However, it is not clear how large the now-fixed problem was and what the effect was. The big problem here, as Risker mentioned earlier, is that we have no clear idea how long the spam filter was set to reject e-mail from this range of 19 e-mail address domains, or even when each domain was added to the list (the list can be published - as I said, they are mostly yahoo ones). What I think should be done at this point is the following:

One point I do want to make here is that one of my aims this year has been to to help improve the communications of ArbCom, and I am angry that some of the impression of poor communications from last year and this year may have been due to poorly configured spam filters, possibly ones that were configured last year or even further back than that, and just never looked at or properly discussed by the list admins. One of the things I speculated about, when reporting on this to my colleagues, was whether this explains some of the feeling over the years that people were not getting replies from ArbCom? It wouldn't explain all such feelings obviously, but maybe some. If it is confirmed that some failure in the configuration of the spam filters has caused more than just the two failure points I described above - and I should note that not all my colleagues agree that this is the problem I am making it out to be - then I hope that this report helps explain what has happened here, and show that once discovered, steps were taken to identify and correct the problem. I will wait for comments here, and then move forward with further responses and an appropriate formal notice (including posting a list of the e-mail domain names that were affected) as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Short version for readers who are not FT2 or Newyorkbrad

  1. Arbcom-L has a spam filter.
  2. The spam filter was set to discard messages from some significant email domains without notifying anyone.
  3. It is not known who set the filter this way or for how long this was happening.
  4. It's fixed now.

-- Thatcher 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we please set up a ticket tracking system (aka help desk software) to log requests to ArbCom? You need a system that protects against people deleting, filtering, or ignoring correspondence without a log of the action. Jehochman Talk 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The point is that a tracking system was put in place this Spring by the new arbcom but the spam filter was discarding messages before they even hit the tracking system. Thatcher 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Does the user interface say "You will receive a receipt for your submission. If you do not receive a receipt, then your message was not received." What happened here should not have happened in a properly designed system. Email transmission failures are commonplace, even if the spam filter is set up correctly. Jehochman Talk 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The mailman interface has these options for messages matching the "spam" regexp: Defer, Hold, Reject, Discard, Accept. I assume, based on Carcharoth's text, that "reject" would send a reject message and "discard" dumps it without a message, while "hold" puts it in the queue and notifies the list mods. I have not tested this behavior myself (I am a mod on the audit subcom mailing list and am just now poking around the interface). Thatcher 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. You need more testers. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as all the filters are turned off, no testing is needed. If the filters ever are turned on again, for certain words or domains, then definitely testing is in order. Thatcher 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If the filters are turned on, then it would be helpful to maintain a public page where people can validate their suspicions i.e. if you are using this.domain.com, your mails are liekly being discarded. Filtering based on word content (presumably for things like "Viagra4free" in the subject line) is a little more problematic, but it's not likely that Arbcom or functionaries are primary targets of spammers selling porn or male-enhancement products. Surely the best solution is to publish the filter rules on a public wiki-page so that we can all check if we suspect that our emails aren't getting through. Franamax (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You are sadly mistaken. We are also apparently prime targets for diploma mills, hotel rooms in Ulan Bator, and Russian mail order brides. In any case, the spam filter has been completely wiped for now. Risker (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The simplest solution, if the spam filter is needed again, is to set it to reject instead of discard. Then the sender gets a rejection letter. If the sender is a wikipedia user, he or she can use other means to contact the committee (ideally, advised by the rejection notice). Thatcher 04:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I bought one of those brides! Sadly, the ocean shipping was too much for her glistening cardboard cheeks. ;) My point was that there would be no particular harm in making public the filtering rules, i.e. spam is spam, it comes from one of many generic maillists that spammers buy and sell. Once any given email address gets on a spamlist, it never comes off - however, I rather doubt that any spammer would target a filter list published on Wikipedia to develop strategies meant only to target such a small set of addresses. Thus, I see no great problem in making public the filtering rules, which any legitimate wiki-editor could check to see if their own important email may or may not be getting through. If I understand the recent concern correctly, the sender would have been able to check against the filter rules and realize "hey, I use that mail domain, maybe my mail was blocked".
Thatcher's proposed solution works too, but in my corporate (or any) life, I've always discouraged sending out "rejected" messages, since they are a direct indication to the spammer that the mail address is "live" and thus could prompt resale and/or better techniques for getting spam through. For a large-scale and public site such as this though, "reject" may indeed be the best strategy. Franamax (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the institutional memory here for the arb mailing list probably resides in David Gerard's head - might be worth asking him about this particular subject. Nathan T 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If I thought he could remember who the list admins were in 2007 and 2008, and what the many different mailman settings were at the time he stopped being an administrator of the mailing list, I would have indeed asked him. I think publishing a list of the e-mail domains in question would better allow people to check their records, send us details, and allow us (well, me actually, it seems) to check the archives, is a better option. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a dumb question, but sometimes dumb questions need to be asked - do you not actually keep a record of who the admins are? I can't afford to give the foundation any money to help with this, but I could probably spare a pen and some sheets of paper to note things down on if it would help in future. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
For the two WMF-mailing list I am an admin on, I can verify that the software has no way of tracking who was a former admin. And paper only works if the person with it is still around, usually a new admin is made because all of the past admins have gone inactive. MBisanz talk 16:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe if there was some kind of easily editable website, which could have pages protected so that only certain editors could edit them, a record could be kept on that? DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You could keep a list anywhere, the real problem is keeping it up to date. (Although I'm not sure wikipedia project space is a good place to host administrative details of dozens of mailing lists.) What would really be nice is for the software itself to be more wiki-like, logging changes to the filters and other preferences and who made them. Thatcher 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Both technically and procedurally, Jehochman's suggestion of help desk software sounds like the most reliable solution. It is designed just for this situation, logs everything, can (I think) send rule-based notices to those who should be notified and assign due-date milestones, and keeps an "audit trail" of every step in dealing with an issue. The Wikimedia Foundation has an open source application of this kind that the Office Action people use to deal with complaints about Wikipedia articles (e.g., libel claims, copyright, etc.). So the software and the know-how for using it are already in the house. Finell (Talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Appoint CU & OS auditing subcommittee

According to the agenda and election mechanism was supposed to be in place by August 15th. Would someone be so go as to point me to it, and let me know when the elections will be held? --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The election will be taking place this month. We're just finalising the details so that accurate announcements can be made, probably in about seventy-two hours  Roger Davies talk 07:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Roger. --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank God. Thatcher 14:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Update: just ironing out some wrinkles with the developers; we should be in a position to announce the schedule within 24 hours.  Roger Davies talk 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot damn.--Tznkai (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Okay, all. We have a timetable:

You heard it here first. I'll post the more detailed, formal announcements tomorrow.

 Roger Davies talk 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • If you have suggestions on where or how to publicize the announcement, feel free to implement them, it;s a wiki after all... Thatcher 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I've posted announcements at WP:AN, WT:CHECKUSER, WT:OVERSIGHT, WT:CRAT, WT:AUDSUB, WT:SPI and will give Kirill an exclusive for Signpost. Any other suggestions welcomed,  Roger Davies talk 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I added WP:VPM and WP:AN; it could even be reposted there on a weekly basis to refresh it as it scrolls off. How about the CU, OS, functionary and wiki-en mailing lists? Also important to post each step of the process (self-nom one week to go, self-nom closed, elections open, elections 7 days to go, elections 24 hours to go). I won't touch the various mediwiki sitenotices and other popups 'cause there is some territoriality there, but it could be considered. Any other ideas? Thatcher 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! WT:AC, done too.  Roger Davies talk 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Review? :) Thatcher 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
[Chuckle]  Roger Davies talk 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a watchlist notice would be a good idea. (Proposed) –xenotalk 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago, I wrote a page designed to be referred to when questions of where to publicise something arises. See Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. I would suggest WP:CENT is used a few days before the election starts, and that any discussions to put anything on sitenotices (also mentioned at the link I gave) are started early in the relevant places to allow consensus for or against adding to those sitenotices to become apparent. I would suggest a central place to announce elections might not be a bad idea. WP:ELECTIONS exists, so I would add it there as a forthcoming election. If there is a Wikipedia calendar anywhere, that might be an idea as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all. I have installed archive protection on the AN thread [3]. –xenotalk 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"What did the President know, and when did he know it"?

The man who originally asked those words was Howard Baker, who was ranking minority member of the Senate Watergate Committee. As a Republican, Senator Baker was placing principle above party loyalty by asking directly whether Republican President Nixon was aware of the burglary at the Democratic National Headquarters.

After Watergate, Senator Baker became Senate Minority Leader and then Senate Majority Leader when the Republicans gained control. He served as White House Chief of Staff under Ronald Reagan and was ambassador to Japan until 2005. It would be an unkind reflection on his legacy for a Wikimedia steward to liken that famous question to a "witch hunt", except that Senator and Ambassador Baker is 83 years old and very much alive. He still works as a senior partner at a law firm.

