| Revision as of 16:26, 29 November 2012 view sourceBegoon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,915 edits →Comments by the rest of us: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:33, 29 November 2012 view source AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits →Motion on Elen of the Roads: motion not passingNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{Shortcut|WP:A/R/M}} | {{Shortcut|WP:A/R/M}} | ||
| {{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
| ===Motion on Elen of the Roads=== | |||
| *In light of the situation outlined at this morning, and pursuant to ], the checkuser and oversight flags are removed from {{admin|Elen of the Roads}}. In addition, she is unsubscribed from all arbitration mailing lists, functionaries-en, checkuser-l, and oversight-l, and her access rights to the Arbwiki and Checkuser wiki are revoked. These actions will remain in effect until 1 January 2013. If she is re-elected in the coming elections, access will be restored to her when the newly elected arbitrators are seated. If she is not, the removals will be permanent, and she may only regain the checkuser and oversight flags through the usual processes for gaining such access. | |||
| :'''Special note: It is the opinion of a majority of the unrecused voters on this question that this should be considered a matter of ''suspending or expelling an arbitatror'' per the Arbitration Committee policy, which means that to pass, this vote will require a two-thirds majority of the entire Committe. There are 15 arbitrators, 4 of which are recused, and 1 of which is inactive. To pass, this motion will need 10 support votes.''' | |||
| ====Support==== | |||
| #There is no way in good conscience I can put up with someone who is an admitted leaker continuing to have access to the place she has already leaked from. This plugs the hole, while allowing folks to decide if they want to trust her again after this. Note that this can pass on usual "majority of active, non-recused" arbs, whereas a motion to actually remove her would take ten votes. ] 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| #Access to these mailing lists and tools is based primarily on the trust that their contents, whatever they are, will be kept confidential. I can sympathize with Elen's viewpoint, but there were far better ways to deal with this. In the first instance, providing a verbatim copy of an email sent in confidence is not acceptable. While the content of the leaked email (and others) was (were) considered inappropriate by many, it is the expectation of everyone on the Committee that things said on the list stay on the list. This confidentiality is important; for private data primarily, but also to allow arbitrators the opportunity to speak candidly and honestly to one another. I can understand using someone not on the Committee as a sounding board, but it should not be necessary to quote from an email to express your concerns. With as much stress as this responsibility creates, with as much grief that we receive from the community for whatever we do, we need some sort of venue where we can commiserate with each other, where we can support one another, where we can vent to one another because we have nobody else to vent to who understands what we're talking about (I've tried explaining some of our cases to my non-Wikipedian fiancee, but it doesn't really work; all the weird usernames and policies and shortcut abbreviations begin to get in the way before long). When quotes from the list begin leaking out, we begin to lose that last sanctuary, and that will create a barrier to coming to common understandings, a barrier to teamwork (something this year's committee has desperately needed), a barrier to maintaining our own sanity. In the second instance, and perhaps even more seriously than the leak itself, Elen was not straightforward when the Committee as a whole was asked who leaked content. Even after Coren approached us, Elen continued to deny sending a full email to anyone. Had she done so immediately, this whole debacle could have been resolved much more quickly, and possibly with less severe consequences. In the simplest terms, she lied to us. I cannot trust anyone who would lie to their colleages in this manner, particularly about so serious an issue. I do not believe that she is going to begin leaking private information; user identities, IP addresses, whatnot. That's not consistent with her actions nor motives so far. However, my trust in her is shattered, and so I believe that her access rights that are based on a foundation of trust need to be removed. With the way the relevant arbitration policies are worded, we are unable to remove her from the Committee entirely in the current circumstances, but this motion does the next best thing. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| #:It sounds as though most are viewing this as a full suspension, and I admit their arguments are convincing. So while it seems this cannot pass without unanimous support from all those eligible to vote, which it doesn't seem like we're going to get, I still nonetheless confirm my support for the motion. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| # Advanced permissions, such as CheckUser, and Oversight require trust that the holder of these permission will handle private, sensitive, and/or confidential information properly with regards to all policies. Elen's disclosure of this information was a breach of this trust, and as such, makes this action regrettably necessary. ] (]) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| #: This is why I feel that Elen's comments to other users do not fall under a whistleblower campaign. We'd be having a similar but very different discussion if that was the case (I said the exact same thing to Elen back when she first admitted to sharing information outside the list). What was done was not in any way whistleblowing. In the best case, it was blowing off steam to someone who then turned around and started emailing various people. That's not whistleblowing, that's inappropriate sharing of info which was then used to canvass a selective audience (Through no fault of Elen herself, but that she was the source). In the worst case, she leaked information that she knew would affect the election without having to stand behind it (Note that the person who was sending these emails obviously knew it was not a good thing to send these emails, because they did not identify themselves, using an anonymous gmail account). We are rightfully excoriating JClemens for "playing politics". What is the results of Elen's leak, if not "playing politics" on a larger scale? ] (]) 02:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| # This is a one month suspension (give or take a few days) which I think is a proportionate response under the circumstances. I agree to a large extent with SilkTork's comment, and I'm not suggesting that she is entirely untrustworthy, however I consider that her actions were sufficiently serious to warrant a 1-month suspension. ] (]) 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| # I respect Elen's judgement and her record as an arbitrator, but to share any e-mail from the mailing list is unacceptable. Most arbitrators were appalled by Jclemens' decision to send the e-mail that was subsequently leaked, but if I were in Elen's position then I would have sought the consent of the committee to tell the community what Jclemens sent to the mailing list; I would ''never'' have unilaterally shared the e-mail in a private chat, and I cannot agree with Elen's decision to do so. Elen's judgement in this situation was deeply flawed, and in my mind it is only because the elections are imminent that this is a vote to suspend and not expel her. If Elen is re-elected then, privately, I shall be very glad, and I would be happy to work with her again (knowing she is trusted by the community). However, we must decide what to do with her seat on the committee until the election concludes; for now, only the committee can decide if she is trustworthy. This arbitrator's opinion is that she is not. Regretfully, ] ]] 00:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====Oppose==== | |||
| #Elen made a serious mistake, and compounded that by concealing it from the Committee. She has explained some of the rationale for her actions (though much was not rationale but emotional reaction, or perhaps both together), and I can see the grey area - she felt she was discussing in confidence some material that would later become public anyway, as that was Jclemens's stated intention. I can see the grey area, but she still crossed a line and made a clear mistake. An important note to add is that even though Elen is the source of the leak, as far as we know, she did not deliberately send it out to other candidates via an anonymous Gmail account. A twist is that a line in the email sent out asks recipients to verify it. It is possible this was done as part of the concealment of it being sent by a Committee member, and we are familiar in the Committee with how people can be quite scheming in their attempts to deceive us. But sometimes you have to make a judgement of a person's character. I have never found Elen to be devious. Blunt, direct, outspoken, emotional, driven, sometimes, yes, a little out of control, but not devious. This is a motion about trusting someone. And I trust Elen. I think what she did was very wrong. I have listened to her explanations on the Committee list and by personal email, and on her talkpage, and I understand where she is coming from, but she did wrong. However, for the stuff that really matters, do I still trust her not to reveal genuinely confidential material? Yes, I do. ''']''' ''']''' 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| #:For purpose of clarity, when I mention judging her character - I mean her ], not if I like her as a person. My assessment of her ] is that she can be trusted with the tools. ''']''' ''']''' 09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| #::Would have have everyone who writes to us wonder if their information will be considered by Elen to be "confidential" enough to never be revealed? There is a reason why the confidentiality of the list is absolute: no one arbitrator should ever be allowed to summarily waive the privileged nature of our e-mail communications, and (more importantly) we must be seen to uphold that by anybody who will ever write to us in the future. Practically speaking, properly confidential information is safe with Elen (you and I both know she would never reveal most of what is sent to us); the crux of this situation is the fact that, for our purposes, '''Elen still leaked'''. One of the most important aspects of having the good moral character you speak of is that one upholds one's morals in each and every situation; for Jclemens' e-mail, Elen utterly failed to do so. ] ]] 00:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| #:::I understand your point, and welcome you making it. This motion is not about the community trusting Elen to be an arbitrator. We have an election for that, and I have said below that I will not be voting for Elen in the election. She has damaged the reputation of an already fragile Committee. Other people may see it differently, and may balance Elen's good points against her bad. Each to their own. This motion is about the Committee's judgement if Elen is the sort of person who would abuse or misuse the CU/OS tools. Other Committee members feel she can't be trusted, whereas I feel she can. She hasn't broken the Foundation's ] as there was no personally identifiable information - indeed, Jclemens has copied out the material himself on his talkpage. We've had concerns on the Committee about functionaries making mistakes. We've dealt with those concerns in a much better way than this. Made judgements on their past history, and the scale of the mistake. Matters in this incident got a little heated. While I don't agree with this motion being called, I understand why it was done. And now it's here we vote on it honestly, bravely, and with integrity. Elen is good with CheckUser. She may not be good with keeping her cool when dealing with Committee matters. But for the thing we're voting for, she's fine. ''']''' ''']''' 01:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| ====Abstain==== | |||
