Moved per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".

Pmanderson

Strongly oppose I am reluctant to support OTRS members in any case, and FT2's comments on NPOV show that FT2 is committed to the Sympathetic Point of View, which is not our policy. Should not be an Arbitrator; an eye should be kept on him to be sure he is actually supporting policy as an admin. In addition, this comment is a personal attack, and should disqualify even if the description of Dbuckner is perfectly accurate; anyone who handles criticism this badly should not be an arbitrator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object strongly to this move. Stifling my reasons, especially FT2's misconduct during this vote, is unfair. (I have removed the middle sentence, as perhaps unnecessary.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's policy and consensus of procedure. Daniel 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that discussion; please don't use consensus so loosely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was consensus. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. The two of you suggested a limit; there was some sentiment in favor of it; there was no discussion of what limit. Splash was correct in advising you to chill; and others agree. I thank you for your continuing restraint; this vote is not immune from WP:REFACTOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all cool. But please see my rebuttal there. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goose

I consider FT2 a reasonable person on the basis of my encounters with him to date. However, I am uncomfortable with his repeated insistence (such as this) that "confidential evidence" is the only means to combat, as he puts it, "really bad sock users". It's this kind of thinking that got Durova into trouble, and I cannot fathom putting on the Arbitration Committee someone who does not acknowledge how little support such secrecy has amongst ordinary Wikipedians. This stands in complete contradiction with his claims that the ArbCom must "3/ act transparently and with clarity, and 4/ be answerable to the community, not the other way round."--Father Goose (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. If you want to move it to the q&a page, just do so and link to it; I'd be happy to move this there also.

Even now (despite the Durova case), checkuser, oversight and arbcom blocks on evidence of this kind, are going on, quite uncontroversially. We trust these people. You (I, most of us) will never get to see the actual evidence in checkuser and oversight and certain blocks that happen. We delegate this to people we trust and let them use the tools wisely. Usually they don't seem to do badly.

What we didn't authorize, and never have, and hopefully never will, is for admins to use their tools without grave recognition of how seriously they are intended to be used, and the damage that unfair or incorrect use can cause -- and to underline this, arbcom routinely desysops admins who can't get this point.

In the Durova case, the Bad Thing was in part that users who did not have communal trust to do that job of delicate judgement responsibly, tried to do it with their friends, in quiet. As the recent events show, it didn't work.

Admins aren't detectives (their symbol is the mop not the shield) and this is an encyclopedia not a detective club. However well intentioned or useful in some cases, sock cases need putting in perspective. Most stuff can be said openly, the stuff that can't should be passed to arbcom, or independent, credible others the community has approved. And certainly not one's buddies. Thats not to say everything is public, but if it isnt there needs to be good cause, good control, at least some disclosure, and good checking to prevent unfairness.

In discussion at WP:BLOCK, the consensus was that Durova aside, consensus remained happy with such evidence, so long as they could be sure it was responsibly handled, eg Arbcom or Checkusers.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} A number of users proposed to add a section for this. A statement just in blocking policy was inadequate, because the same problem exists well outside blocking. (Eg, unsubstantiated claims made where no block occurred, are one obvious example.) I took that role up, as an experienced policy drafter, to draft a starting point for these users of a possible policy (WP:SECRET) which would hopefully mean (if agreed) that nobody would be able to be harmed on the basis of so-called "secret evidence", as the present case had caused, and this could never happen again.^[6] The suggestion was adopted.^[7][8] Their consensus confirmed that also, responsible handling by users communally trusted with exceptional decisions (arbcom, oversight) was essential, and the certainty of having critical review before stupid assumptive blocks, were obvious issues. I also created this draft because I have myself defended some 3-4 people against unfair (or poorly supported) blocks which were widely endorsed, already, this year.

Any admin may spot evidence, but if they can't show it openly, then it isn't for them to act on it as such - it should be passed to Arbcom or some other reputable means for "sanity checking" and any decision. It is not an admins job to both collate evidence that can't be explained, then act on it without that level of checking.

There will at times be non-public evidence, when one is realistic. Consider this simple case. A user posts "USER X is John Smith living at (address) with (phone number) (wife) (kids) and is a convicted pedophile." The post is oversighted, the user banned. The evidence of the ban will never be shown to "the community at large". Never. For very obvious reasons. So yes, there are sadly a tiny minority of cases where arbcom has to rule and say "we had evidence and we won't show the public". If you have a better answer otherwise, and can get communal consensus, please do. I don't like it either. I'd like to see it avoided. But this is where things are standing at the moment, as a community. There are also less extreme cases where the same principle holds.

We have users who make death threats, who are psychos, who will joyfully ruin others "real life" reputations and lives to win some edit war, or keep working to drive those "enemies" who would require balanced views on some subject off the wiki.

There are indeed also sockmasters whose handling is "arbcom only" pretty much. There are socks whose handling is straight to arbcom to decide, when spotted.

What there isn't (or shouldn't be), is some kind of ad-hoc group, unaccountable, unappointed, and uncontrolled, making such allegations and refusing to explain themselves.

So let's reconcile the two statements you find troublesome. There will sadly be cases that can't be fully evidenced in the public eye, because it would cause harm or significant risk of harm to make them public. Thats something nobody likes, not me, not you. But it's how (sadly) it is. We - the community - have delegated the handling of those to select groups of people, who we (the community) appoint because we (the community) decide their integrity and capability is such as to be trustworthy even on such problematic delicate cases where unfairness is possible. We do so because some problems the actual risk of harm is significant (non-trivial) and it's not a game or a joke or a power thing. We delegate the decision on these to a group of experienced Wikipedians of our choosing, with rules that are well known and established, with well defined channels of communication, and whom we can ask questions to if there is a problem. And if we don't like it, we can seek change. The community as a whole, never has to justify its communal decisions to Arbcom. (Jimmy Wales might override them, but Arbcom cannot, and has never sought to.^[9][10]) By contrast, Arbcom is answerable to the community. If it makes a bad decision people can, and will, ask for an answer or explanation, seek Jimmy to intervene, and so on. It was created by Jimmy, and in principle can be overhauled, or replaced if a better idea arises.

That is the sense in which Arbcom is answerable to the community, not the other way round.

Likewise, if Arbcom make a decision, that decision must be explained with the intent to be level as far as they feel will not cause harm. To consult, to disclose, to seek openness. Transparency and clarity. They are not always possible under our current system, and that is what we're working with. It may never be possible to be 100% open (see the above example), but two principles apply: 1/ we try to be as open and transparent as doesn't do harm, and 2/ where we can't, we make very sure its as accountable and foolproof against unfairness and rashness as possible. That is why it is important we have a policy to ensure this can never happen again, and independent means of appeal such as the ombudsman if concern exists. There have always been cases where evidence is not 100% to be disclosed on the wiki. (OTRS, oversight and checkuser would never be needed to be restricted otherwise.) Perhaps more means of certainty are needed. If so, lets get them on board... not just complain about it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]