The Wiki Witch hunts for an appropriate species of fish. Trout seems inadequate here. Durova320 15:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that directed at me? What I see here has witch hunt aspects. No disrespect intended to any wiki witches, past or present, but I calls them like I sees them. I don't recall mentioning Howard Baker or Watergate and I think your spin on this may not be uniformly helpful. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is directed at those using the Watergate quote, rather than the HUAC "Are you now, or have you ever been" which is what they clearly meant. Watergate IMO would be more appropriate, as this is not a witch hunt but rather trying to find out who knew and was involved in the cover up. This is nto a with hunt; it is asking for accountability from those in positions of trust. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"What did you know and when did you know it" is exactly the sentiment I wish to call out as what makes this seem to this observer to have witchhunt aspects. For the record, I'm not seeing a lot of "have you ever been a member of..." sorts of questioning. I am not alone in my perception (see above, you've engaged with some other folk agreeing with the observation) and no amount of saying "but it's not a witchhunt" can change that perception. This is not the first witchhunt we've seen here, since Wikipedia has aspects of a mobocracy. The situation around Geogre's socking had the witchhunt nature too, for example. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Lar's confusion is somewhat understandable before the background explanation (a lot of people don't know much about history), but not afterward. "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" has nothing to do with HUAC, McCarthy, or inappropriate questioning. This question was one of the finest moments of American politics. By paraphrasing and likening it to the lowest moments, you do a disservice both to honest inquiry and to the living gentleman who posed the query. It really is a serious cognitive error to conflate this. Durova320 16:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You're conflating it. I'm not. I do not think I'm confused either. Your rhetoric about finest moments is unhelpful. This is hardly this wiki's finest moment. ++Lar: t/c
Lar, you just said "What did you know and when did you know it" made you think of this as a witch hunt. The quote is from the highly esteemed and deeply ethical man who went against cronies to ask a hard question of the president during Watergate. There is nothing "witch hunt" about this. "Witch hunt" generally refers to either actual witch hunts, or more recently, of McCarthy era HUAC questioning. You saying the Watergate question = in your mind Witch hunt, is indeed conflation. I suggest you read Durova's concern more closely, and reconsider. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Beautifully expressed, KC. That man is still alive, employed, aware of the world around him, and capable of learning how the most esteemed action of his career has been equated with McCarthyism and witch hunts. Imagine what a man in his eighties may suppose posterity would think if this public discussion reaches his attention. Lar, please put the dignity of a Wikimedia steward to better purposes. Durova320 17:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I express no such equivalence. For reference I explicitly disclaim and refute any such. You really need to stop this rhetoric, it is tiresome and distracting. YOU raised Baker. YOU raised Watergate. YOU claim I quoted him (your section heading uses words I did not use). Those who think this is a witchhunt, for whatever reason, are entitled to think so. Instead of attacking them for wording choices (and falsely at that) you two might better try to determine why they think so. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Quoting Lar, above ""What did you know and when did you know it" is exactly the sentiment I wish to call out as what makes this seem to this observer to have witchhunt aspects." You're just ignorant, and happy to be so, if you don't realize you're quoting Baker. I'm dropping this; you're clearly determined to keep your head deeply and firmly in the sand. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
More conflation. There is a problem here that needs investigating. But if significant number of folk think it looks more like a witch hunt than a serious, sober, and reasoned investigation, that's going to be an impediment. You would be better served to determine how to investigate without the spectre of witch hunting so that no one or almost no one thinks it looks that way. Or not, if rhetorical sparring, misquoting, calling folk ignorant, and the like is more your forte. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
One last comment: Lar, you seem to miss how terribly ironic it is that you are misusing that quote here. No one in this section is arguing about whether this is or is not a "witch-hunt" we've been trying and failing utterly to explain to you that you're citing, not a "witch hunt" question, but a question of someone who did the right thing and did not allow those in power to get away with a cover-up. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife, but you're focusing on whether or not this is a witch hunt, and completely ignoring those trying to point out to you your error in quoting Howard Baker. Your quote means exactly the opposite of what you are saying. And had you read Durova's first post and responded to what she was actually saying, you would not still be defending your very inappropriate use of the quote. I mean no insult; but I do wish you were either aware enough to acknowledge you might have erred, and a careful enough reader that you realized Durova was talking about your conflation of Baker/Watergate and McCarthy/HUAC witch-hunts and not trying to argue about your actual point, which has been lost in your extremely poor choice of quotes to use. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a corrupt administrator hunt, and I will gladly participate in smoking out every one of them. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is kinda off topic. While some rhetorical advantage may be gained in mining the collective unconscious for bad associations w/ McCarthyism, the parallel is simply a rhetorical device. And the misuse of the Baker quote (While telling, in some sense) is likewise limited in its rhetorical fallout. Lar's main concern isn't obviated by pointing to the wrong historical antecedent. I don't agree with his concern, but we do each other no favors in talking past one another about which period of american history is a better model for current events on wiki. Protonk (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova's quotation of "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" is on target. It asks relevant, important questions without making assumptions.
Much of the rest of this page is ridiculously preoccupied with "witch hunts", which have nothing to do with the question raised by Durova. A witch hunt assumed that there were guilty who would be punished mercilessly even if the alleged offence is a fiction. Let's drop "witch hunt" and concentrate on what significant or omissions actually occured. --Philcha (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Meh. I don't see the need to have a teachable moment for lar about the distinction. It's not as though if we impress upon him how noble Baker's stance was he will change his mind about the nobility of this particular venture. Protonk (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
True, but Lar's comment is a borderline BLP violation. Moreover, it is extremely offensive. Howard Baker is a great man. And to compare him to McCarthy out of ignorance is bad enough. To compare him and repeate the comparison after the problem is explained is well... I'm not the sort of person who gets his blood boiling over issues of patriotism. But at the moment, it makes me feel like a very upset American upset at another American who doesn't know his history and refuses to listen to anyone try to explain it to him. The issue here has nothing to do with whether or not this is a witch hunt and everything to do with Lar's totally inappropriate choice of quotes to reference. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, what? Thought this would be hatnoted by now. You're seriously confused here, JoshuaZ. Please cite where I mentioned Howard Baker, said anything disparaging about him, made any comparison of Watergate to McCarthy or to anything else or in any way said anything that nay reasonable person could take offense at? BLP violation? That would be all the OTHER people who keep mentioning his name. I merely observed that I saw a particular question being repeated, and that it seemed like a witch hunt to me. There are people refusing to listen here, but I'm not one of them. How many times did you want me to explain this and/or say what a great person I think Howard Baker is before stop trying to make something out of nothing? Good grief. Get a grip. I cannot believe how effectively you've all managed to sidetrack this with irrelevancies. I feel swiftboated. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh FFS. The weakest possible interpretation of BLP is to treat it as a means to force retraction of inartful comparisons in discussions between wikipedia editors. It's also possible that someone might feel that the Watergate business was a partisan witchhunt, as recently as 2004, we elected a vice president who thought so. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Slow down, please

We're at really long, don't want to read here. Lets keep this all in perspective. The undertow/Law evaded a ban and became a sysop. Several people in varying positions of trust did not speak up when they could have. There is a great deal of anger, and serious disagreement as to who should have said what, when. That is what we know.

Despite very strong feelings to the contrary, we do not have a consensus on who breached what duties. We do not have a clear picture on who had what knowledge, and in this atmosphere, its unclear if anyone will want to come forward and volunteer. We have a great deal of anger, accusation and counter accusation, a lot of speculation and a great deal of meta discussion. My urgent plea is we all have a little patience with each other and work on something else.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

Original announcement

Motions: Law/The Undertow and Disclosure of known alternate accounts

Original announcement

I would like to regret (though not object to) the desysopping of GlassCobra, a user I have always found to be friendly, helpful and a good influence. I hope that they consider regaining their adminship after the discrete interval that this unfortunate case has necessitated. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 16:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Matheuler: I've raised the matter on clerks-l. A response is forthcoming. Thanks, AGK 22:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You are quite correct: the motion should not have carried. It has been removed from the various related announcements and the committee index of motions, and can be considered to have never passed. (That it ever was carried seems to have simply been an administrative error.) Thanks for drawing attention to this oversight. AGK 22:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That one is entirely my fault. I'm not sure frankly how I got it into my head that it had passed, and then the first error snowballed into multiple listings. It has since been repaired in all relevant locations by other clerks, whom I thank. Manning (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the ArbCom can post a motion admonishing you for being a chocolate hedgehog, with an aunt called Sara, in this matter? In fact, hadn't they done so already? Please check the logs! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that would be completely inappropriate. I believe checking the logs will show he is a butterscotch hedgehog, with an Aunt Sally. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, isn't that what I said? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"I've no wish to see Jennavecia admonished or otherwise humiliated, nor GlassCobra. There's too much humiliating going on at RFAR, and too much clumsy admonishment. Just do the practical thing: desysop them.[4]"
I realise my opinion won't change anything, and that the parcel is already tied with Arbcom string and sent off, but I wanted to register a protest. I don't like the way the motion system works. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
It does seem to be adding insult to injury, yes; and although this one instance might not seem to be very significant, I would still agree that admonishing and desysopping in one decision gives off a poor image. At the very least, I would suggest that the committee propose all desysopping and admonishment proposals relating to the one user solely as alternatives. AGK 19:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Would the situation have been better-handled if there had been a full case, with evidence and workshop pages, taking weeks or months? There were already 80+ users commenting on the RFAR, I'm not sure there would have been anything novel to say in a full case. Thatcher 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been. That's why we chose to handle this by motion instead: none of the material facts were in dispute, so there was no point to collect evidence or workshop its analysis. — Coren (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Coren: What would you say to the suggestions that an admonishment should not be handed down to a user who is also being desysopped? AGK 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
My take on what happened here is that there was confusion over what people meant by "alternatives". Some thought that alternatives meant choose between admonishment and desysop, and that if both desysop and admonishment were passing, then the one with the greater support over-rode the other option. This led, briefly, to the possibility that an admonishment (passing with strong support) would take precedence over a desysop (passing with weak support). This was clearly absurd (the stronger remedy, if passing, should always come first, however weakly it is passing). However, there are reasons to support voting on an admonishment alongside a desysop motion. If the desysop motion fails, you have the alternative to turn to. Also, if things change (e.g. a resignation), then the admonishment can go with a statement on the resignation, and help to make clear the reasons for the resignation.

In future, if I was setting up a vote like this, I would make clear from the start that the desysoppings were the main motions, and that the admonishments were reserve motions, to be used only if the desysopping motions failed or became moot. As regards the motions here, if anyone feels strongly enough that things need to be clarified, then a clarification request could be filed (it should include examples of past cases where admonishments and desysoppings were passed together, or voted on as alternatives). But it really would be best to wait a couple of weeks before doing anything like that, both to let things calm down a bit, and to let us deal with the current cases. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I have been working offline on Microsoft Word, crafting an appropriate apology for days now. After pages of text, I have scrapped the whole thing. All I can do is to is to state unequivocally that I screwed up in voting in Law's RFA given that I knew about the connection between the two accounts, and for that horrendous lack of good judgement on my part, I am sorry. The more I have ruminated on this the more I have come to realize by actions were inexcusable. Several people noted my lack of remorse in comments along the way of this case; I can only say that there was a lack of statements of my remorse. I felt, after a few days into the process, that any statements of apology or remorse on my part would only be self-serving, and I did not want to sway the committee by interrupting their deliberations by having to deal with my apology. It was very important to me that they base their judgements on the facts and events of the case. My early statements seemed to indicate a certain obstinance on my part; for that I am also regretful. Yes, at the time I felt little remorse. That has changed, and I am quite frankly disappointed in myself over the whole affair. I have no excuses or justifications for my actions. They were inexcusable. I can only ensure the community that I will do my best to not let such lapses in judgement happen again. I have learned from my mistakes here, and I will work hard to make myself a better person because of them.

I thank the committee for the very hard, and necessary work they do at Wikipedia. To a person, they are upstanding and the finest members of this community, and I fully accept the admonishment they have given. I have deserved it. --Jayron32 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Jayron. If only everyone else followed your example in taking responsibility for their mistakes, we'd have world peace or something (or at least less drama on Wikipedia). Nathan T 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Nicely said. I am but one member of the community, but note that I accept you apology. AGK 19:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Also echo what AGK said. I hope this will be a learning experience for everyone involved. Apology accepted. Now let's get back to what we're here for- building an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, I accept the apology. If only everyone else involved had done this, the whole situation would have been less drama-infested. Now, let's move on. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 04:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Determine workshop page structure

This agenda item is overdue. What's the progress there? AGK 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Same as I said here. Lots of items are overdue (we were, in hindsight, a bit ambitious with the agenda) and we are planning a big overhaul in the next week or so, but the current cases take priority. As I've said before, though, if anyone has suggestions for what should take priority, or new items to add to the agenda (they should relate mostly to working practices of the committee), please add them here. That's what this discussion section is for. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This space is reserved for discussion as per the link contained in the posting of the decision on various user pages.

The evidence posted in the links here to support the claim of tendentious debates and soapboxing do not support the claim and are perfectly ordinary exchanges on a variety of topics. It is clear that the Arbitrators had no technical grasp of the discussions whatsoever, and interpreted as tendentious what were simple comments. In any event, the Arbitrators have themselves determined they are not competent to rule on content, and by so doing render their judgment on this matter suspect. The evidence posted in the links here to support claims of incivility are not directed at specific individuals, but are broad statements of dissatisfaction with the editing climate on Talk: Speed of light made, not on Talk: Speed of light but on the Talk pages of two editors thought to be sympathetic to my frustration. This decision has found the editing climate to be hostile and uncivil, so my dissatisfaction is not a personal illusion. These remarks have been taken here to warrant banning my activity for a year, on all physics-related pages (broadly construed to mean chemistry, astronomy, engineering, philosophy, logic, any topic employing mathematics, or whatever) and even on all Talk pages including my own and those of other editors, even if invited by others to comment. Any Administrator may singly determine whether a transgression has occurred and impose sanctions without consultation, based upon their personal interpretation. Besides being inadequately based upon opinion rather than evidence, this remedy is amazingly out of proportion, in my opinion, exceeds the penalties normally prescribed for such offenses, and singles me out for discipline where many others involved in this Case have made more egregious violations of WP guidelines and received no such rebuke. Further remarks may be found here. Brews ohare (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Does the topic ban mean that ohare is banned from editing physics related articles and their talk pages (I assume it does)?
  2. Does it additionally mean, as other seem to think, that he cannot comment on physics related matters on his own talk page (I assume it doesn't)?
  3. If he wanted to appeal, could he do so? how would he go about it? when would be reasonable? is he allowed to create evidence gathering pages for this purpose?
  4. In a case like this, where ohare is clearly willing and capable of being a useful editor but there are two quite disparate strands of objections to his editing, who is responsible for helping him? who will mentor him on editing style, use of sandbox or preview button, listening, consensus, etc? who will mentor him on physics?