| # Should Elen have discussed the material with an outsider has been debated, with a significant number of arbs believing not. Part of the question lies with the non-discussability, in that if it is only relative, who gets to decide what can be discussed elsewhere, which has the potential to be gamed/fudged or whatever. One solution to this is an absolute no-discussability unless some committee decision has permitted it. However, this is not what our guidelines say currently, and it can be argued that it wasn't "core arb business". I've never met Elen, but have found her pretty direct, so find it hard to ascribe a purposefully devious motive, but more one of dismay at the original message. Should she have discussed this without checking with the rest of us? No. Do I think she is a serial leaker and at risk of wilfully disseminating information in the future? No. "Should she be forgiven?" then becomes the key question here. Luckily the timing is good for this as we have an election. Now, '''the very existence of the arbitration committee is as a last-resort tool of the editing community to resolve disputes, examine editor conduct and to handle some sensitive situations that arise'''. Hence the ultimate decision can be made by the '''editing community''' (not us) on whether this event is forgivable. Now if we were robots and could look at this dispassionately and impartially, ''and'' if there weren't a massive constitutional flaw in it, then I might support as a significant number of arbs have concerns enough that there are grounds for a suspension, however I feel (a) a motion will effectively influence the community to condemn her when it is not clear that this need be the case, (b) the material leaked was ''arguably'' not core arb business, and (c) there is a constitutional condundrum concerning this. I will propose an alternate motion below. ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====Recuse==== | |||
| #As a candidate in the current Arbitration Committee election, I have (quite properly) not been privy to the Committee's recent discussions of the issue underying this motion. I am thus recused from this vote at this time, both because of the perceivable conflict of interest if I were to vote on the Committee membership of another candidate, and also because without the benefit of the "c-list" discussion, I could not cast a fully informed vote. For the benefit of my colleagues who are voting and the community, I note that Elen has just posted a statement on her talkpage, whose contents should be carefully reviewed and thought through before any action is taken. ] (]) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| #Recusing as the leak tangentially involves the present elections and due to that I have been out of the loop on the recent discussions happening on-list. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| # Reconfirming my recusal. Like there was really any question... ] (]) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments by arbitrators==== | |||
| * I reworded the sentence regarding mailing list access a bit to include the mailing lists dependent on access to advanced permissions; one cannot be subscribed to checkuser-l, for example, if one does not have access to the checkuser flag on at least one wiki or the steward tools. I am withholding voting on this for now, as Elen has indicated that she intends to make a statement soon. However, given the evidence at hand and her comments so far, both public and private, I expect to support this motion. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * I am awaiting further comments regarding the point of order raised by KTC below before voting; at present, I am not certain that we're using the correct threshold of support for this motion. ] <sup>]]</sup> 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ** On reflection, I find myself in agreement with Risker's comment below; because the motion removes Elen's ability to carry out a significant portion of her official duties, it is substantially a motion to suspend her, regardless of the precise language used. ] <sup>]]</sup> 01:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * On careful consideration, and having reviewed the votes of my colleagues, I believe that the threshold of support for this motion is 2/3 of '''all''' arbitrators. ] clearly states that a 2/3 majority of '''all''' arbitrators must support a suspension or removal from the Committee. Arbitrators AGK and PhilKnight both explicitly refer to their vote as supporting a suspension. Newyorkbrad's and David Fuchs' recusals explicitly state that, even had they not had reason to recuse as candidates, they would have recused due to lack of access to the relevant discussions on the mailing list; that confirms that removal from the mailing lists would make it impossible for an arbitrator to act effectively. (Case in point: inability to participate in voting and discussion on whether or not to return advanced permissions to checkusers/oversighters who had resigned tools in anticipation of a longterm absence - as happened yesterday.) Removal from the mailing lists is the equivalent of a "constructive suspension", by removing the tools necessary to perform the functions. ] (]) 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Frankly, that's turning the committee on its head. The single most important thing we do is the cases. If you can vote on those and not have the clerks come tell you to stop, then you're an arb. That's the difference between this motion and a vote to suspend; that would remove her ability to vote on cases, comment on clarifications and amendment requests, etc. That is why we exist; the other stuff is just stuff that gets thrown to usby lack of there being another body, there would be no Committee to handle those matters; on the other hand, there would be a COmmittee just to handle the cases and amendment requests. ] 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** While I'd like to think that cases are the most important thing we do—despite the fact that we haven't had any for months now—the arbitration policy makes no distinction between the Committee's five responsibilities in terms of relative importance. ] <sup>]]</sup> 01:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * What is beyond dispute here is that this is a suspension motion. AGK and PhilKnight both explicitly say so in their votes. Therefore, this motion requires a supermajority of all arbitrators (ie ten votes) to pass. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Community comments==== | |||
| What about access to the checkuser wiki? ] (]) 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *That and checkuser-l access are automatically turned on and off with the actual CU flag. (I.e. the Stewards always set up and ensure access is removed as needed when mashing the buttons) ] 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I added the checkuser wiki to the list to be clear, but Courcelles is right. Since Elen isn't a checkuser elsewhere, her access would be removed anyway. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I find this to be hasty, sad, and frankly frightening. Before she even speaks Elen has been tarred and feathered. In case Elen runs amok in the next few hours before she speaks we have to make sure that she doesn't do, what? I don't condone this kind of hasty action nor do I think this kind of example set by the arbs will serve editors who may or may not be in wiki-trouble. This is not good for Misplaced Pages, not at all.(] (]) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| *Elen of the Roads has now released her statement: ]. <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 21:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Certainly this will include formal banning from Misplaced Pages for at least a year, yes? ] (]) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Please stop salivating all over the page. ] (]) 22:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Silktork: what about what the community thinks? --''']]]''' 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***As I see it, this is a motion about do the Committee still have trust in Elen to handle CU/OS - something that is the Committee's responsibility to oversee. The community will (appropriately, as they should) show what they think in the election, and I will do as well. I won't be voting to support Elen. I think she has handled this badly. But I still trust her not to mess up CU/OS. ''']''' ''']''' 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****Okay sure, but if she was standing at CUOS appointments, would she pass? What would the comments be? --''']]]''' 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **What about it? Arbitrators should vote on the basis of what '''''they''''' think, not attempt to divine the community's opinion (if any such singular thing existed, which it obviously does not). ] (]) 22:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, it's one thing to oppose the motion because he thinks Elen didn't leak or something. It's another to say that he totally agrees that she leaked, but he's ok with that because he personally likes/trusts her. From the community point of view, the question should be whether she's trustworthy with the community's private information/communication, not whether despite her leaking, SilkTork likes/trusts her anyway. That is to say, if she leaked Arbcom emails, it shouldn't ''matter'' if SilkTork thinks that's ok, if the community ''isn't'' ok with potentially having their communications with arbcom leaked. Arbcom has a responsibility to protect the privacy of its mailing lists and wikis, because in not doing so they jeopardize the communications/data of many more people than just them. That duty remains, even if one or more arbs may not like carrying it out. ] (]) 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *It appears to me that this issue comes down to a classic conflict between a deliberative body's necessary ability to be able to discuss matters fully and privately, and the need to allow misbehavior within the body to be brought to light by a whistle-blower. The decision to become a whistle-blower is always a difficult one, not the least because it almost always entails the loss of confidence and some sort of punishment. That Elen felt her actions were necessary speaks to how serious she perceived the misbehavior to be, and it would behoove the committee to look more fully at her point of view before responding with motions stripping her of power. Taking action at this juncture, when emotions are still running high, is almost a guarantee that the response is not well considered. I would advise the committee to table this motion (in the American sense) and take some time to consider whether Elen's actions were '''''justified''''', a different issue than whether they were '''''permitted'''''. ] (]) 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **As I said in my vote, there were better ways this could have been handled. The main point of her concerns probably could have been summed up with "An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case." It doesn't involve quoting anything, nor even identifying who said it (although if raised in public I'm sure the drama would have dragged out the identity eventually). Whether this is still an advisable course is for others to decide on their own, but it's an option that doesn't involve crossing the bright line. Also remember that we've been aware of the leaks for some time now, and everyone involved has made clear their motivations for doing whatever it is they did. We have had time to consider this, and (unfortunately) what's news to the community is becoming a bit stale for us at this point. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually Hersfold, that breaches the 'seal of the confessional' rule just as badly as using the verbatim text. Under that, nothing posted to the list can be discussed off list. ] (]) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It doesn't identify who said what, or specifically what was said. The policy says arbitrators must "''Preserve in appropriate confidence the '''contents''' of private correspondence ''" (emphasis mine), which implies that where necessary, paraphrasing is acceptable. Legitimate examples may include mission-critical things such as "Arb X will be inactive for a while" or "We'll be posting a statement once we finish arguing over the wording" or even whistle-blower situations such as this. Excessive detail, such as "Arb X will be inactive for a while because he's having his appendix out" or "We'll be posting a statement once Arb Y gets off his soapbox about " is, yes, probably unacceptable as it provides too much detail. You keep mentioning the "'seal of the confessional' rule" but nothing in policy makes it quite that strict. What policy does say, unequivocally, is that direct quoting is a no-no. I agree it could be clearer, and that's definitely something to work on with the Committee next year, and I hope you participate in those discussions whatever the outcome of this motion or the election. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Not really the place to discuss trivia, but where does it say that direct quoting is out (given that contents =/= text, contents = what it is about). If we were only going by policy, what does JC's comments fall under? "Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations." What was 'appropriate confidence' for that statement? The policy says nothing like the actual way the list is managed. ] (]) 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Would like to see link to policy prohibiting direct quoting all or portions of arbcom-l list. <small>]</small> 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just quoted part of it above, but there's also "''The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties.''" I know you disagree with Jclemens's email falling under that latter bit, but certainly it falls under the first. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I thought the email in question was sent by Jclemens? <small>]</small> 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah... it was still sent to the Committee. The latter part of that clause seems to be there mainly to protect outgoing communications as well. An email sent by the arbitrator to the list would fall under both criteria in most cases. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"I will be actively campaigning against those members of the committee seeking reelection...." Personally, I don't see that as qualifying as ''performance of their duties.'' <small>]</small> 22:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Arguably not, but (again), ''it was sent to the Committee''. Under the bit of policy I quoted, it doesn't matter if it was in the performance of his duties as long as it is sent to a Committee mailing list. It's ((sent to the committee) OR (in the line of duty)), not ((sent to the committee) AND (in the line of duty)). ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::"The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or ''sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties.''" If the latter clause isn't supposed to refer to emails sent by the committee to the list, what is it supposed to refer to? If you sent an email to someone else it's up to them how to treat it, not the committee. It's weird to describe a member of a group sending something to the group as "to" the group. It's like if I start in Kansas and drive to Indiana, I wouldn't say "I drove ''to'' the United States today." <small>]</small> 02:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Once again the community is faced with attempting to enforce/sanction an editor for some vaguely defined concept. Like all words, the meaning of "private" depends on context; a reasonable interpretation is that discussion of motions and cases related to committee work arbcom-l is expected to be confidential, especially private information about individuals. Using the list for political campaigning seems contrary to the purpose of the list and whether such use (abuse?) should remain private is debatable. If it's really true ''any'' content of arbcom-l is a serious infraction, does not Risker's revealing on-wiki the existence of a not fall into that overly strict interpretation? This idea that Elen's access must be removed because she is going to go nuts and start publishing email addresses and private information is simply ridiculous. <small>]</small> 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *''An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case'' is no big deal. Arbs are politicians; they run for office against each other, we expect them to argue. Leaking confidential emails is completely, utterly and totally unacceptable behaviour that cannot be justified under any circumstances. (And "to score political points in an election" doesn't even come close.) ] (]) 23:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Hersfold, if "providing a verbatim copy of an email sent in confidence is not acceptable," will you be addressing jclemen's recent postings of emails ? <small>]</small> 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :"''All these were emailed to me privately.''" - I don't recognize any of those emails off the top of my head, and that comment implies that they were sent directly to Jclemens rather than to the mailing list. That's comparing apples and oranges, and if it is an issue it'd be between Jclemens and whoever sent the email. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *This is idiotic and punitive. Forwarding an e-mail message that is basically just vindictive intimidation to people outside your group doesn't warrant removing all user rights and mailing list access. Honestly, most of us wouldn't know about this if you guys weren't raising holy hell over it.--] (]) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * I am afraid some people here are a bit overheated now. There are a number of facts everybody in principle agrees on, as I see it. (i) There was a factual disclosure of info from the list, and this info in the end was used by unknown parties, which is unfortunate. (ii) Nothing really serious happened so far, since the piece which was disclosed was subsequently published anyway, and the parties seem to agree that it would be published even without disclosure; (iii) Really private information was not leaked, and suggestions that Elen would start immediately leak the private info out are essentially bad faith assumptions; (iv) a sitting arb can technically not be removed, and the elections are underway with Elen running. In this situation, one needs to seriously evaluate the chances that the private info is really going to leak out, and to minimize the drama. Elen could help by resigning as an arb and withdrawing from the elections, but if she is not willing to do it, this is where we are now.--] (]) 22:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I would be very interested in hearing from both Jclemens and Elen your individual answers to the following. Hersfold has said about comments by Jclemens that appear not to have been made public, but which appear to have played a role in Elen's reactions to the situation. What do each of you think of Hersfold's characterization? What, if any of it, do you find to be accurate or inaccurate? --] (]) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}}This diff gives a prior description by Hersfold. Although this has not been completely clarified, the email addressed to Risker, reproduced by Jclemens on his talk page, seems to be a follow-up to a shorter email from Jclemens. ] (]) 23:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Tryp, he's right. There was a long discussion, quite a bit of disagreement and other things were said. The only other thing I referred to was the question JC said he was going to ask everyone, which was pretty much why wasn't Malleus banned for . ] (]) 00:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *As I understand it, it went something like this: | |||
| **Arbitrator ] passed content from arbcom-l to another user, Monsieur X, who is not an arbitrator. Monsieur X passed all or some of this content to ] and others (Messieurs Y), who then most likely passed it on to ] and possibly others (Messieurs Z). | |||
| *I might be misunderstanding something, as I have been struggling to piece it all together, both the ArbCom's and Elen's statements have been fairly cryptic for understandable reasons. Now if the above chain is any indication of what happened, it seems to me to be the prima facie evidence of why stuff from confidential mailing lists shouldn't be divulged outside of it. For all of the claims of whistle blowing, I find that rather misguided, whistle blowing means taking responsibility for such an action, divulge it to the outside world or relevant authorities so that something can be done about it, not gossiping about it with a friend who then gossips about it with another friend and so on (please note I do not believe Elen has made any whistleblowing claims, this is just other people saying so). The higher the office, the higher the responsibility. Whatever the original intent of this matter, it seems to clear to me that Elen bears the ultimate responsibility as arbitrator and source of the material that was released, as well as for not stepping forward sooner. The member of the Arbitration Committee are supposed to be an example to us all in the propriety of their dealings and behavior. Elen has undoubtedly fallen short of this. Not only that, but the matter sadly seems to suggest a certain cavalier attitude towards confidentiality and a certain naïveté. Our functionaries and arbitrators have access to highly confidential data and there should be no doubt that they take all matters related extremely seriously. It is sad that an arbitrator, in a situation like this, isn't motioned by his sense of duty to resign and hence quash the need for their colleagues to attempt to deal with the fallout of the situation. Previous arbitrators have had the wisdom of leading by example, and not putting the community and the committee in such a difficult stop, thru resignation. It would then be up to the community to render the ultimate verdict on the matter thru the upcoming re-election, without any clouds lingering on the current committee's proceedings and without any need for motions such as this. <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 23:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :* I concur that the cavalier attitude to revealing private info is a concern regardless of what she "thought" about that info/person, but so also is the defense that "I needed someone to talk to", which suggests someone unprepared for the stresses of serving on ArbCom (a concern since she hadn't served long as an admin before she was elected and hadn't performed other jobs around ArbCom that might better prepare her) and is unable to keep a sense of perspective about ordinary issues that arbs face. I've got a fairly active inbox, and know a lot of arbs, but never ever has something like this happened (discussion of arb business with friends who are arbs), nor have I seen what amounts to whining about the stresses of the job from the arbs I know best. It troubles me that many observors think this sort of thing is common: I don't believe it is. Arb business stays with the arbs, and the community elects arbs based on that premise and trust. Agree also that previous arbs have done the right thing and resigned over less, so as not to bring ill repute to the committee or cause further dissension or force the rest of the Committee into this awkward position just as an election is upon us. IMO the notion that she "thought" the info would become public anyway should be irrelevant: as an arb, she should be held to the standard of confidentiality the community expects. Disagree with statements from others that concern about what may happen next with privacy of the list has become an inflated concern: the issue is, the community RFCs and present ArbCom policies have left a hole (thru Dec 31) that needs resolution, since it doesn't appear that EotR will step down as did predecessors who found themselves in similar positions. I am also discouraged by SilkTork's stance that, well, it's OK because <s>*I* like and trust her</s> he still trusts her with certain tools. You didn't elect her-- the community did. The community can rightly be concerned if she will again become emotional over a matter that will correct itself and need to talk to someone, and divulge something confidential. And we didn't expect this kind of conduct from an elected arb; the rationalization put forward in her response amounts to, she was furious, she was emotional, and she needed someone to talk to ... and then because she valued protecting her confidant over doing the right thing, she lied to the Committee when first asked. It is all the more disturbing that we had the ArbCom leaks last year, so everyone on the Committee should have learned something from that, and gone the extra mile to guard confidentiality. I guess it is no secret that I felt that EotR was not ready to serve on ArbCom, had not been "in the trenches" long enough, and her defense of "I needed someone to talk to" about (seriously) a matter that will take care of itself really gives pause about whether she is up to the demands of serving on ArbCom. There is a bright line; it has been crossed; and we have no remedies because past RFCs have removed reasonable means of resolving this situation. An honorable arb would resign so as not to put fellow arbs in this position. ] (]) 23:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi Sandy. I appreciate you taking the time to contribute here. Could you amend your "it's OK because *I* like and trust her" sentence above to reflect what I did say. I said I still trust her to handle CU/OS - I'm not talking about asking her to marry me or anything! I trust all the members of the Committee with those tools - whether I personally like them or agree with their views is not the point. I mention judging her character - that is her ], not if I like her as a person. ''']''' ''']''' 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'm sorry for the delay, SilkTork-- I just saw this. ] (]) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's funny Sandy, ]. And I know you know perfectly well that since its a '''mailing '''list, all the Arbs have your personal info on their hard drives anyway. And I'm pretty certain that you know perfectly well that I wouldn't relay personal information - the kind of thing that actually needs to be kept secure. ] (]) 23:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, I did support you-- in a year when an unfortunate RFC forced us to move the committee size to 18 and the candidate pool was quite limited. I have since changed my voting stance wrt freshly-minted admins running for ArbCom. "All the arbs have '''my''' personal info on their hard drives anyway"? That is a very interesting statement, that doesn't reflect very well on you. The ''only'' arb who has any personal info on me, period, anywhere, anytime, any way shape or form is Risker, and I trust her. My concerns about your preparedness for ArbCom have grown as I've watched you evolve