His heart is in the right place and he does have some good points; he just needs steering a little. Should we not be finding a way to utilse his energies rather than simply kicking him out (for that is what we are about to do)? Abtract (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have any problem with Brews talking to other people in his own userspace about any topic (physics or non-physics) and contribute to physics article in this indirect manner (so long as no one is meat-puppeting on his behalf). The core of the problem was Brews' domination of the talk pages and his inability to be concise and stop hammering the same points over and over. If someone is willing to be concise on Brews' behalf, and unwilling to repeat the same things over and over, there shouldn't be any problem with that. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Proposed_decision"

I am amused by the ironic aspect that the editors are urged to seek consensus but that the point of this action was to avoid doing that. The editors were persistently rude and uncivil to David Tombe and he is being blamed. This is a travesty and I am not surprised by the outcome. In my opinion the editors of wikipedia should look to their own behavior as the problem in this case and not blame the editors who tried to bring some needed insight to the issues being discussed. It is the hard headed editors who oppose Brews and Mr Tombe who are to blame for this injustice. When will they be investigated for their bad behavior?? I await the hearing investigating them.71.251.186.205 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Closing this down as an alternative to imposing blocks on editors who are violating their topic bans. Risker (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Discussion by Brews_ohare

The decision states:

Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.

My comments concerning this action may be found here. By extending this remedy to all physics related pages and (as "broadly construed" is interpreted on the Project discussion page) to all Talk pages, I am banned from not only physics but all "physics-related" topics such as: mathematics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, circuits, signals, systems, software, the history of such topics, and any philosophical, economic, newsworthy or humorous aspects. I am banned not only from contributing to these topics, I am banned from discussing them on their Talk pages and from discussing them with individual editors on their own Talk pages, or answering inquiries directed specifically to me on my own Talk page. This ban extends to minutiae like correcting typos or inserting paragraph breaks or providing sources. Any Administrator acting alone & without consultation can impose further sanctions at any time based upon their own judgment of what is "physics-related, broadly construed" or simply upon their personal priorities, and several Administrators have indicated they will interpret the matter extremely narrowly, and strictly as a procedural matter independent of whatever might be the particulars of any supposed infraction. The above rather substantial restrictions constitute a total ban from WP so far as I can see, at least so far as content. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is not what the decision states; that is an extract from the Clerk's summary of the decision. The decision itself is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Final decision. The remedy to which Brews refers, as applicable to him, states:

4.2) Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

It is broad insofar as science goes (although not necessarily as broad as Brews's construction; not all of biology, for example), but it is nowhere hear a total ban from Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I fail to distinguish any significant difference in the two statements. The full statement also contains the advice: any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions…. My interpretation may not be everyman's, but I am quite sure it is the interpretation of those in Case/Speed of light that got the thing drawn up and who will ride herd on Admins to insure its enforcement. Brews ohare (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You may also be over-extending the scope of the ban; I do realize that physics is a far-reaching field, but if you were to edit the article on Biology, I for one wouldn't care one whit. Of course, any scientific field will have some articles that relate more to physics than others do, physics being essentially the foundation for all other sciences, but a good many of them relate only in the most tangential manner, if at all. If you're unsure about this, file a request for clarification as to how broadly "broadly construed" is. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold: You are a moderate in all this, and others will take a more severe stance. For example, biology includes the predator-prey equations and the structure of DNA. Off limits. Brews ohare (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If you interpret the topic ban reasonably, you won't violate it. If you specifically seek out an aspect of biology that is physics, that would violate your topic ban. That is not all of biology, or even most of it. DNA structure? The physics of it (e.g., the quantum theory behind the chemical bonds) is out. Organization of the bases ought to be OK. If you try to walk on the edge, there is a good chance you will fall off. Should you be careful? Of course. Throwing away an expert's advice on how to interpret it reasonably or the suggestion that you can seek guidance from the Arbitrators, just makes your situation worse, not better. Topic ban or not, if you behave disruptively in disputes regarding any subject matter—according to policy (Wikipedia:Disruptive editing), not your own idea of what is or isn't disruptive on—you will get yourself in more trouble. More importantly, your arguing around and around and around about all of this, with people who trying to help you here, with a counterargument to everything that everybody says, is just the kind of behavior on article talk pages that got you into this arbitration and led to your sanctions. Please, STOP IT, for your own sake. Finell (Talk) 05:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell: you, I, Brews and a few others were involved in this Arbitration case. If you just tell Brews and me to STOP IT, when we discuss some practical problems with the topic ban, then to me that's a sign tat perhaps you should "stop", as you are the one who seems to be irritated. What you just explained above about Brews editing biology pages is an interesting case that I think should be explored further as it clearly suggest why the topic ban is flawed.
If I were Brews and I wanted to make sure to avoid the same problems I was in before (assuming that I was not under a topic ban restriction), I would focus far more on my general editing behavior (dominating talk pages, soapboxing etc. etc. to get my way). Whether or not the biology topic happens to be physics or not should be utterly irrelevant. However, according to the topic ban Brews is under what counts is whether or not the topic is physics. That's the problem. I'm now not suggesting that Brews violate the topic ban on this point. Count Iblis (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
And Finell is correct - the notices posted here, at AN, and on the parties' talk pages are a summary of the case's final decision, not the decision itself. The notices may leave out various details and could in fact be wrong if I misread something; the official decision on the case page is what is binding. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the Arbitrators did not think this through. Within most of the physics topics Brews has been active with, the problematic issues that were the subject of the arbitration will likely never arise. But I can easily imagine Brews being involved in a dispute about, say, consciousness on some biology page that proceeds along very similar lines as on the speed of light page.
So, I think this topic ban can be ignored should the need arise per WP:IAR, if sticking to the topic ban would lead to absurd situations. E.g. if I think I can settle a matter quickly by talking to Brews, I will do so. I was suggested that I should instead raise the matter at WikiProject Physics. But that's just ridiculous. I think I should be able to talk to that person who I feel is the most approprate person to direct my question to, topic ban or no topic ban, provided the factors behind the topic ban are not going to be at play (and that should be so obvious that no one would disagree with that). The need for that could arise if I were to edit an article that was previously edited by Brews. Count Iblis (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think IAR is a valid reason to ignore an arbcom ban, at least not in this case. The correct procedure here would probably be to request clarification or an amendment to his case to allow him to make the edits he wants. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
@Brews - If you are not sure whether you are allowed to work on a page, I suggest that you ask an arbitrator whether that page would be okay for you to work on. This procedure has worked for user:ScienceApologist, who is currently banned from working on Fringe Science pages.
@Count Iblis - Telling Brews to apply Ignore-all-rules to an Arbcom ban is awesomely bad advice, which, if he were to follow it, might quickly gain him a long block. For example, user:ScienceApologist got a three month block for correcting a few typos on a fringe science page, after being told not to edit fringe science topics. Cardamon (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying he should just ignore the ruling. What I'm saying is that Brews should be able to give a straight answer to a question asked by someone on his talk page without fear of prosecution. This would then also be a violation of the topic ban (Arbitrators made that clear after a question by WMC). But in such a situation, that would really be ridiculous and it would go way beyond what ScienceApologist did. ScienceApologist deliberately tested the topic ban by correcting a typo on a page from which he was banned. There are millions of Wikipedia pages, so why would he correct a typo on exactly one of those few pages from which he was banned? But ScienceApologist would certainly not have been banned had I asked a question about some test debunking of some parapsychological phenomena and he would have answered my question. Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Cardamon: QED: enforcement is intended to be to the letter. Asking if a particular page is OK to work on will not work: what is added to a page or linked to a page or sourced on a page may exceed the limits imagined by the permission granter. It may not seem to either of us to exceed the bounds, but those watching every detail may find some reason to complain. So basically each contribution will have to be cleared, not each page, and events will unfold that were not anticipated. Of course, among reasonable folk, all this could be dealt with. But reasonable folk are not evident in Case/Speed of light, and it is the like who will be watching. Brews ohare (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews: I don't think it is hopeless, and the decks aren't stacked against you. But I'm not going to spend any more of my time telling you how to make things better for yourself when you are determined to make things worse for yourself. Either try to get along here or don't. But please lose the self-pity, or at least keep it to yourself. You have no one but yourself to blame for the result of this arbitration (although following Tombe's advice certainly didn't help, and now Iblis thinks he is helping you with his terrible advice). Finell (Talk) 05:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell: If this ruling doesn't "stack the decks against me", what would, eh? I don't think it's exactly "self-pity" to point out the very poor phrasing of the ban, which Count Iblis has explained much more carefully and clearly than I have myself. I know, Finell, that you want everything to be nice and work right, but the points made by Count Iblis and myself are valid ones, and make editing under the ban rather obnoxious if even possible. The point here is just to underline some of the problems. Although you would like to ameliorate matters, the ban as written is effectively a ban from WP for a year, even without the provisions that any Admin on their own discretion can decide I'm out of line. I have ample indication that this authority will be used to the letter of the law, not in the spirit of keeping me in line, but with the notion of excluding my participation. Even if there is an appeal process to a dubious action (which I doubt) , I certainly wouldn't want to go through months of argument over some small edit trying to get reinstated. Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis: "Clearly the Arbitrators did not think this through." What arrogant, self-righteous nonsense. And how many people have to warn you not to undermine Brews' chances of ever to regaining broader editing privileges by violating the Arbitrators' final decision? This arbitration is over and that should be the end of this controversy. Stop stirring the pot. Finell (Talk) 05:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I gave a detailed explanation after that sentence explaining what is wrong with the ruling. On certain points, sticking to the ruling would be plainly ridiculous and per WP:IAR one can then ignore that. I also did acknowledge that I was wrong when I suggested that a direct violation of the topic ban would trigger an appeals process. So, I'm not all that "self-righteous" at all. Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Finell: Please avoid adjectives like arrogant, self-righteous nonsense to describe legitimate analysis of the consequences of the remedies against Brews_ohare. Although in charge, the ArbCom is not ipso facto wise, and Case/Speed of light is a clear demo of this fact. There is absolutely no likelihood of my regaining privileges until the ban ends in a year, so no worries about my being tempted into some action that will aggravate my circumstances, which can be made worse only by extending the ban. Having a year to find other activities and break my WP addiction, it is uncertain that I will return when that is over, which will leave you to deal with the (adjectives fail me) band of characters and their "behavioral anomalies" revealed by this inquiry. Brews ohare (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The final analysis

I would like to finish up with a few quotes from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Well, by and by somebody said Sherburn ought to be lynched. In about a minute everybody was saying it; so away they went, mad and yelling, and snatching down every clothes-line they come to to do the hanging with. They SWARMED UP towards Sherburn's house, a-whooping and raging like Injuns, and everything had to clear the way or get run over and tromped to mush, and it was awful to see. Mark Twain 1884

This is comparable to the hysteria which erupted in the scientific community when the news broke out, that the new metre results in a state of affairs in which the speed of light, when expressed in terms of that metre, amounts to a statement that is as useless as saying that the speed of light is one light-year per year.

And now for Mark Twain on consensus,

Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town? Mark Twain 1884

And a final thanks to arbitrator Stephen Bain for his common sense and enquiry, which led him to the tip of the iceberg as regards the truth surrounding this absolute monumental fiasco. David Tombe (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You can cite no reliable source for the proposition that "hysteria ... erupted in the scientific community" as a result of what you call "the new metre", which is how you refer to the definition of the metre adopted 26 years ago. And it must have been a pretty quiet eruption since, by your own admission, you didn't even hear of the 1983 definition until July or August this year. And you are not supposed to be discussing physics on Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 05:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, but the arbitration case beats any reliable source for demonstrating the hysteria. David Tombe (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about new metres, the speed of light, or the scientific community, but the Twain quotes do seem to describe pretty well how ban discussions tend to proceed on Wikipedia. I guess human nature hasn't changed between the 19th and 21st centuries. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that your fellow editors engage in extra-judicial killings based on racial hatred? If not, you and the original posted ought to refactor your highly trollish remarks. Jehochman Talk 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Lord Jehochman, your comments never cease to amaze me, do you ever tire of baiting and personal attacks against other editors? Talk about a reprehensible strawman argument. Ikip (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ikip, do you ever tire of (drop in thing you're not doing)? That's called begging the question and it's a logical fallacy. Jehochman Talk 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

David, I think you are right now violating the topic ban in a way I find unacceptable. We can discuss everything about the topic ban and I have made it clear that some aspects are so problematic that it is not reasonable to stick to it on those points (e.g. private discussions with Brews on some technical physics topic). However, you are now doing exactly the kind of soapboxing that was seen to be the problem and for which the topic ban was actually intended. Count Iblis (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

David, comparing your experience with ArbCom to a lynching is historically ignorant and deeply offensive. Lynch mobs carried out racially motivated hate crimes - typically murders. These crimes were carried out without regard to the legal apparatus of a civilised society. You have not been murdered, David. The editors who have disputed your views and called for your ban did not round up a lynch mob, they appealled to the dispute resolution apparatus of wikipedia. ArbCom are not some Kangaroo Court or Star Chamber. Frankly, I think you owe the science editors who disagree with you an apology for suggesting they resemble a mob carrying out hate crimes, and you owe the Arbitrators an apology for suggesting they have presided over or sanctioned a lynching. EdChem (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Commenting more generally, this sort of comment following cases is one of the reasons that ArbCom are considered to not communicate adequately with the community. Arbitrators are absolutely justified in declining to respond to criticisms as offensive as those above. Unfortunately, the result of the 'noise' from comments which should never be made is that the 'signal' of criticisms (perhaps harshly worded) that address genuine issues with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes is lost. I have certainly raised issues only to be disappointed by silence from ArbCom. Posts like the one that started this thread are one reason why I and others continue to be frustrated with communication issues - and thus these sorts of posts are interfering with the improvement of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. EdChem (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling the Case/Speed of light the actions of a lynch mob certainly is not flattering, but at this stage of things one cannot go into chapter and verse as to the mishandling of matters, the rabid misstatements and distortions, the complete lack of discipline against clear violations of guidelines and so forth. To summarize the proceedings as that of a lynch mob is simply to choose a pretty accurate brief summary of events, and seems to me perfectly acceptable under the circumstances. Unfortunately, a summary of events after the fact won't change matters, and in particular, won't cause any of the actors to see their actions differently. Nothing will be learned, because nothing is at stake for the participants. Their interests and those of WP are not aligned. WP takes the hit. Brews ohare (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I will not stand here and tolerate being called a lyncher. I insist that the remark be stricken, or the remark maker be blocked indefinitely for gross incivility and personal attacks. Jehochman Talk 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't take it personally: Jehochman, you are not singled out here, and acted neither better nor worse than many. Brews ohare (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman has been in a bad mood since a few days already see e.g. his comments here :) Count Iblis (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Another counter-constructive remark from Count Iblis's. However, Jehochman does have a newborn in the family and might be sleep deprived. Finell (Talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my first experience with arbitration. Is it typical for disputes to flare up right after an arbitration decision decides the disputes? Do the sanctioned parties believe, erroneously, that things can't get any worse for them, so they can let off steam? Do other parties believe, erroneously, that the sanctioned parties are fair game for more criticism? Michael C Price has been baiting Brews mercilessly on Brews' talk page; Abtract and I both warned Price. I respect Jehochman and agreed with all his actions in connection with this matter. However, his statement immediately above is not consistent with the excellent advice that he consistently gives others: disengage. I don't condone Brews' statement, but I can understand his frustration about what just happened, just as I can understand others' (including my own) frustration with Brews' behavior. Isn't it time for everyone to just let go of these disputes and move on? Maybe go edit a non-contentious article? Finell (Talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

proxy editing for banned users

The actual material that Brews wanted to be added is not contentious, is that right? It's just the methods he was using, and conduct on the talk page, that was contentious? So if I offered to proxy-edit for Brews, but to rigorously abide by talk-page / 3rr / etc rules would I get into trouble? That seems like a good way to get good edits into WP, and avoid problematic behaviour. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to NotAnIP83:149:66:11: The material is considered noncontroversial by some, but not by all. There are a few, EdChem below being one, and possibly Michael C Price, who think I have said something different from what was actually said and cannot get clear what is being said. There are others, Dicklyon perhaps, Abtract certainly, maybe Martin Hogbin who stress the issues are not technical but behavioral. Some discussion can be found here and a basic presentation of my views is here and an example is here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I understand, Brews agrees with David's position that the 1983 definition of the metre created a second speed of light, one unrelated to the physical phenomenon of propagation of light. Such a position is arguably a violation of WP:NOR and is certainly inconsistent with the mainstream consensus of scientists in general and physicists in particular. As such, any such edits are likely to be highly contentious. Whether Brews might propose less contentious edits on other physics topics is a separate question, but my advice would be that proxying would be a potentially hazardous activity - and most especially if you are not well versed in physics and thus able to identify potential controversies over content. As for proxying for David, please don't. It would be a disruptive but likely rapid path to being sanctioned. EdChem (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to EdChem: I wish to point out that the following is not about physics, but about misattribution of position, and therefore is allowed discussion under the ban. I have explained in great detail what my position is, not only during Case/Speed of light but directly to EdChem himself. That being the case, I don not understand how it is possible for such a misrepresentation of my views to be made again and again. The details of my views are here. There is no way on Earth that these views are as described by EdChem. Brews ohare (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Brews has a record of many good contributions to a large number of physics articles. In his case, the speed of light dipsute is just a small footnote that unfortunately exploded into something much bigger. I think the Arbitrators, who know little about physics, may have mistaken Brews for the typical crank. I agree that violating the topic ban directly by letting Brews edit via a proxy should not be done. It would be better to have an appeal so that Brews can be allowed to edit directly again. Count Iblis (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Generally, I would recommend that any editor who thinks a topic ban is too broad should respect the ban and edit elsewhere for some period of time, weeks at least. Then assemble some evidence that the ban was overbroad (his good contributions on related articles before the ban) and make a formal appeal to have the ban narrowed. Filing an immediate appeal only annoys the arbitrators who really do put a lot of time and effort into their votes and rarely embrace the chance to do it all over again right after the case closes. I have not read the case at all, but I will comment that, in general, topic bans are proposed for editors who have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to work cooperatively with others, preferring instead to harass, intimidate, harangue or edit war (individual details vary, of course) and successful appeals usually involve some demonstration that the editor really can work well with others. Thatcher 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this w.r.t. Brews himself editing physics articles again. I think a good case can be made for appeal, but we then do have to await an appeals process. There is, however, a more serious problem with this topic ban. It also restricts people from discussing anything related to physics with Brews on his or their own talk pages. A question by William Connoley asking clarification on this specific point was answered this way by Arbitrators. I think this particular aspect of the topic ban is extremely problematic as explained in the section above. Count Iblis (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm not going to go into the mis-representation of Brews' views; that's not appropriate for this page. Please note that I wasn't offering to proxy-edit for David. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Betacommand: relaxation of editing restrictions

Announcement

The Great Patriotic Wiki War

It continues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination). You'd think the disputants would take a clue. Arbitrators, please read that page carefully, and do what you think is right. Some of the disputants may need a much firmer cluebatting than what you've already arranged. Don't fob it off on those few of us who occasionally trouble ourselves to enforce your decisions. Jehochman Talk 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC) (01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) tweaked)

Jehochman - your comment is noted. The page is now under observation by both arbs and clerks. No specific action has been ordered by Arbcom at this time. Manning (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I concur that the combatative attitude by certain parties is not conducive to the creation of a genial editing atmosphere. However, this specific example is probably of no great importance in the long run. —Finn Casey  * * *02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Personnel changes at Checkuser/Oversight

Original Announcement

"...changes in performance standards that have been put in place over the last several months." Can you give any hints as to what this means? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's a reference to the new RevDelete and suppression tools (may be two names for the same thing, I'm not oversight so I don't pay as much attention to those discussions). Those came out and began use after Alison left, so she hasn't had any chance to use them yet. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, not quite exactly; Alison was the first to use the RevisionDelete/suppression tool, I believe. As time has gone on, we've pretty well deprecated the old "oversight" tool that was still being used quite heavily while we worked out the bugs when Alison started her leave. The AUSC didn't exist then, either. There are some other changes in information sharing and practices that I won't discuss for WP:BEANS reasons, as well. As Alison remained on the Functionaries-L mailing list, however, she was fairly current on many of these practices. Risker (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The notice is a little vague regarding the means by which FT2 is to regain these rights should he choose to seek to do so. I presume that, as nothing to the contrary is said, whether or not FT2 relinquished his sysop rights in "controversial circumstances" is left to bureaucrat discretion. What about checkuser/oversight? Would he need to be elected by the community to regain those rights? WJBscribe (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Alison was allowed to resume checkuser and oversight without an election, I assume the same would apply to FT2. Thatcher 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
From what I can tell, FT2 had both flags until a few hours ago, when he resigned them on Meta:
05:24, 26 October 2009 Pathoschild (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:FT2@enwiki from Abuse filter editors, Autoreviewers, CheckUsers, Confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Oversighters and Administrators to Abuse filter editors, Autoreviewers, Confirmed users and IP block exemptions ‎ (request)
The WordsmithCommunicate 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
See note. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mitchazenia