in the role in ways that were disappointing, reflected in posts like this one. Please take care not to threaten editors about their personal info. ] (]) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Lol. Come on Sandy, even you're not that technically illiterate. It's a mailing list. It forwards email to each arb's mail client, which downloads it to their hard drive or their Gmail storage area or wherever they keep their emails. It's a major problem with using that mailing list - never mind about leaks from archives, all ex arbs will have their own personal archives that there is no oversight of or control over. It just isn't a suitable medium for handling sensitive personal data at all. ] (]) 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I can't say that knowing you retain access to these sensitive personal data you keep bringing up is very reassuring :( <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Yep ... EotR does demonstrate a most cavalier attitude about a number of things. At any rate, I repeat ... no arb other than Risker has anything about me, so just what EotR is on about is a mystery to me. But it's not becoming. Perhaps it's a distraction. ] (]) 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I have to work to very high standards for protection of personal data, but in an environment where nothing that does not contain personally identifying information can be considered private, as it is all disclosable upon request by law. I don't actually have any information about Sandy (too long ago) but would have copies of any emails she might have sent to the committee in the past two years if she sent any. Which I wouldn't confirm, because that would be personal data. I actually intend to clear that part of my Gmail archive when I go, which I expect will be shortly at this rate, because I would have no authorisation to have them, which would be an offense in the UK if Misplaced Pages were a UK business. But there's no requirement anywhere for arbitrators to dispose of their copies of emails when they leave. Not that there would be any way of enforcing it, but there's no requirement either. --] (]) 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I think the statement on her talk page clearly shows that Elen knows the difference between private and non-private information; unless someone believes that there is actually a risk of disclosing CU or OS info, I don't think this motion solves any imminent crises. The question of whether disclosing non-private information is something an Arb should do can be handled in an unrushed way, through the ballot box, and through discussion. --] (]) 23:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::That has all been interesting reading. At the risk of pointing out what should be so obvious that it shouldn't need to be pointed out, the community elects arbitrators to put an end to dramas, not to create new ones. Maybe Jclemens hasn't seen my question to him, but I choose to construe the absence of an answer from him as tacit acceptance of the descriptions given by Hersfold and Elen. Whatever else was going on, Jclemens appears to have used the mailing list, and its policy of confidentiality, to send messages that go beyond what I saw posted on his talk page. It appears to me that he used the mailing list to say political things about the election, in a manner that appeared confrontational to other members of the Committee. I do not regard that as really being part of the normal duties for which arbitrators are elected, but the fact that there is a confidentiality policy means that the community had no opportunity to scrutinize it. I do not think that's a proper use of the mailing list confidentiality policy. The policy is intended to protect user privacy, not to hide arbitrator conduct from the community. Elen should have answered fully and accurately when first asked by the rest of the Committee about the leaks. It appears that she didn't, and the other members are right to be dissatisfied about that, whatever the issues may or may not be about the leaks themselves (the cover-up may well be worse than the "crime"). But what I'm really seeing is dysfunction in the mailing list itself. It's a confidential list for ArbCom business. It shouldn't be for politicking. And, sorry, but it shouldn't be for the kind of venting and commiserating described by Hersfold in his vote on the motion. I'm sorry and perplexed that arbitrators end up feeling that way, but they have no right to equate their personal desires to unload and perhaps gossip in privacy with what the community wants them to do, which is to conduct arbitration while preserving the privacy of users who have confidential issues. That distinction seems to be getting lost, and I think it is the root cause of the drama here. --] (]) 15:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Elen's actions were bad, although the ''theoretically possible'' damage is much worse than the actual damage. Meanwhile, Jclemen's "bullying" of the Arbitrators (their word, not mine) is going unnoticed by the community. There are two wrong here, but one is being overly-prosecuted while the other is being overlooked. In the interest of equity, I don't have a choice but to point out the lopsided nature of what I am seeing. And as Monty has pointed out, there is some question as to the method being used. No one is saying Elen's actions were appropriate, but we have to use a little judgement here based on what was released. I understand the other Arbitrators are having great difficulty in being objective, after all, this isn't about '''my''' home address or phone number, this is about their concerns over '''their own words''' might be released and used against them. This begs the question, "why was the list being used for politicking to begin with, and is the level of protection granted to politicking the same as my home address and phone number?" I would hope not. I completely understand the frustration, but the appropriateness of the content itself should be considered in the current "punishment" phase, and perhaps a less drastic motion could be offered and considered. And of course, I would ask if any motion if forthcoming regarding what some Arbs called "bullying" by Jclemens, or is that going to be completely overlooked? ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::* This is because for Elen it looks like the first-time incident, whereas for Jclemens it fits the general line of his activity. For instance, all voter guides I looked at (about a half) suggest to vote against him, and they were all published before the statement. His posting just does not add anything to the existing picture, whereas Elen's behaviour does. This is why everybody is discussing her.--] (]) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Correct. There is no need to beat a dead horse, and there is little chance that Jclemens will be re-elected. That was clear before it was known that Elen had reacted emotionally to something that the community already understood and divulged confidential info to a non-arb, crying on the shoulder of someone that she probably now understands she shouldn't have been talking to anyway (judgment concern here), much less divulging confidential info to. ] (]) 16:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Dennis, there actually her actions were , and more people (including you and SilkTork) saying that while her actions might not have been appropriate, she shouldn't be held accountable for them, and others saying that there is that prevents disclosure of private arbcom communications. There is a whole lot of vitriol against jclemens being flung around here in an effort to avoid Elen being held responsible for her behavior, because somehow if she committed the breach against someone who is unpopular and who may have also been misbehaving, that makes it more ok. People don't seem to be noticing that if we fail to handle Elen's behavior, that means the next time an arb leaks list emails - maybe that time it won't be about someone who's already unpopular, or it will be about something having to do with you, or it will be an email ''from'' you because that arb thinks you're misbehaving - there will be precedent saying that it's ok to leak (to one's personal friends, mind you, not publicly) as long as the arb dislikes the content enough. We can quite well handle Elen's behavior while also not saying Jclemens's was great. This is not a zero-sum game where only one of them can have been wrong, but nevertheless, only one of the two violated the ] prohibiting release of arbcom "internal discussions" without permission. ] (]) 16:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Fluffernutter, it is inaccurate to say that I think she should not be held accountable for the mistakes. I have held that she did make a mistake. I can't speak for SilkTork, although I don't see him overlooking the problem either, just disagreeing with the proposed solution. I specifically mentioned the possibility of another motion, which would imply a different sanction. I mentioned that the punishment should fit the crime. The problem is that we are treating this as a binary problem with a binary solution, something I try to avoid in any sanction discussion. Our job as administrators is to enforce sanctions equitably and fairly, considering all the evidence. I am asking the same here. Nothing I've said can be construed to mean I think a free pass is in order, for anyone. That doesn't mean I agree that the current proposal is the best solution. As for violations, there may be more violations than meets the eye, but you and I haven't seen the email in question, only the milder reply. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For me, this isn't about whether one of them is more popular than the other. Personally, I like both Elen and Jclemens very much. What bothers me is that there is a very strong appearance that the rest of the Committee are placing a much higher priority on making sure that arbitrators have a safe place (the list) do things that the rest of us cannot see, and a lower priority on using that list the way the community wants it to be used. I don't see this as something where we have to take sides about which arb to punish, but I do see it as something where there may be the kind of rush that Dennis and others are rightly calling into question. --] (]) 16:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Process questions ===== | |||
| *So, with the candidates auto-recused and Xeno still on his long vacation, there are ten active arbitrators, right? ''']''' 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Making 6 a majority, yes. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *While motion to remove access to CU & oversight can be a simple motion, removal of access to arbitration mailing lists and Arbwiki is a suspension from the arbitration committee by any other name, which ] requires two-thirds of all arbitrators. -- ] (]) 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **No, she has the right to vote still. --''']]]''' 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** This is an interesting point, actually. When the requirement for arbitrators to identify to the WMF was first formalized, the prevailing opinion of the Committee was that access to ''arbcom-l'' was, indeed, required in order to fulfill one's responsibilities as an arbitrator; when we considered the hypothetical case of an arbitrator-elect who refused to identify—and who, therefore, could not be subscribed to the list—the general sense was that this would not be a viable situation in practice.<p>Having said that, there is currently no provision in the arbitration policy mandating that arbitrators have access to the arbitration mailing lists (or, indeed, mandating that such lists be used at all), so it's not clear to me whether simply unsubscribing someone from the list would in fact qualify as removing them from the Committee. On the one hand, an arbitrator not subscribed to the list would still be able to carry out the public portions of their role (e.g. voting on cases, etc.). On the other hand, certain elements of the Committee's work (and particularly #2, #4, and #5 in the ]) are always conducted off-wiki; an arbitrator without access to the arbitration mailing lists and/or arbitration wiki would be unable to carry out those duties.<p>I'm therefore very interested in additional feedback on this point: is removing an arbitrator from ''arbcom-l'' tantamount to removing their ability to carry out their official duties? ] <sup>]]</sup> 22:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****If a case were to open tomorrow, she would be able to review evidence posted on-wiki, make workshop proposals, and vote in the proposed decision. Removing her from the mailing list only prevents her from being able to deal with the "private information" part of our mandate; a large part, yes, but she would still be able to perform in the Committee's other primary role, that of being the last step in dispute resolution. In some ways it would be the same as if she were on vacation and only able to access Misplaced Pages through public terminals; she may not want to open up her private email and certainly not access the arbwiki, but she could still vote on matters posted on Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{ec}}In an extreme case, she could even participate in #2 (ban appeals) if we routed all BASC appeals through UTRS or Requests for Amendment. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****Anyone is free to send email to her at their discretion, and she can still send email to the list. Also, pulling CU and OS is explicitly allowed to pass with a simple majority. --''']]]''' 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***** {{ec}}I think there's a distinction between not wanting to participate in a portion of our role—whether for technical reasons or simply because of lack of interest—and being forcibly restricted from doing so. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that an arbitrator can be prohibited from carrying out some of their official duties but still remain an arbitrator; it seems to me that holding the position is inextricably intertwined with having the authority to perform ''all'' of the associated responsibilities. ] <sup>]]</sup> 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******The only alternative would be to say that the Committee has no ability to remove a confirmed leaker from access to the confidential materials she previously leaked. That is hardly a sustainable position. ''']''' 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *******Well, the procedural question is merely whether this is an ordinary motion (which requires a simple majority) or a motion to suspend an arbitrator (which requires a 2/3 supermajority); in either case, the ability to remove someone still exists. ] <sup>]]</sup> 01:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ********Kirill, does the procedural question matter? Here, we have an arbitrator who has consciously violated the duty of her office, and several arbs have clearly stated that the only reason she's still on ArbCom today is because procedure prohibits her removal with the number of arbs that must recuse due to elections. This seems like a clear case of ] to me. And this isn't even IAR per se - this is perfectly within the regulations of the Committee. Anyone can send emails to Elen (heck, even cc: it to arbcom-l, but I sure hope discretion would be used here and stuff wouldn't be just forwarded from arbcom-l), and Elen will still be allowed to email into the list. She can still vote in proceedings. Sure, it's not as convenient, but are you going to let someone who has willingly deceived the Committee and who has violated the privacy policy remain on the Committee, ''with this access to private information''? So she can still perform her duties, ''without viewing private evidence, which is the key issue at stake here''. The BASC membership may be an issue not having CU, but she does not have to be a member of BASC to be an arbitrator and could be switched out. And ArbCom clearly has a mandate to remove any advanced permissions, including CU, OS, and admin, with a simple majority. Finally, ''does Elen still retain the community's trust''? She was dishonest once - while I'm sure we all want to believe in her record and character and that this was the only leaked email, how do we know that other emails were not or will not be leaked? I have nothing against her personally, but this is due diligence, and we would be remiss to ignore the issue and pretend like it was no big deal by writing up a statement and hoping the community resolves the issue for 2013, while allowing the leaker to have access to private information until December 31, 2012. I've heard noises of appealing to the WMF should ArbCom fail to do anything about the situation, and I would personally find that entirely appropriate. --''']]]''' 09:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *********I certainly think the procedural question matters. How can we condemn Elen for violating the arbitration policy if we ourselves are willing to violate it in our haste to punish her? If IAR justifies our actions, could one not argue that it also justifies hers? ] <sup>]]</sup> 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **********Point taken, but there are concerns that this disclosure may violate the ]. (I'll be honest, this is the first time I've read it, so I couldn't tell you). I do think the trust of the community has to be considered here as well. But the policy explicitly allows for removing CU/OS rights, and "To approve and remove access to ... (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee." which arbcom-l would clearly qualify. --''']]]''' 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***********If what happened was a violation of ] (I'm not arguing one way or another on this), then the WMF have the power to kick her off all relevant access. As such, the argument that someone couldn't be kicked off for violation like this would is invalid. -- ] (]) 13:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****Being restricted from performing parts of a role is still suspension of at least that part. A suspension is a suspension whether in whole or in part. Anyway, that's my take, others may disagree. -- ] (]) 22:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ************I'm afraid I don't accept this line of argument. The ''core'' function of the committee is on-wiki; cases, amendments, clarifications, etc. If on the off chance something comes up that needs her attention, she can be read into it, whether that be a ban appeal, an admin caught socking, or whatnot. You can do this job just fine without the lists or flags, all this motion says is she doesn't get automatic access to non-public information until the community can render its judgment on the leaks, and plugs the hole from her leaking again in the meantime. (That we can't control what she has already seen is no reason to let her see more over the next month.) ] 16:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *************If members of the committee can perform their function adequately without access to that private information, then access to it should be removed from all members of the committee, save two or three, who could then provide the same sort of screening for the rest of the committee that you propose for her. Any type of sane privacy practice would not share confidential information with more individuals then need access to it. ]] 16:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *************Also, it is already possible to exclude members from discussion on the -b and -c lists; since it appears the archives are restricted, this would not be much further than that. --''']]]''' 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **************]. Those sublists are used for discussions where certain members are recused. Here you are arguing that an arb can function as an arb without access to all arbitration mailing lists & arbwiki. If that is truly the case, then shut down the lists & the wiki since there's clearly no use for it. -- ] (]) 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***************You're trying to push a false dichotomy here: the lists and wiki might not be ''necessary'' for every purpose, but they are convenient. IRC isn't necessary for the functioning of Misplaced Pages but it is convenient, and there's still a no public logging policy for #wikipedia-en-admins. --''']]]''' 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **** I already had expressed my concern about this motion at ], immediately after it was first posted. I think that this should ''at least'' be two separate motions, due to Arbcom using two separate powers in this motion. And KTC's question brings up another good reason to split the motion. And as for Krill's question, that sounds a bit like Arbcom would effectively be voting for a type of censure by committee. She would keep the title, and could help with any work that didn't require that access, but effectively she would be out of cases, and anything else which required that stuff. I think it's an allowable option, per policy. But I welcome others' thoughts. - <b>]</b> 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *The motion is a removal from the committee in all but name. That candidates must agree to identify to even run for a seat on Arbcom speaks to the fact that the tool and list access to which identification is a prerequisite are necessary to function as a member of the committee. To argue that the tools needed to function as a member of the committee can be removed without meeting the requirements to remove a member makes a mockery of the removal rules. ]] 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Concur. Remove her or don't remove her, but pretending you can take away the functions that make her able to function as an arbitrator by something less than the vote needed to remove is mad. I would question whether the arbitrators who signed the statement are now uninvolved. Certainly, they have a vested interest in seeing that what they signed is upheld, and have clearly meddled in the election. By the same standards of conflict of interest they impose on administrators, they should not be dealing with this. I will not comment on the Elen-Sandy situation, much as I am tempted to, but note that Sandy's present view of Elen is a lesson for Timotheus Canens in two years, if he doesn't toe the party line if elected. He's the fair haired boy per the same election guide which so supported Elen two years ago, for pulling the trigger on Br'er Rabbit's wikicide, but boy he better vote to form or he'll hear about it!--] (]) 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Noting that after stating you "will not comment on the Elen-Sandy situation", you went considerably off-topic on this page and did just that. My response is (a more appropriate place to continue this discussion). ] (]) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wehwalt, this is a situation where you should have kept quiet. You brought up "involved". ''A fortiori'', Elen was involved when Elen voted on numerous issues involving Raul and/or Merridew. Had any of these issues developed into a case, Elen would have been named as a party. Elen "interpreted" an arbitration remedy involving one of her friends in a way that voided that remedy. The arbitration committee even took the unusual step of censuring one of its own for admin action while involved. Elen should have been removed from arbcom a good 6 months ago, if not much earlier, for abuse of position. There is more than just the present issue. ] (]) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That comment is proof positive that Caligula has been unjustly defamed as having made the worst appointment by any autocrat. Although your Latin is better than that of the other appointee.--] (]) 05:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: And ''that comment'' brings us full circle. What brought us here to begin with is how divided the community is wrt Civility enforcement and the double standard applied to admins and non-admins. That Wehwalt (an admin who has been lodging similar all over Misplaced Pages of late), ''on an arb page'', thumbs his nose at civility, and the sitting arbs, to lodge a veiled attack on both Raul and Gimmetrow, while using no foul language, C words, etc (and what he seems to think is "cleverly" disguised language that only those "in the know" will understand), demonstrates beautifully the problem we have with civility enforcement. I haven't seen a better example in the history of civility discussions as to why the community is so divided on this issue. Even those of us who do not support the language Malleus uses know that had Malleus written the words above that Wehwalt wrote (calling Raul an autocrat and Gimmetrow a horse), he would already be blocked, but Wehwalt will not even receive a rebuke. And Wehwalt, ''please'' try to stay on topic on these pages. If you oppose Raul's appointment of Gimmetrow, there is a correct place for you to lodge your not-so-veiled concerns. ] (]) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've seen that act from you before, Sandy. To quote you, "Did I say, a few hours ago, "Oh, I'm ''so sure'' all will be promptly, courteously, and correctly dealt with at ANI !!!" Yep. Ok, no action, and people removing the template from his talk even though it's confirmed. I've been ... ummmmm ... informed that Rlevse still has friends in powerful places. Not only has there been no block, there's not even a tag on his page. Yay ANI !!! So, what's the next step for getting this account blocked? I'm noticing how little the community gives a darn about the sustained disruption that has been visited upon FAC for months now." Moni3, who to your giddy agreement had called PumpkinSky an "idiot" and a "dingus" earlier in the conversation, blocked on cue, two minutes later. You do seem to have the "will no one rid me of this turbulent user?" act down pat, Sandy. I remind you that you are the one whose election guide contains the words "Wehwalt", "PumpkinSky", "Rlevse" "Davenbelle" and "Jack Merridew" a combined 45 times. Look to your own "lodgings". Did you come back only to settle grudges?--] (]) 17:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Since apparently the clerks don't have the guts to say this, to the both of you: settle down, please. --''']]]''' 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Wehwalt knows where to find the page for discussing this that I've pointed him to twice now. ] (]) 18:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *A review of: | |||