Announcement
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • In general, I agree that RfA is the only appropriate method to regain community approval for adminship. The Committee has representative authority to remove privileges because no other mechanism exists. Since there is a mechanism for gaining or regaining adminship (RfA), it is unneccesary for the Committee to ever decide to preempt the community by circumventing the typical process. No negative reflection on the individual involved though. —Finn Casey  * * *20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (Also commenting on the general issue, not the specific individual. I didn't vote on this motion because I've met Mitchazenia at a number of meet-ups. I wouldn't say that our acquaintanceship rises to a level requiring recusal, but given that the issue was being dealt with by the other arbs, I allowed the vote to go final without my weighing in.) Although RfA is available for a desysopped or suspended administrator to seek the tools back, there is value to having application to ArbCom available as an alternative. There are times when it is clear that an administrator needs a break from sysopping, but we are open to allowing him or her to resume at a later time. There may, for example, be reasons not suited for on-wiki discussion that bear on such a decision. In such cases, it should remain within the purview of the committee to decide when the circumstances that called for revocation or suspension of adminship may have passed. In a way, the issue is a semantic one: instead of writing "so-and-so is desysopped. He may regain adminship via a new RfA or by request to the committee", we could write "so-and-so's adminship is suspended pending further order of ArbCom" (which might or might not ever come). If the return of adminship proves problematic for whatever reason, we retain the authority via our continuing jurisdiction to take any further action that might be appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The above justification is very reasonable. I certainly trust the collective judgement of the Committee. Ultimately however, I have to differ as a matter of principle. By circumventing the RfA process, the Committee is tacitly acknowledging that the candidate for regaining adminship would not pass RfA. Yet by granting the adminship anyway, the Committee is, in effect, substituting their judgement for that of the community. While I appreciate the hard work and diligence of the Committee, I believe this authority should stay with the community, not their representatives. —Finn Casey  * * *20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    It might be more appropriate to say that it's an acknowledgment that an RfA would be counterproductive, even if it passed. There are cases where the (let's face it) ordeal of an RfA isn't warranted by the circumstances surrounding the desysop. — Coren (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Having just re-read in greater depth the discussions related to the original desysopping, I would acknowledge that, in this case (because of the sensitive issues involved), an RfA might not have been appropriate. AGK 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • NYB: Thanks for your comments. I agree with your observations about the phraseology used in the original motion. AGK 20:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think the decision here was the right one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I agree. The original removal was not due to misuse of the tools, and the motion passed allowed him to request it from arbcom or a crat. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, the request for it to be posted to the 'Crat noticeboard was not a comment about whether Arbcom was right or not, it was a request so 'Crats could easily see the discussion and easily re-bit (+sysop) the user. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom did nothing wrong here; Mitch is a skilled game-player who was justly rewarded by gaining a level. He has problems with sources, but the articles are subservient to the needs of the players. --NE2 03:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider withdrawing that, please? It looks really snarky. Durova342 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm snarky by nature. I also know how to play the game. --NE2 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
My dear sir, surely you can appreciate that there is a difference between the constructive process of discussing procedure alternatives and the destructive process of insulting users. Perhaps you are frustrated, but cynical remarks are really not the way to get your point across. —Finn Casey  * * *03:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I would like to politely request that you strike your comment. Starting drama here is not a good idea. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - The comment is unacceptable. I will give NE2 some time to strike the comment before taking remedial steps myself. Manning (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll translate my comment then from snarky English to straight English:
ArbCom did nothing wrong here. With his problems with sources, he should not have become an admin, but, without wasting time on a months-long-side-quest evidence gathering and dispute resolution, ArbCom had no way of knowing, and even so they lack the political capital to change the relation between content and administration.
--NE2 03:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Mitchazenia has written 18 featured articles. If you have a dispute with him, please pursue it through normal channels. Durova345 04:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Quality over quantity, ma'am. --NE2 04:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, the proper forum for this is that way. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Clerk action - after refusing to strike offending comments and for persisting in inflammatory statements, NE2 is blocked for one week and banned from all Arbcom pages for one month starting today. This block and ban may be appealed to Arbcom. Manning (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have declined an unblock request from NE2 and directed him to ArbCom per the block message [6] -MBK004 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am about to remove the block, based on my comment on his talk page. I do not have the authority to remove the arbcom-page-related ban, though, and it remains for the one month and is enforceable by short and escalating blocks as required. kmccoy (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The block has been undone by kmccoy. As this was a short block, the Arbitration Committee is unlikely to have been able to review it in the normal appeal process. In these situations admins should review the block on its merits.
The request to strike the comment was appropriate, and the revised version was no better. The discussions on this page are often tense for everyone involved, and comments like those are not appropriate. It reminds me of comments like this.
After a short while, a clerk should wrap up this unnecessary discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering that I put the request in before that happened (early August), it didn't get sent.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 11:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And there was no other communication between you and the arbs after that in which you could've gone "oh by the way, about that whole mentally stable thing? Yeah, I just threatened to permanently deck myself over an article"? I would ask ArbCom to reconsider this, since it's obvious that little has changed in the user's general outlook since April. Ironholds (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't even get a reply from them till late September, as the entire request dissapeared by the wind. And even so, if that was even taken into consideration, ArbCom probably would have some kind of idea of the explosive behavior and where its been experienced. Also, your opinion doesn't stop me one bit. I know your opinion well enough, and you also go ahead and cause problems with my problems on IRC, so let's see where problems in this situation aren't just mine.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 12:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that well-constructed sentence. My query was directed at watching arbs, not at you, and while my opinion carries no weight the fact that you claimed you were going to kill yourself over an AfD less than a month ago says lots about your mental status and how much you've changed since April, when you were desysopped for.. threatening to kill yourself. My opinion is worthless, a number of members of the community have made that clear to me. The evidence I present is not. If you have some counter to that evidence, by all means present it, but simply ignoring my opinion makes no difference. Ironholds (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good judgment should be observed regarding the extent to which issues involving an editor's emotional status should be discussed on-wiki. If there are any serious concerns regarding that aspect of the matter, please e-mail them to the committee. Care for one another's well-being will please supersede bickering on this, or any, page. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brad, agree as I do, the fact that you felt you had to write that says something. This needs a second look. Moreschi (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the emphasis was on the dubious judgment in discussing "an editor's emotional status" not on "please e-mail them to the committee."--Tznkai (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Full agreement with Newyorkbrad, and also thanking kmccoy for unblocking. Let's move on and do our best to be productive. If there's one concern that deserves expression, it's that the Committee took more than two months to make a decision. If humanitarian concern is the primary consideration then a swift no with an invitation to reapply would have been more appropriate. No one enjoys being held in limbo. Durova345 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Lets look at this rationally. Mitch was desysopped for X. X is still present, and he has been resysopped. In a situation where we gave the tools back to a user with the problem still being present, the main issue is not that it took us two months to do it. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you show me where he made the threat in the AFD? I didn't see it. –xenotalk 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't in the AfD, just about it - I think the original exchange happened via IRC, which isn't immediately valid. There are several other people who were there, and I note that Mitch does not deny the point. His statement that he " put the request in before that happened", indeed, is implicit admission that the scenario I laid out indeed happened. Ironholds (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ironholds, this may surprise you, but in spite of having a strong working relationship with Mitch my suggestion to the Committee was to give a swift but polite no with an invitation to renew the request in January. Any decision is better than prolonged limbo, though, and now that the Committee has made its choice the best that the rest of us can do is hope they chose well and wish Mitch his best success. I remain concerned that some of the other limboed situations that I brought to the Committee's attention in the aftermath of l'affair Law appear to be still in limbo. Durova345 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I had no idea you had any kind of relationship with Mitch, so I was casting no aspersions nor making any kind of inference. Ironholds (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We've written a featured article together. Durova345 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Speed of light: temporary injunction

Original announcement.

Timestamp for archive bot. Thatcher 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications

Announcement

Timestamp for archive bot. Thatcher 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Date delinking

Original announcement

Timestamp for archive bot. Thatcher 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Relucio appeal

Announcement

Timestamp for archive bot. Thatcher 14:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: candidate list

Announcement Bot timestamp:  Roger Davies talk 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Do the scrutineers have a central scrutinizer ??? :) ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The white zone is for loading and unloading only. (Sorry, just couldn't help myself). Manning (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No more of that, bozo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Listen Boris, don't start up with your white zone shit again. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What does "AUSC" stand for? IMWTK, HYCH. TTFN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit SubCommittee.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Comment - Arbitration Committee 2

A new Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2. This RFC focuses on the composition and selection of the committee; specifically, how many members should be on the Arbitration Committee, how long should their terms be, and how should they be selected? The issue of a Public vs Secret ballot is also under discussion, as is the issue of Support/Oppose voting vs Preferential or Cumulative Selection. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Personnel changes

Announcement Timestamp:  Roger Davies talk 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to amend ADHD: Scuro topic banned

Original announcement Timestamp Manning (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the Arbitration Committee elections, December 2009

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2009 (WP:ACE2009). In order to be eligible to run, editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits, be at least 18 years of age, and be of legal age in their place of residence; note also that successful candidates must identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. Nominations will be accepted from today, November 10, through November 24, with voting scheduled to begin on December 1. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidate statements page. The conditions of the election are currently under discussion; all editors are encouraged to participate. For the coordination cabal,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Notice added by clerk Manning (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


AUSC election: results and appointments

Announcement Timestamp for bot,  Roger Davies talk 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I will be reviewing and verifying and making the necessary posts. Thanks for the reminder. Risker (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very sad. There is a lot of evidence that one of the winners has flagrantly abused their position as both a checkuser and arbitrator. I won't name names, but I think that this will be a terrible mistake. Majorly talk 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, you have just had an entire 10-day election period in which to raise concerns publicly or privately with the Arbitration Committee. You have not done so. If you have evidence of that which you allege, please send it to the Arbitration Committee forthwith. If you do not, please reconsider your words. Risker (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention 8 months to file a formal complaint or request for investigation with the Audit subcommittee itself. Thatcher 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I do have to agree: when you have had literally limitless opportunity to raise any issues you may have in either a public or private forum at a stage when they could have been acted upon, this comment is entirely pointless. What, exactly, are you trying to achieve? Happy‑melon 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly...you are totally out of line here, provide the evidence or withdraw and apologize. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of announcements

Undisclosed alternate accounts

If any Arb has a spare moment, I'd appreciate a comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible sockpuppet?. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, addressed by Wizardman and myself. Risker (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there you are again, Risker... have you thought of trying the Wikibreak enforcer, or would you like a nice long block? ? Bishonen | talk 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
Not a helpful comment. AGK 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
reads quite friendly to me, no? (albeit a little barbed - I reckon we'll need a bot though if we want to mark all such comments on the wiki!) - there I go assuming stuff again ;-) (G'day AGK - hope you're good) Privatemusings (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)/me resists urge to demonstrate an actually unhelpful comment, realises he probably has anyway, and sips real ale in front of him... mmmm.......
It was quite clearly not a friendly comment, PM. I can suffer barbed comments if they are useful; but that one was not. It was discourtesy for discourtesy's sake. AGK 21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It was, actually - Risker has been trying to take a wikibreak for awhile, but keeps getting sucked back in. Bishonen's comment was just joking with her about that. Nathan T 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I guess I just look like a total fool, then. Sorry, Bishonen. AGK 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think calling a wiki editor a 'total fool' is clearly incivil, even if talking about oneself - we have standards, you know. In fact, I'm considering raising a Wikiquette alert - and if anyone were to archive it without a full hearing, I intend to raise merry hell! Now that certainly would be unhelpful, no? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)ps. I wouldn't say 'total' fool, agk, more playing up to the old 'dour scot' stereotype.... at least you don't owe the taxpayer twelve grand though ;-)
[/me tries to play up to the "Silent Swede" stereotype, then dissolves in giggles. ] Don't give it another thought, AGK. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
Bish: Thank you for being so understanding :-). PM: I resent being stereotyped so! AGK 23:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Awww, how sweet of everyone to look out for me! In any case, my idea of a wikibreak is doing the things I initially came here to do, reading and doing some copy editing and maybe a bit of new page patrol. The content of this encyclopedia is what (I hope) motivates us all to stick around, and I had more fun the other night just mucking about in content than I have in some time. I'm actually smiling at the idea of fixing typos—what a scary thought. Risker (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
:This is probably a joke arbcon, like the joke sockpuppets and the joke blocks. Farce, right? I'm smiling too! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a helpful comment. Privatemusings (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

Original announcement

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul654

Announcement

I think this was the right move, however I would like to raise a point; In the West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case, there was this principle which states; "Editors, such as arbitrators and operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, who hold positions of public trust or privileged access within the project are expected—more so than even other administrators—to serve as examples of good conduct for their fellow editors, to uphold the high trust placed in them by the community, and to avoid engaging in conduct unbecoming their positions." Now, I recognise that this doesn't specifically mention bureaucrat's, but I personally believe that they should be held to higher standards than those of other users and I would think the "position[s] of public trust" part of the above principle would cover bureaucrat's. Whilst I respect that you have decided that Raul should keep his admin bit, I'm not sure that his position as a bureaucrat here is still tenable given what the audit subcommittee has found. Does anyone (both arbitrators or other users) have any thoughts about this? I could be completely off the mark. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to use the 'crat tools that often... –xenotalk 19:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What is your specific concern with him remaining a 'crat? How does his over zealousness when dealing with a persistent vandal effect his ability to work as a 'crat? I'll listen to opinions, but so far I've not thought of a reason that removal would be automatic based on the investigation and Raul654's response to it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't got a specific concern Flo, I just was of the (possibly personal) belief that bureaucrat's should be held to a higher standard than that of normal administrators. In much the same way that Jayjg lost his CU and oversight bits due to unrelated issues, I think there's an argument that the same may be the case of Raul and his bureaucrat bit. I'm not saying that I definitely think he should lose it, but I do think it's worth discussing. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. I'm reluctant to break new ground by removing this permission unless there is a specific reason that Raul654 continuing in the role would bring the project into disrepute. From your comment then I see this as a more general discussion about how the package of special access permissions should be given and removed. Perhaps this would better discussed as a general topic for later application? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I for one, think OS, CU, and ArbCom are far and away different from 'crat, sysop, and even21 MilHist coordinator and the like. Oversight, Checkuser, and (the way things are now) Arbitration deal constantly with information that can violate privacy and have impact on the real world, while sysops and bureaucrats and the like do not. The stakes are different, the skill sets are different, and what the community should be looking for is also different.--Tznkai (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Bureaucrat is probably the most overblown position in the whole of wikipedia, so no, I don't think that any higher standard ought to be expected of them than any other administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 is a useful Admin, particularly on the Global Warming page. He did a lot of work in the battle against Scibaby. I just read from the Arbitration page that he stopped working as Checkuser some time ago. Perhaps this is linked to the more frequent appearance of Scibaby sockpuppets. They are also getting more bold  :( Count Iblis (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Raul can still be trusted to rename users and gauge consensus at RFA. Everything there is out in the open and accessible to everyone, so if the crat bit is misused (not that there are very many opportunities for misuse, especially given how little he uses it), everyone will be able to see. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientific articles, like the one on Global Warming, are not written from a neutral point of view, they are written from a scientific point of view. Usually it is helpful to have an Admin who is heavily involved in editing such an article. This is fundamentally different from the case of an article on some political subject. Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In either case, the ability to use 'crat tools isn't an immediate concern here. Probably neither is use of admin tools, as I mentioned: if actual abuse of them occurs in the future, we can revisit, but until then, I don't think there's any need to desysop. -kotra (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You might want to watch how wide you paint with that brush.--Tznkai (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay then... AGK 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion of 'crat privlages, would to refrain from taking any administrator actions in connection with...user conduct relating to that topic area. extend to 'crat actions, particularly promotions? That's the only area of concern I can see, if Raul654 should close an RfA (in any direction) where the individual is involved in this topic area, it'll likely be the first question raised. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Raul doesn't actually use his crat tools that often. According to the logs, he has renamed one user in the last year (who had an offensive username) and the last time he did anything but a non-controversial repromotion (for someone who voluntarily resigned and requested the bit back) was 2007. The last bot he approved was ClueBot. The WordsmithCommunicate 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a stretch to me. Any admin candidate who has neutrality concerns will probably not find themselves in a 'crat's discretionary zone... and I can confirm that Raul's last RFA promotion was over 2 years ago. It's not a likely scenario. -kotra (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating target dates

Some are out of date right now: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Proposed decision and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision, they had respective target dates of Oct. 20 and Oct. 19. Maybe in these situations you could authorize clerks to (somewhat arbitrarily) bump the target date forward by a week? Novickas (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (fix target dates, Novickas (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks to Manning, who's updated EEML. But surely there's some automated way of doing this? A transcluded entry on the proposed decision pages as part of case opening, if blank at first, use 'undetermined', include target dates as they are modified? Novickas (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk response Target dates are not automatically assigned - they are set via communication between the clerks and Arbcom (typically via the private clerks-L mailing list), based on Arbcom consensus on when they believe they will get through the workload. Sometimes (as in the case with EEML) the intial date did not provide sufficient time and hence it gets revised. As each case is unique it is unlikely that an automated system will ever exist. Clerks are not able to reliably set target dates. We are not privy to private discussions between Arbitrators about cases so we can't accurately assess the Arbcom workload (which is what determines the target date). Manning (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Ordinary editor response. I do think of you all as overworked and underpaid public servants - it wasn't a demand for constant updates. By automation I only meant automatic transclusion of the target date from the noticeboard page to case proposed decision pages. Novickas (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Clueless clerk response. Ah, I understand now. That's more of a case template issue. From my experience you do NOT want to get involved in the grief caused by the case templates. Run away while you still can. (Being serious, another clerk may be far better equipped to give you a more meaningful response than I am). Manning (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I do fear The Template. Having created the Dreaded Loop in one myself, altho there was no outcry in the cubicles. [5]. Thx for reply. Novickas (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

As the elections process for the 2010 ArbCom is just three weeks away, it seems appropriate to request some definite information regarding this election. A confirmation of seats available, arbitrator vacancies, election method, term length and similar information from the committee would be appreciated. The current page does not appear to be finalized. The preceding link is to the talk page of the Dec. 2009 ArbCom election, as that talk page has different proposals and ideas that it would be appropriate to accept or decline for this year's election. Thanks for all your hard work. —Finn Casey  * * *20:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Original announcement

Entirely unethical

This election was for three seats. Not three seats plus an alternate member. Not four seats. Three. It is wholly unethical to change the rules of the election while tallying the votes. MBisanz should not be given any rights until (and iff) there is a vacancy. To do anything else would make a complete mockery of this election. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The election is already a complete mockery. Majorly talk 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, it does make sense to have someone in case someone else retires (it does happen all the time, after all). On the other other hand, with 6 candidates, and 4 being elected (one way or another), this gives the impression that we're not having much of a choice in the first place. --Conti|✉ 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If someone retires, another can be elected. We don't have or need spare functionaries just in case. Majorly talk 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Ched Davis on this. I saw a vote that was supposed to appoint three people; to maximize the effects of my vote, I supported the three I most approved of and opposed the others (with no offense meant to them; if I voted against you, it's because you were on the bad side of electoral mathematics). Had the proposed result been different, I would have voted in a different way. I understand the closeness of the vote between Tznkai and MBisanz, and I realize that the arbitrators have a precedent in their own election process (wherein Jimbo feels free to finesse things this way), but this is a procedural problem. It happens that we already have a partial solution (MBisanz has said that he will not use his bits at present), but this really does break the parliamentary aspects of the committee quite badly. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Te best solution to minimize concerns would probably be for MBisanz to decline the appointment. —Finn Casey  * * *01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, MBisanz and I are separated by less than a full vote in percentages. MBisanz also has higher net and total support. It is difficult to a closer result than this.--Tznkai (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A question then. Lets disregard the alternate member provision entirely. Six months from now, I resign because my parakeet (I do not own a parakeet, this is purely hypothetical) dies in a horrible tragic way and I am so distraught I cannot continue. Is it preferable to: appoint MBisanz, who has analogous support; to run another special election; have audit appoint someone; have arbcom appoint someone; or continue without a member until the regular election cycle?--Tznkai (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The last choice of course. I'm unconvinced this committee is even needed that badly anyway. Majorly talk 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be an entirely separate argument from the propriety of the election, but lets go with that anyway. What if a second member resigns, so we have 3 arbitrators and 1 at large? What if all three resign or go inactive? Presuming for a moment, that the subcommittee has some purpose, at what point, and how, do you feel seats that were vacated early?--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
@Tznkai - You present a germane question, however it does not cut to the heart of this disappointing appointment. The Committee indicated before and during the election that there would be three elected members of the Subcommittee. Following the election there was a surprise appointment of four editors to the Subcommittee. (The announcement indicates that the fourth appointee will be a de facto full member of the Subcommittee.) The problem is that the Committee then disingenuously claimed that now "the subcommittee will have a majority of directly elected members." That is false! The Committee is claiming that the seventh member was directly elected when voters did not know they were electing a seventh member! The problem is not in the appointment of a seventh Subcommittee member itself - it is that the Committee is claiming the seventh member was elected when he was not! —Finn Casey  * * *00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I interpreted that motion as giving the 6 members of the subcommittee the option to give MBisanz full access to email and votes, and indicating the broad justifications for doing such a thing. If your objection is to the fourth member being a full member, than that is one thing - if your objection is to him being an alternate actually serving as an alternate, that is another. I'd like to address the second issue first.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the serious reply. The two moderately-concerning issues are the decision to appoint an alternate without community input and the decision to make the alternate a full member. The very-concerning issue is the claim that the alternate was "directly elected" when in reality it is impossible to elect someone if you don't know you are electing them. To claim otherwise seems nonsensical. Hopefully that summarizes the concerns effectively. —Finn Casey  * * *00:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the "directly elected" comment was a failure of good writing, but I see your point. I think more accurately, there would be a majority of at-large members to ArbCom members. I agree that a better practice, would to be to announce ahead of time that there will be an alternate selected - but I think establishing an alternate in general is a reasonable exercise of discretion. For the vast majority of elected positions I am aware of, both in actual government and bodies such as a board of trustees, there is some sort of mechanism or person(s) so empowered to appoint replacement members on a permanent or temporary basis. It is, I believe, more transparent and practical to indicate the future alternate ahead of time. Again, I stress the incredibly close results: I can think of a number of excellent arguments that suggest that MBisanz should be in my position, and I in his. If the alternate were to be given full votes, the reasoning is pretty clearly out of practicality and recognizing the closeness, but I would imagine the arguments there are weaker than they are for the pure alternate position to begin with.--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If the announcement had said MBisanz was an additional appointed "at-large" member rather than an "elected" member my concern would be greatly lessened. However, semantics aside, there are still concerns regarding the appointment of a seventh member without community input (see my comments below) —Finn Casey  * * *01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "There is no serious election in the world that changes the number of appointees after voting according to the whims of the appointing body..." There's your problem - it wasn't a serious election. Majorly talk 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be easy to view this matter as a tempest in a teapot. However, many editors believe that it is important for the Committee to seek community input before surprise announcements. Instead of just reactively responding to these sort of behaviors, it would be preferable to express disappointment with this decision in two ways:

  1. Add a question regarding this sort of behavior to the general questions list for the upcoming Committee elections
  2. More explicitly require community comment periods on such actions before their enactment (this could be mandated in the new arbitration policy)... Unfortunately that policy does not seem to be forthcoming... (I suggest that working with the community on the new policy might be a better use of the Committee's limited time than arranging new and unexpected Subcommittee size changes)

—Finn Casey * * * 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful that the ArbCom elections are being held now.  Question added; see Template:ACEQuestions#Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making for more. NW (Talk) 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you really care, the place to voice your concern is the Arbcom election RFC. This was the first election to use a secret ballot, and no one got over 75% approval. Kind of surprising compared to the last CU and OS election, and a possible indication of things to come in the Arbcom election. How should arbitrators be selected? Net votes, percent, something else? Remember that the audit subcommittee is merely advisory to the full Arbcom, it investigates and makes reports so the whole Arbcom doesn't have to bother unless there is a significant issue, but in the end Arbcom makes the final decisions. Folks can piss and moan over the selection of an alternate if they want, but the big show is warming up in the wings. Thatcher 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this failed election has clearly demonstrated why the community has wisely indicated (at the Committee RfC) that there is no consensus to have secret balloting in the election of substance. —Finn Casey  * * *06:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of weird agendas apparently at work here. The election was run smoothly, with no fraud or controversy, the results are mathematically unambiguous, and does not meet any rationale definition of "failed", for all your disagreement with how Arbcom decided to act on the results. Thatcher 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As you say, it is always imperative to remember that the primary work is encyclopedia-building. Still, the Committee has indicated that they need community feedback to act in a responsive manner. It appears that "looking for blood" may be a mischaracterization. Instead, we are trying to give constructive feedback on matters of great importance to the encyclopedia (if the Subcommittee wasn't important to the encyclopedia, we wouldn't have it). —Finn Casey  * * *06:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You misspelled The committee members are hereby admonished for taking action that benefits the project while failing to slavishly follow written procedures. Thatcher 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a more offensive and demoralizing section header that could have been used to insult the volunteers who serve on the Arbitration Committee, but I can't quickly think of what it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, you will get the arbitration committee you deserve. Thatcher 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Break