| **] | |||
| **] (summary proceedings) | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| *leads to the conclusion that the above motion requires a simple majority of non-recused, active arbitrators. Recusal could happen by ]. The super-majority/all-committee requirement for removal/suspension from the committee does not apply per ], as the above motion does not seek removal or suspension from the committee. So, the vote to carry, is majority of active non-recused arbitrators (who are identified as doing so voluntarily -- we need not address forced recusal, at the moment). Thus, with three voluntarily recused and one inactive: 6 out of 11 is needed to carry, where the full committee is 15. (This procedural review does not comment on the wisdom of any action). ] (]) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***Even PhilKnight in his support vote explicitly called it suspension. -- ] (]) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****It is suspension of those access rights until January 1 -- not suspension from the committee. ] (]) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Risker, Kirill: This is ArbCom, not GovCom. --''']]]''' 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::What's your point? We address disputes. One of the key issues in disputes is whether or not the relevant policy is followed, or if someone has (perhaps unintentionally) tried to work around it or has misinterpreted it. At the very least, Arbcom has to ensure it follows its own policy, without trying to take back doors to achieve a goal. ] (]) 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is specifically referencing Kirill's assertion that all 5 of the tasks on the arb policy page are equally weighted. The primary purpose of ArbCom is to resolve disputes. That Elen can still do while still not being on the mailing list (as she can still vote and look at on-wiki evidence) and thus she is not suspended. And she still retains an email account and can email arbs and even the mailing list if necessary. --''']]]''' 05:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Clerk's list ===== | |||
| *Maybe this is a question for Courcelles: does the motion also change Elen's subscription/write-access to the clerks list? ] (]) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Answering as a list admin. Being subscribed to the list gives you auto-accept and read rights; anyone can send things to the list, they just have to be moderated first if you're not on the auto-accept list. I can't think of any reason why we'd need to remove Elen from the auto-accept list, nor why we would discard any of her emails in moderation (something which is only done for spam). ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks Hersfold, that was my understanding of the motion as well. Best, ] (]) 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **{{ec}}I'd even leave her subscribed to that one, at least I didn't intend this to remove her from clerks-l. ] 23:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***O_O I could have sworn that said something else earlier - Yeah, I see no reason for her to be removed from clerks-l. But she could certainly remain auto-accept for arbcom-l, which is what I think I was talking about above. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 06:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Community discussion (cont'd) ===== | |||
| *I respect that a great deal of the information can't be given, but the urgency of which this motion has been drawn is worrisome, considering at least one Arb believes the likelihood of Elen disclosing other information is very low. This also distracts from the issue of a "bullying" email being sent by Jclemens to the rest of the committee, which seems to be getting overlooked in this event. We haven't seen the email, so it puts the community in the position of having to judge solely from hearsay, a less than optimal situation. I'm not sure how I feel about the disclosure by Elen, likely due in part from not having enough information to form a definitive and informed opinion. The process, however, does seem rushed. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 23:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Making allegedly unwise statements is not an actionable issue - willful disclosure of confidential data is. ''']''' 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't want to put too fine a point on this Hersfold, but had Elen taken your advice and instead said "'' "An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case."''", everyone would have instantly known who it was, considering the recent events. This calls into question the process being a bit overkill, or even moot, since fully compliance (by your own standard) would have been essentially just as informational as the obviously improper way she chose to communicate. I'm concerned this process is too hasty and not completely thought out. I'm not saying overlook the incident, of course, but does the punishment truly fit the crime? I'm not as sure as others are, based on your own standard. This also calls into question how confidential this particular data really is. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***I suppose that is a fair question. However, for many years, disclosing the text of an email without the permission of the sender has been a censurable offense. This came up in the EEML case as well as several others. Whether the rules should change is a fair argument, but the problem is that Elen just decided one day to violate the rules without telling anyone. This created an atmosphere of betrayal and mistrust, potentially making Committee business much more acrimonious and difficult. ''']''' 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** Candidates (including arbs) have campaigned against each other for years (2008 was nasty); nothing new, wasn't worth all the fuss, would have taken care of itself, always does, someone got overly emotional over something that wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things (and indicates a lack of trust that the community can figure these things out for themselves). Now, divulging confidential arb e-mail, period, or because you "need someone to talk to" ... that is something new (last year's leaks notwithstanding). Perspective. ] (]) 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****I'm not overlooking or understating the seriousness of the charge, but there is such a thing as "eventual discovery" (or whatever your state or country calls it) and this information wasn't particularly "confidential", by Hersfold's own standard. If you complied with policy (per Hersfold's actual example) then the public would have discovered the same evidence, thus the offense is not as serious as disclosing information that could not have been discovered independently. Courts even allow illegally obtained evidence under this rule. I'm not saying there is no foul here, I'm saying that the reaction might be out of proportion to the actual offense. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******And what courts do is relevant to the situation at hand... how? <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *******You should occasionally read ]. --] (]) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****Sandy, could you provide links to the campaigning that you mention occurred in 2008? Thanks, '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***** No, I can't-- I received inappropriate emails, and I later discussed them where appropriate, and IIRC, a lot of people came forward who got same and knew it was going on. But I don't divulge private email. Ever. Perhaps one reason I don't get that sort of thing any more is that the senders know It Won't End Well for Them. ] (]) 00:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******No problem. I was under the impression that this was on-wiki stuff, which didn't quite jive with my recollection of things. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ********Snowolf, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm only trying to politely express my own concerns as a fellow editor with a deep respect for process. When we do something that is at this end of the sanction spectrum, we should be confident that no other less extreme alternatives will suffice. I'm not questioning anyone's faith or authority, I'm just politely offering my perspective. This is the same as I do at ANI and other boards, seeking an equitable solution and insuring we don't rush to judgement. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *********I see things very similarly to the way Dennis does, and I'll explain that more completely above. --] (]) 14:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **Reply to Dennis from way above: The paraphrase I gave is but one example of how to handle this, and different people may not see that as an entirely appropriate approach either. Another approach, unquestionably within policy, would be to push for a motion publicly censuring Jclemens for his comments (idea came to me since he mentioned that he wasn't over at ]). Another would be to do nothing at the time, but run for re-election anyway and refuse to answer his questions - I don't think I'm wrong when I say that Elen's approaches to civility have more popular support than Jclemens's anyway. I think Sandy's approach may be best. The point I was trying to make is that there were other options available to her that didn't involve leaking information. Since she did leak information, regardless of what it was, we must respond with a removal from the Committee if possible, or the next best thing if circumstances prevent that; doing otherwise puts us on a slippery slope as to what leaks are and aren't acceptable, could jeopardize the ability of the Committee to function as I mentioned in my vote, and erodes the community's trust in the Committee to keep private things private. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***I appreciate the thoughtful response. It is a difficult situation, as I agree there was a breach, but I don't think she would have breached anything really private, and only release info that shouldn't have been there to begin with. You are saying ignoring it isn't an option, and I understand. My thinking is only that treating it the same as if she had shared my address and phone number might be unnecessarily strong as well. IE: I'm not saying you or anyone is ''wrong'', I'm saying the solution isn't optimal as I think she can still be trusted with genuinely sensitive information. (And I would still easily trust her with my personal information, btw) As she very well be re-elected, she will be anyway, so a solution that is less drama causing and is more proportionate to the actual damage caused should at least be considered as one possible option. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 18:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **** I appreciate and respect that others feel differently, but I don't trust her with confidential information. That she was crying on the shoulder of an imaginary internet friend about confidential arb business to someone who later betrayed her trust for me at least calls into doubt her overall judgment, maturity, all sorts of things. That she "needed someone to talk to" for me at least calls into question her emotional stability under pressure. That she has made it harder for current and future arbs to use the maillist for anything necessary is a lasting problem. And that she hasn't recognized the dangerous precedent-setting issue here of an arb revealing ''anything'', regardless how small, outside of the arb list means to me at least something should be done. And that all of this was done over something that would have taken care of itself calls into question her perspective. But more significantly, she ''lied to her fellow arbs'', and that alone calls for something. So pass a motion on both Jclemens and Elen of the Roads, but do something. ] (]) 18:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **** I actually think this is somewhat proportionate. If we'd determined that she ''had'' leaked genuinely private data of some form, I don't think there's any question that rather than a statement and motion that specifically does not expel her a day later, we'd have gone straight to a motion to expel and it would have passed quickly despite the number of recusals. If we hadn't, it's entirely possible the Foundation could have intervened due to the breach of their Privacy Policy. As it stands, some arbitrators are closer to your line of thinking, others closer to mine, and so a compromise of sorts is being proposed with this motion, which has resulted in a more proportionate response as you're looking for (perhaps). ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***** I feel better about the tone now than last night, it has cooled down somewhat, and regardless of outcome, the community deserves to know it was a calmly deliberated decision, even if the opinions are split. I would prefer a negotiated settlement but understand this would be very difficult to do as the nature of the offense seems personal to other members of Arb, or at least makes them feel vulnerable. I am just wired that way, to want a mediated solution instead of the public drama. That this happened at this time is most unfortunate, but I guess it couldn't have happened at any other, considering the content. This still doesn't answer "Who sent all the anonymous email?", which means either it was her, or someone else with access to the Arb list did. I can only assume this is still being investigated. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****** "A negotiated settlement" might include both of them stepping down now and standing down from elections. Recall that both Kirill and Cas resigned in the past, and were later re-elected. The community has demonstrated its respect for arbs who stand aside when they've brought ill repute to the Committee, and its willingness to re-elect them in the future. ] (]) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *******Such a settlement would avoid the need to make a decision about ambiguity regarding the vote threshold for action. No mater how the committee decides, it will be bad; if the motion is rejected they will be drawing criticism for failure to do anything about the breach, or if the motion passes, there will be criticism for acting in a way that there is a real question over whether it has the authority to. Not needing to make that decision would be far superior. I see no reason why such a settlement needs to encompass the ongoing election, leave that aspect to voters. ]] 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *******I would offer to mediate a settlement if the parties were inclined. I'm not expecting all the parties to agree to such a method, but on my honor I would go and strike all my votes, electing to be neutral this election, and mediate if this is what the parties wanted. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ********The most important thing now is the voting which will reflect community consensus on the issue. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *********What? No. Can't see how that's true; the election voters are not required to consider the issue, at all. ] (]) 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ********* Not exactly. First, voting is not about the issue, and some of the voters might have no idea that motion was passed and the issue is being debated. Second, 50+one vote is not really a consensus. If we have for example an AfD which is split 60 to 40 it normally gets closed as no consensus.--] (]) 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ********** I'm hoping cas meant the voting on this page. On the 50+1 issue, I've been moaning about the low threshold since the stupid 2009 RFC (the same one that grew the Committee size to something unmanageable that was later reduced), that forced all sorts of unforeseen issues upon us. Now problems forced upon us by RFC are coming home to roost. Really, 50% support to serve on what is supposed to our highest authority? Goofy. ] (]) 20:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}The minimum threshold of support and the desired size of the committee are really two sides of the same coin; there was simply no way to fill 18 seats (as stipulated by the 2009 RFC) with a higher minimum requirement. Perhaps the threshold could be increased now that we've gone back to having 15 arbitrators; but, given the results of recent elections, I'm not sure how much; last year, for example, we would have barely filled all the seats at a 60% threshold, and would have only elected two new arbitrators at a 75% threshold.<p>Having said that, I think reducing the size of the committee even further is certainly an option to be explored in the future; we're a little short on actual work at the moment, particularly as far as full-blown cases are concerned. It's actually rather depressing to see that the only open proceeding on any the arbitration pages involves a motion to sanction a sitting arbitrator; one is reminded of the ]. ] <sup>]]</sup> 02:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *@SandyGeorgia: {{xt|50% support to serve on what is supposed to our highest authority? Goofy.}} -- If it's good enough for ], it should be good enough for our arbitrators. Also, the higher the threshold, the easier it is for special interest groups to ] the candidacies of people inconvenient to that group. The one thing we do not want is to give more gaming power to special interest groups of any persuasion. --] (]) 20:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Questions about disclosures ===== | |||
| I have 2 questions that I haven't seen asked yet, plus a couple of comments. Question #1 Was the disclosed material Arbcom business? Or was it misplaced non-arbcom business put into a venue where someone would need to suffer in silence on a non-arbcom matter? I can see the need where it is immensely important to keep certain information highly confidential, but I don't consider it sacred to categorically consider all of those communications confidential. For example, for bodies with governmental power in the USA, with certain narrow specific exceptions, it's common for it to actually be the opposite...actually illegal to have a confidential venue / confidential discussions for the entire group. Second, did Ellen disclose it in a a manner that would try hard to limit to just the disclosed person? Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I'm particularly interested in question #1. --] (]) 14:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would add third question and fourth questions to this list: 3) Did Elen disclose in a manner that she could reasonably have expected to fix the issue of mailing list misuse or otherwise have it dealt with by those able to do so, or did she disclose in a manner that could not have fixed the issue anyway? 4) Did Elen disclose and follow up in a manner that indicated that she believed her release of the email was appropriate/allowed under Arbcom policy, or did she behave in a manner that indicated that she knew her behavior needed to be covered up? ] (]) 17:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll try to answer these. | |||
| :::#The disclosed email stemmed from a discussion that somehow got turned around to the Malleus/Civility issues; if I recall correctly (I'm away from my email) that topic was rather tangential to the original topic of that particular email thread. As myself and another list administrator made very clear, discussion of election campaigns and tactics on the list is inappropriate, particularly when a number of arbitrators subscribed to the list are running or thinking about running. So that particular email was not proper arbcom business, no; the discussion it stemmed from probably could be considered arbitration business, despite the tangential nature of the conversation. | |||
| :::#Not sure what you're asking; she disclosed an email, I believe through a private chat thing. She sent it to another person in a manner where only that person could see what she sent, but she obviously didn't have them sign a non-disclosure agreement over it. | |||
| :::#Since list administrators had already very firmly stopped that line of conversation, there wasn't much left to fix. However, I fail to see how sending the email to someone not on the list and not involved in arbitration would have helped to fix anything anyway. Perhaps I'm not understanding the question...? | |||
| :::#I'd say a bit of both. As the statement indicates, when we heard of the first leak, we were of the belief that the only leaked content was a sentence or two, which Elen did admit to. She attempted to justify this with the clause in the Arbitration Policy that states that emails should be kept private when "sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties" - she argued that since this was an inappropriate use of the list, it could not have been sent in the line of duty, and thus was not protected. As I discuss above, I think that this is an invalid line of reasoning based on other bits in policy (some from the same sentence) that offer the privacy protection to "all communications sent to " and that require arbitrators to "Preserve in appropriate confidence the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations." Later, when we discovered a full email had been released, she denied having sending it despite being asked multiple times, which would indicate to me she knew that disclosure, at least, had crossed a line. | |||
| :::Other arb's answers to these may vary based on their perceptions of the events. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Wait ===== | |||
| In the recent you waited and listened to community input before acting; and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same here. You've had a couple of weeks to think about this, we haven't. You ''may'' benefit from hearing the perspectives of others outside the committee. There is no need to rush. It is absurd to conclude from EotR confiding in one trusted person (information that is not personal and about to be made public anyway) that she can't be trusted with oversight or checkuser. Please pay the community enough respect to at least listen to our thoughts, and consider them, before acting. You seem to be being played by whoever sent the anonymous Gmails. --] (]) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Hear, hear. Yes, that is indeed absurd. If I had a penny for every time an arb ever shared something they weren't supposed to with me in private chat, I'd be financially independent by now. Well spoken, Anthony. ] | ] 14:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC). | |||
| ::I also agree with this. --] (]) 14:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ''If I had a penny for every time an arb ever shared something they weren't supposed to with me in private chat, I'd be financially independent by now.'' If this is the case, then certainly Elen shouldn't be punished for behaviors that are a regular practice. Is this common for Arbs to share "something they weren't supposed to" with privileged members of the community? The general community needs to know before the election. Perhaps Elen's lying is being accepted by some Arbcom and community members because disclosing confidential info to non Arbs is a common practice, the only difference being that this particular incident, including Elen's untruthful responses, was disclosed publicly. ] (]) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree that that claim is the most troubling thing on this page. ] (]) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nothing "privileged" about me. I've been here a long time, that's all; that's why the sum of arb confidences over the years would make me so rich. People who know me well enough are sometimes prepared to trust my discretion, and I try to give them good reason to; I never pass anything on to anybody except Giano (jk). And I didn't mean I've ever been privy to anything truly confidential, like personal info about users, or anything to do with a case I was myself involved in. Of course not. The arbs I've been on chatty terms with over the years have been appropriately discreet. But then as far as I can gather (from onwiki information only; I have no other), so has Elen; her chat with a confidante didn't involve anything truly confidential, either. Man is a chatty animal, and I don't like to see the "holier than thou" attitude that comes out on this page and in other places where Elen's so-called leak is discussed. ] | ] 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC). | |||
| :::A very apt comment, which I agree with. Much of the response I see appears to me to be a drastic over-reaction to the actualities of the situation, including this motion, which seems to me to be punitive and not really a legitimate attempt to plug a leak. ] (]) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, it's not an attempt to plug a leak - it's the turkeys voting against Christmas. It's absurd that we allow this group to be the judges and jury on their own petty political squabbles. ], anyone? <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC) <small></small> | |||