I think the assumptions of bad faith here, and the rules-mongering because the arbcom didn't do everything perfectly is as Brad has said "offensive and demoralizing". I've heavily criticised arbcom in the past, but I really think people need to remember these are volunteers doing their best for everyone. Criticise by all means, but do it graciously and constructively and keep criticisms in proportion to the hard unrewarded work done. That having been said, can I offer one piece of constructive criticism. Arbcom might do themselves a lot of favours if motions on non-private matters were not conducted privately. Why didn't arbcom conduct the discussion about alternates in a publicly viewable place? I've suggested before that arbcom's default place for discussion ought to be on "arbcom edit only" wikipages, where mortals may comment on the talk page. That gives a high sound to noise ratio, and a more transparent feel. It certainly would have avoided this mis-communication and the resulting drama fuckwittery by the disaffected. Keep secret wikis and mailing lists for necessary confidential business.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. That particular motion was part of a set we were voting on, not all of which would have been wise to hold in public; it would have been impractical to split them around more than one venue (as well as error prone). There is no reason, however, why this (and some other) motions should not have been published here once passed — it was mostly a matter of nobody noticing nobody else had done it, combined with the relatively low urgency of the matter in the first place.

One thing that is probably best explained: some of the discussion the arbs are holding in private aren't because the matter is intrinsically confidential but because this allows the arbs to be more candid than would be advisable in public. Because hypotheticals about specific users are discussed, for instance, or because some of the valid and important arguments could be either misconstrued or unpolitical to discuss publicly, much of the day to day deliberations of the committee could raise a very great deal of drama even though the final resolution is unremarkable or uncontroversial. Most of those deliberation either end up published here, in a reply to an email, or result in no action.

While it may seem attractive in theory to hold all of those discussions on wiki unless they are directly confidential, in practice the total amount of drama and heat they would generate vastly outweighs any benefit of publishing the minutes of the (mostly boring) day to day affairs of the committee. What is important is that any act deriving from those be explained and done transparently — something we do scrupulously (but imperfectly). — Coren (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above, I'm thinking that perhaps part of the problem is this bit here:
"...some of the discussion the arbs are holding in private aren't because the matter is intrinsically confidential but because this allows the arbs to be more candid than would be advisable in public. Because hypotheticals about specific users are discussed, for instance, or because some of the valid and important arguments could be either misconstrued or unpolitical to discuss publicly..."
I used to be a teacher, lo these many years ago, and when I read this piece it put me in mind of the teachers' lounges in the schools where I worked. The teachers' lounge, of course, was the sacrosanct area for teachers to smoke (hey, I said it was "years ago!"), drink coffee, and vent about their stresses; and -because- it was considered sacrosanct, things were said there which, had the parents of the students discussed been able to hear them, would have resulted in EXTREME drama, hollering, diminished authority, students feeling that they didn't have to listen to people who would speak about them like that....What troubles me about the off-Wiki conversations you describe is a lingering feeling that perhaps one of the reasons these "hypotheticals" are not made public might be that discussions of certain users, read by those users or their defenders, could seem more like the stress-fueled venting and hyperbole of the teacher's lounge than like the constructive deliberations of an arbitrating body. I don't like to think that some day, I might take some controversial (or uncontroversial) action, only to find myself being discussed behind the scenes so that the arbs could be "more candid" about me "than it would be advisable (to be) in public." Now, while I'm fairly sure, given my intrinsic cowardice about doing anything controversial, that -I- likely will never find myself in that position, my discomfort about these "more candid" behind-the-scenes discussions extends to the group of users who probably -would- be under discussion. And honestly, if those "valid and important arguments" are truly valid and truly important, there are ways to phrase them so they're neither misconstruable nor "unpolitical to discuss publicly"--and you'll excuse me, I hope, if that last phrase makes me want to hide my eyes and wish desperately that it might have been phrased differently. If we are trying, as I hope we all are, to ensure that en:WP is first and foremost a valid, verifiable, non-biased and well-written encyclopedia, to which people can contribute without fear of online harassment or of real-world consequences, then the "politics" behind the operational underpinnings which make that goal achievable should be of minuscule importance. I understand and applaud ArbCom's efforts to keep truly confidential information out of the public eye; however, I cannot be as sanguine regarding efforts to keep potentially unpopular opinions away from editors' eyes for fear of the consequences to some people's Wikipolitical careers. (Disclaimer:these are only my opinions. Like my employers, please feel free to disregard them completely, serene in the knowledge that there's almost no chance that I'll ever be proven by future events to have been correct. Put it this way: It ain't happened yet....) GJC 05:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the solution: ArbCom, by extrajudicial Fiat of One, I hereby reduce your pay by 95%, retroactive to the beginning of your terms. Hopefully this will satisfy the community as they look for ways to properly admonish the Committee members for all slights, actual and perceived. All repayments can be made, via cash or money-order, to Gladys J Cortez, Wikipedian-at-Large.GJC 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, from here on in, one day's pay shall be deducted any member of arbcom found to have made a procedural error on spelling mistake. We must make sure these evil people have an incentive to behave.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(Pssst, Doc? Ya better start writing out that check--"....a procedural error OR spelling mistake" is, I'm fairly certain, what you meant to type. And just so the bank doesn't fuss, better make it a cashier's draft...those personal checks for such large sums are always so suspect....) GJC 04:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So, since we're discussing the results, let me throw this out there - what would you all have had arbcom do if the vote totals for the 3rd and 4th place candidates had been dead even, I mean precisely the same support, oppose total votes, percentage, everything. Hold a runoff? Appoint both? It might be relevant if we hold elections such as this in the future to know where sentiment lies. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's how I approached the results, actually. I considered Tznkai and MBisanz to be substantially equal in the end. One was marginally ahead on percentage, the other marginally ahead on both absolute and net support (metrics worth considering in an approval ballot). I proposed a motion (which didn't pass) appointing all four top finishers to AUSC, on the view that to try to split them would be to do a disservice to the community's wishes (the community having indicated that they like them both more or less the same amount) and that adding another community member (giving them a majority) would not be a downside for the community. How wrong I was! I apologise for being so evil. --bainer (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You get what you elect. If you're not happy with that, then run for arbcom yourself(ves) so you can fix it yourself. We had to make a decision and we made; which is what we were elected to do. If any wants, I for one am ready to be tarred, feather, and hung upside down over a fire til my brain fries. (that's an old Apache torture). — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse, two issues here. You say "run for arbcom yourself". That is an extremely insulting thing to say when you know full well the likes of me don't have a chance of passing RfA, let alone an arbcom election. The second point is, you say "We had to make a decision and we made; which is what we were elected to do". I don't recall voting for you, nor some of the other prominent people in this discussion. Nor do I recall it being the arbitrators' job to fiddle with election rules (or even have elections). Arbitrators are supposed to arbitrate onwiki disputes, and elections and pointless subcommittees don't fall under that. Majorly talk 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Think about why you yourself admit you have no chance of being an arb. Your commments in the above thread are and here are insulting. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, way to deflate your own argument, Majorly. Part of the mandate of Arbcom is indeed to decide who has access to checkuser and oversight permissions and information; it's mandated by the WMF. How we decide to do that is up to Arbcom. Now you are suggesting that we should not bother consulting with the community (not just you, the whole community) on who should be granted such access, or that we shouldn't be incorporating community input in evaluating concerns about the use of these permissions. As to Rlevse, I think it unfair of him to take the easy way out. ;-) Risker (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why would "the likes of you" not be able to be elected? You obviously believe your own arguments and position have value; it's not unreasonable to believe that some will agree with them. You're certainly not barred from running, nor under any sort of restriction that would scuttle your attempt. — Coren (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse, your own argument makes no sense if all you can say is "You do it then if you don't think we're good enough!" Er, you were voted in to do the job right. If you're unable to do that, resign, don't blame your failings on everyone else not running. I am obviously not trying to say I am suitable for arbcom. I am trying to point out your illogical argument. Majorly talk 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No... what makes you believe I would run for arbcom? I have never wanted to be an arbitrator. And I recall that Coren only just scraped by into arbcom, opposed by many people, as of course did you and Risker (though you passed with a higher percentage). Still, a large chunk of the community opposed you both. Just because you are arbitrators doesn't mean you are automatically right about everything, and it also doesn't mean the community agree with what you are doing. Majorly talk 23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You once again prove you only see your way as the only way. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're not even going to reply to issues, why bother replying at all? I've proven nothing, despite your empty claim. If you're going to reply, do so with a bit of substance rather than just a baseless allegation. Majorly talk 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Mirror, mirror, pot calling the kettle black. I for one am not wasting more time here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No, not really, but just the sort of thing you would say when you have no argument whatsoever to grasp on. You're embarrassing the committee even further. Maybe you should just resign again? Majorly talk 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Risker, as I say, I don't recall voting for you or Rlevse. It is not my fault in the slightest that I am not happy, and I shouldn't have to run if I am not - you should be doing your job satisfactorily. Majorly talk 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Coren, I assume you lost all memory of me just before posting that comment. There are far too many people who dislike me, what I have to say, and my approach. An election is basically an opportunity for the bullies on this project to come out of their holes and dish their dirt. Hell no, and anyway, I'm much too busy doing important things that take priority over internet games. Majorly talk 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're so convinced you are right, then you should run. If you really are right, people will vote for you. If you try and they don't, or you're fairly sure they won't and decide not to try, consider that there may be an alternative reason than that people are bullies. Perhaps you're not actually right. In any case, if its silly Internet games and you've got more important things to do, why act so upset over this most picayune of problems? Nathan T 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I feel I am right about (regarding this) is that the election rules should not have been fiddled with mid-election, or behind closed doors, or whatever they did. It should have been brought openly for discussion. I am clearly not the only one who believes this, and no one has yet provided an argument as to why it had to be done in secret, then sprung upon us on results day. I'll make it clear to anyone who wants to get out the old grudge meme: I voted in support of MBisanz, and I am sorry he didn't make the top 3, but the rules were clear. To be clear, this is not me being bitter about someone I didn't like getting in. This is because the rules were changed in an election I voted in, and I would have voted differently had I known about arbcom's secret goings-on.
I am not running because I am too well known as a critic of arbcom, and many arbitrators are among those who despise me and what I say. It would be hopeless. If I had more courage, I would probably run but I don't - I couldn't stand the inevitable bloodbath.
As for your final point, it becomes a game when people mess with the rules and can't do things properly, like discussing important public information publicly. Majorly talk 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Can we all just stop complaining (and/or endlessly debating) for once? I have been following this discussion for a while, and it seems like the Energizer Bunny. It never stops. Might I suggest a 6 hour break for content writing (Personally I would suggest John Williams, mesocyclone, or creating an article about mesovortices (see wiktionary entry)), and then if everyone truly feels like there is more to discuss on this, go right ahead...but a 6 hour content writing break will do the encyclopedia more good in that 6 hours than this endless debate will. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with debating this issue. The encyclopedia will still be there tomorrow. Majorly talk 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Do what you want, it's just a suggestion, but I don't see what can be gained from debating it any futher right now. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it :-) I personally do, however, so if you don't mind, I'll stay right here. Majorly talk 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. The problem is that MBisanz received considerably more *votes* in support than Tznkai did, and had a larger net support. Both of those are also valid metrics. Either way, we could be characterized as failing to listen to the community, or more precisely the 370 members of the community who bothered. Risker (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
To my mind, the purpose of the election is to determine which candidates if any have community support for the position. Candidates who fail to get significant support will not join the subcommittee; there seems to be no clear value in preventing candidates who do get the required level of support from joining the subcommittee, aside from maintaining a stable number of seats. Compare it to an RfA - we don't set a preferred number of administrators, although we could. Anyone who demonstrates the necessary level of trust passes. Folks who don't, fail. Maybe people trying to vote strategically would have voted differently if they knew there was an alternate slot, but I doubt it would have had a significant impact. So what's the issue? The community support MBisanz in his bid for a spot on the AUSC. That his support was slightly, ever so slightly, lower than Tznkai's is not particularly meaningful. Nathan T 23:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, they had been doing so well for a while now, and it's disappointing, especially when the arbitrators don't even seem remotely bothered by it, and are suggesting those who don't like it to run for arbcom, a ridiculous argument. Community involvement is fine, until you start doing secret things behind closed doors for no reason. It would be extremely honorable for MBisanz to resign. As I noted elsewhere, I voted for him and am sad he didn't make it, but rules are rules and this was a strict vote done by securepoll. It's disrespectful to everyone who voted by doing this, but arbcom are refusing to believe this. Majorly talk 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, isn't what the committee did here pretty much the same thing that Jimbo did last year following the ArbCom election itself? With basically no controversy at the time about his either enlarging the committee or appointing the very-close-to-the-cutoff candidates as additional arbitrators (not even as alternates)? And with, apparently, sufficient approval that the community voted just now to keep the committee at the size he unilaterally enlarged it to? What is different now from then, except that apparently this month's drama quota had been undersubscribed? I despair sometimes, I really do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well...despair away, but I would rather we get a full understanding of how an election for three became an election for four. I'm not sure about the goings on last arbcom election, but my suspicion is that people didn't complain because they didn't have a choice. Jimbo/WMF dictated the existence of the arbcom, determines (in the end) its composition and size and we don't have any control over that. Whether that is good or bad is immaterial, but it was known at the time. Here I think we have some illusion of control, hence the complaining. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
An explanation was given above. A vote was taken by arbcom prior to the election, but mistakenly it was not announced. If you haven't got a full understanding, I'd suggest you re-read the patently clear explanation.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Doc, the way to address mistakes (like failing to announce a vote) isn't to pretend as though you did announce it and act accordingly. Why is this difficult to understand? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
First, I object to having my discomfort with the outcome of this election being attributed to a thirst for drama. Second, I personally am irked that the community were given a say in who was to be elected and then partially overruled. At least with the committee elections, we expect Jimbo to do what he likes. Perhaps the objections of others are derived from different thinking, but this is the reason that I am fussing now when I did not then. AGK 00:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It's different as Jimbo has always been able to expand the number of seats as he chooses. It was never a set number last year, unlike this year where three were mentioned, not four. Majorly talk 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The fact that not only was there little criticism, but in fact there was widespread approval, of Jimbo's action last December, influenced my thinking that taking substantially the same step this time around was sensible. (And yes, there was an understanding of the number of seats being filled, which was overriden at the end.) Note also Bainer's comment above that in fact it was not even 100% clear who had won the third seat in this election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, part of the problem stems from the gravity we seem to want to import to the office. In designating an alternate we are implicitly stating this subcommittee is so critical that in the event one member were to leave, it must be fully staffed immediately. We also are implying through the election (both the process chosen and the act) that the station and the work is momentous and important. NYB complains about drama above, but I think he misses the font (obviously people can stir up drama about anything, but they are more prone to do it when the subject is "a big deal"). Don't misunderstand me, watching oversight/checkuser actions is an important job, with ramifications internal and external. But how much of this is artifice? How much of this is necessary given the importance of the station? Do we need to surround ourselves with process and bureaucracy (Which humorously enough, didn't stop complaints about propriety)? Protonk (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All I'm saying is that the actual trigger is not terribly important in the grand scheme. This doesn't mean that the underlying people aren't doing good work or that people don't care. It simply means that I think we are investing too much into generating what looks like a democratic system without acknowledging the implications of that or acknowledging the limitations. Part and parcel with a democratic system come expectations about rules of the road. Failure to respect the generation of those expectations results in problems like this. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As a note, I'm responding in part to a reply which was removed by the author because s/he felt it was not in keeping w/ good decorum. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM FOREVER

Cenarium (forever) 04:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One problem is it's hard to challenge this kind of decision without making a big deal out of it. What if there is a serious concern with a candidate that you aren't going to raise because it's clear they aren't going to win? I have nothing to suggest that happened here, but this is a real possibility, and if the point of elections is in part to air all relevant information, then changing the rules afterwards has the potential to be quite destructive. That this is becoming a pattern, from the last arbitration election, to here, is also concerning. I don't have all the details on why this happened, but I hope this leads to more transparency in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

I cannot believe this is still going on...I will repeat my comment from above: Can we all just stop complaining (and/or endlessly debating) for once a while? I have been following this discussion for a while most of the day, and it seems like the Energizer Bunny. It never stops. Might I suggest a 6 hour break for content writing (Personally I would suggest John Williams, mesocyclone, or creating an article about mesovortices (see wiktionary entry)), and then if everyone truly feels like there is more to discuss on this, go right ahead...but a 6 hour content writing break will do the encyclopedia more good in that 6 hours than this endless debate will. Just some honest advice. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, to paraphrase Ks0stm's comment:

ARTICLES FOREVER

(PS - all due credit to Cenarium for my plagiarism :-) Manning (forever) 05:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha totally...better than "argue forever" or "debate forever" =) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To address this and avoid a future kerfuffle on similar lines...

If everyone please commented and supported/opposed here at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#Leave_it_adaptable_to_the_current_situation_2, this might provide some prophylaxis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Side question

It seems to me that it would have been better to announce the possibility of an alternate, beforehand, and I think there is general agreement on that count. Quoting a bit of the above conversation, Carcharoth said:

"I had thought Motion 1 would have been published before the election started (so the electorate were aware of it), and it was a mistake not to, in my opinion, but it was proposed and voted on before the elections even started."

Was this an oversight, in that somebody forgot to make or otherwise missed an announcement, or a conscious decision, in that the motion's passing was a secret? I have an impression that the former possibility is true, but I'm not entirely certain, so I figure I'm better off asking.

If the announcement was missed by accident, is there something we can change to hopefully avoid that sort of mix-up, in the future? If a motion passed by explicit vote is missed, I can only assume that the discussion and voting environment is fairly chaotic. I don't know how the vote was taken, so I've got to guess. Perhaps an email thread was messy? Perhaps motions were being discussed in multiple locations? Whatever the case, the thought of "losing" a motion under the couch seems troublesome. If it's confusing to keep discussion and voting together, perhaps they could be kept distinct. If it's confusing to keep associated motions apart, perhaps they could be kept together. If the whole thing's a mess, maybe a non-voting secretary could be useful. Doc mentioned above the possibility of conducting more business semi-publicly, when feasible. I might be able to make a more helpful suggestion if I knew more about the communication structure, but I hope my thoughts here are taken in the good faith with which they are intended.

Food for thought, maybe? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There was certainly no intent of secrecy; that motion was part of a set of mostly boring housekeeping decisions regarding the election we took before it started to make sure all bases was covered. I know I voted under the impression that it would be published before the election, and nobody ever expressed any desire to keep it hidden.

It was, I would say, mostly a case of everybody presuming someone would get around to it. The matter wasn't especially pressing or of great relative importance, and since we had pretty much all agreed quickly on what we needed to do we simply quickly "closed" the matter as solved (I used scare quotes here because there was no explicit act of closing anything, we just knew the matter was resolved).

I would tend to agree with you that having at least one arb who is tasked explicitly with making sure such things are published would be best, and that we dropped the ball there.

As to the communication structure, we usually discuss matters on the mailing list and propose decisions on the Arbitrator's wiki (because it's much easier to tally votes this way). We tend to be pretty good at the follow up (most of what you can see announced on this noticeboard originated that way if it wasn't an on-wiki request), but we goofed that time. — Coren (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate member

Original announcement

Kudos for making the right call in the end; worth bearing in mind from this episode and that of the Advisory Council that spontaneity is not a virtue when it comes to Arbcom.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The best decision arbcom has made for a long while. Majorly talk 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely the way forward. Thanks (and my sympathies) to all involved. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The moral of this story is that the best community relations strategy is to anticipate the potential for panic and outrage over the most minor and insignificant of issues, and work proactively to limit opportunities for its expression. Since the "alternate" in this case met the community support standard for inclusion on the subcommittee, no other lesson can be the basis for this decision. Nathan T 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your own outraged tone, that is the lesson, and there's nothing wrong with it. Arbcom is an office with a political dimension (yes it is), such offices always draw criticism, and the very existence of criticism is a problem. So - yes, when Arbcom acts, its actions have consequences, and Arbcom should make an effort to act in a way that minimizes that specific consequence. If they made more of a process point to examine their proposed actions for possible future criticism, they would in fact draw less criticism. There's nothing wrong with that, there's nothing wrong with the fact that they might be criticized, and there's nothing wrong with the "lesson to be drawn here" - it is a correct lesson - so your negative tone is, in my opinion, pretty far off base. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hold on for a minute: "Arbcom should make an effort to act in a way that minimizes that specific consequence". I rather disagree with that statement; in fact, Arbcom should act in the best interests of the project; sometimes those actions will draw sharp responses, but it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to make decisions strictly on "what will play in Peoria". In many cases, the Committee could rule completely oppositely on the same point and draw an equally vociferous amount of criticism either way. Avoidance of criticism is the wrong objective in decision-making. Risker (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Risker, it's not clear from the above, because I was responding to Nathan's post, but I basically agree with you. Of course Arbcom should act in the best interests of the project; I didn't mention this because I thought it went without saying, but for the record, I am saying it. Nonetheless, they generally have the advantages and disadvantages of being a first mover, and they should use the advantages of that position to begin by acting in a way that avoids generating controversy in and of itself. That is different from saying that they should avoid engaging controversy head on, which of course they have to do all the time. I'm saying that because they must engage with controversy, because they are going to be viewed in a political light, it's important for them to engage the community on a deliberate manner that will not itself be the cause of controversy. For instance, when they didn't announce the electoral change here, they missed such an opportunity, because they did not make themselves stop to consider it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure my tone was outraged, or even exactly "negative." I would describe it more as resigned. There's no question that the committee is a political body, and as a result has to account in its decisions both for "real" factors and consequences and for political ramifications. This particular decision is an example of the political outweighing the "real" on the scale. A philosophical argument could even be made that managing political consequences is more important than the nature of the decisions themselves - its not an argument I'd make, but just scanning the archives for this talkpage and the questions to this years candidates makes it clear that pressure pushes the committee in this direction. I think that's unfortunate, because as Risker notes there will be melodrama and outrage in abundance for future decisions regardless. Given that, I'd prefer the arbitrators to weigh substance over appearance in every decision. Nathan T 13:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting)Good call. Thanks, ArbCom, for listening; it's a small change, but important both for the substance of the change and for the message it sends. You guys get a lot of criticism, and one of the most oft-repeated refrains is the allegation that "ArbCom doesn't listen to the community". Though at times I've had to agree, in this case I think you got it exactly right. (There will always be those who refuse to see positive content in ANY message, of course; fortunately, that particular choir seems to be running late.)GJC 06:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

More