| *To be 100% honest, I have so little confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator that I'm actually inclined to exonerate Elen for her lack of discretion in this case. His recent actions are absolutely abhorrent, and I am embarassed that we have someone of his mindset on the committee. ] (]) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Concur. There's no one to stop you from doing this, arbs, unless the stewards refuse to comply without an expulsion majority. But if you pass this motion, and then the community re-elects Elen, I think the community will have judged you, too, and a string of resignations should follow. Your continued presence, then, would inhibit the work of the committee with the community having weighed in on the matter.--] (]) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Kurtis: Two wrongs don't make a right, though, and I've heard of no overriding reason why the disclosure might have been necessary enough to IAR the privacy rule. If we follow from your "so little confidence" comment, we soon arrive at "I think this is a bad person, so why keep his CU and OS data private?" Yes, I know you wouldn't support such a stance, but it does seem to follow. – '']'' <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::This lightweight agrees with the heavyweights. Hold your horses! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 16:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let's take a deep breathe and see how the election plays out. Give Arbcom and the community time to inquire, discuss and think through this matter. Nobody died or is going to. Give it some time. This habit we often exhibit here, of rushing to judgement and punishment, is not helpful to the health of our project. Not in this or in any instance on Misplaced Pages, in my opinion. It does not forward our agenda of being a global internet community or a world family. When suggesting a standard for behavior and judgement we should ask ourselves if you we would pass such a standard in every instance and in every aspect of our life. We should also consider if this is an error of judgement or an ongoing pattern of wrong doing. We all make mistakes. Yes they should be recognized and responded to but care and consideration should be taken in that process and we should see if there is an opportunity to learn from those mistakes and grow both as individuals and as a community.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Philosopher: You're probably right. I certainly don't think Jclemens is a ''bad'' person, and I'm not saying Elen was right to leak private data, but there've just been so many issues lately and I almost feel glad that the off-wiki concerns are being brought to light. ] (]) 19:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Hold the hysteria ===== | |||
| * Shut this circus down. It's the last gasp of an outgoing ArbCom; JClemens will be gone in two weeks, Elen will be back. Then what are ya gonna do with your secret mailing list? If you want to suspend anything, don't take it out on Elen, just shut the stupid secret list down and conduct your debate in public on Wiki like grown ups. ] (]) 16:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====Fair and needed===== | |||
| I had intentionally avoided these discussions thus far partially because my own opinions about Arbcom are pretty well known and because there seemed more than enough comments already. I do want to say though that I think this decision to at least temporarily revoke some privileges is both fair and needed as an example. Many of us have been scolded or worse for infractions lessor to or equal than the breech that occurred here recently. If Arbcom would have done nothing it would have proved that they do not hold themselves accountable to the rules they are mandated to enforce. So from someone who has been an ardent critic of Arbcom for some time, well done (and I do not mean that sarcastically). ] (]) 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====What an overaction to what is quite normal and frequent occurance===== | |||
| Firstly, I have had few dealings with Ellen; I am neither her friend, confidante or enemy. In short, I don’t know her. However, what I do know is that yet again we are seeing this hysterical overreaction from the Arbcom and certain sections of the Misplaced Pages community. In their usual and quite revolting lust for blood and ritual humiliation, it is overlooked that if the Arbcom behaved in a transparent and honest fashion these ‘leaks’ would not be possible, necessary and sensational. That an Arb sometimes informs others of the feelings and ridiculous, puerile and sometimes downright vicious utterances of fellow Arbs is understandable, unsurprising and frankly no big deal. I also know that there are other Arbs quietly squirming and hoping some of their own similar actions don’t come to light – they are of course, the minority - those with a sense of shame. Ellen is not a Roman Catholic priest and the Arbcom is not her confessing flock; neither, thank God, has she ever claimed to be a saint and keeping the Biblical tone: "let he who is without sin...." This motion is an overreaction. All her rights and privileges should be <s>restored</s> retained and the community permitted to speak for itself in the election. ] (]) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to say no rights and privileges have been removed as of this point (AFAIK), so nothing to restore. -- ] (]) 10:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's good because it's quite obviouse that this is an engineered situation to spike the Arbcom elections and ensure thatt we have more of the secretive, lack lustre Arbs which are all too sadly accustomed. If something shouldn't be repeated, then it's not worth saying in the first place. ] (]) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :So, the committee is upset that information that was posted to it's mailing list that really didn't belong there was shared. Looking for a scapegoat they pick EotR. Wanting to extract a pint of blood, they go for both tools that are helpful to an Arbitrator's duties and tools that are mandatory to the duties. I encourage the committee to put down the hatchet and consider annother tool in their box, the Admonishment. I do not think that EotR has had an official Admonishment in her record from the committee, therefore to jump directly to summary suspension is a gross overreaction to what is a relatively minor offense in relation to what could have been done. ] (]) 15:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes! Good suggestion from little Hasteur! Little Elen join Bishzilla in having under her belt! All best users have one! Badge of distinction! ] '']'' 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC). | |||
| @Arbcom - The stated reason why this spilled over with the motion on the Noticeboard and now here was to bring an unfortunate situation out into the open and resolve it before the elections. However, the elections are now ongoing, yet there has been no voting activity here for 2 days and only 1/2 of the eligible arbs have voted. One gets the feeling of a committee that behind closed doors sometimes calmly deliberates, and sometimes has the mother of all monkey fights. During these fights, the door occasionally opens and bits of debris fly out, and then the door closes again. The debris that was jclemens' email has already melted on the carpet and can't be cleaned up. The apparently half-baked (given only half of you are willing to opine on it) motion above also flew out, and we assume you are now once again at it hammer and tongs behind closed doors. Given the timing, could you clean up the mess by either voting on the motion and having it pass or fail, or by withdrawing it and then coming back with either a statement or a motion that you are all comfortable stating your positions on publicly? We can debate exactly under what circumstances the committee should debate publicly vs discuss privately, but it is inappropriate when something is discussed off and on based on comfort level and - one is forced to assume - political point-scoring. Especially when the discussion and the conclusions impugn the reputation of several of your current and potentially future colleagues during a time they are up for community scrutiny. Thanks! ] (]) 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I couldn't agree more. The absurdity of this group attempting to "arbitrate" and "govern" themselves in this fashion does little other than to underline what an unacceptable state of affairs it is that they should be expected, required or allowed to do so. I have no confidence that this is being handled for the community's benefit at all at this stage, and I have heard little to convince me I am wrong. Unfortunately, there is no option open to us, as community members, other than to patiently wait for that door (great mental picture, Martinp) to open and see what emerges. If we do not, as a community, ensure that we are never in this position again, then I despair for the future. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thirding this. It's apparent that a number of arbs are either unable or unwilling to take a public position in this matter. Newsflash, guys: just doing what's right (whichever position you believe to be the right one) takes a whole lot less energy than dithering in the background about what will make you look best or be most political, or will this get you not elected, or will that anger this faction that is politically useful to you. Stop waiting to see how the wind blows, stop trying to arrange each other's deaths behind closed doors, and vote on the damn motion. ] (]) 16:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes; hurry up and get on with it. All the backlash is because you've delayed long enough. This long delay does not send the right message to the community. --''']]]''' 17:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't say I'm totally on top of this controversy so pardon me if I missed the obvious, but what backlash and what long wait? I though Anthonyhcole made a good point above: the ArbCom has known about this for a while and it's only been a couple days since the rest of us found out, so it makes sense to give the community time to voice input. That said, I understand the concerns with the timing of the election, and I'm not sure how much more there is to be said about this particular motion. <b>]]]</b> 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The backlash is evident by the many comments on this page. The long wait is evidenced by the fact that no arb has voted in over 24 hours, over an issue dealing with concerns about this user's access to sensitive information that has not yet been removed. --''']]]''' 17:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They're always too slow or too fast, too harsh or too lenient, too this or too its opposite. Ah well, that's what they signed-up for but a dozen editors milling around seems rather not much of a backlash. (But didn't Sir Issac Newton say there is always a backlash). ] (]) 18:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Forgive me for not understanding Giano's comment above: | |||
| :"That's good because it's quite obviouse that this is an engineered situation to spike the Arbcom elections and ensure thatt we have more of the secretive, lack lustre Arbs which are all too sadly accustomed." | |||
| Does he mean to "spike the Arbcom elections" to ensure that Elen isn't re-elected or that Jclemens isn't re-elected, or both? Or something else? I am getting the feeling there is intention somewhere behind all this. Surely the timing begs questioning. Is a campaigning post (or more) on a private ArbCom list worth breaking privacy rules? Is ArbCom unable to had such issues internally? If so, how can they be expected to handle problematic community behavior? | |||
| I think the election should be called off until this situation is resolved. As someone said somewhere, Elen will always have a "fishy" <s>aurora</s> aura about her, if re-elected. And the whole ArbCom will have also. Who will trust them? ] (]) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] phenomenon]] | |||
| :::::"Someone somewhere"?{{cn}} ] | ] 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::Bishonen: Citation for "fishy" And a more complete quote is "fishy odor". ] (]) 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear. To clarify: It's my view that J Clemens is a thoroughly unsuitable person to be an Arb and was using the mailing list inappropriately one might almost say intimidatingly. It seems that he and his cronies don't like Ellen and have escelated this storm in a teacup because she has embarrassed them and they wish to sabotage her chances or re-election. They have certainly handicapped her chances. It would be nice to think that this would backfire on J Clemens, but sadly life is seldom so just. How the damage is rectified is impossible to say at the moment. ] (]) 17:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I think this motion is inappropriate because the incident involved alleged misbehavior by at least ''two'' arbitrators, so they both should appear in the motion. This is assuming there is any urgency to make the motion, but I do not see any urgency after looking at explanation by Elen... ] (]) 17:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **I think Jclemens should have been removed, but there is no urgent concern regarding privacy like there is with Elen. --''']]]''' 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***What privacy are you talking about? If Arbcom considers private email correspondence by other people as an evidence for their sanctions, what is a big deal with leaking a couple of minor details during elections? Knowing about this incident does not change my vote. That's for sure. ] (]) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****I'm really surprised at the surprised reactions of many of the people on this page that Arbcom could a) do something like this and b) react the way it did. Regardless of the benevolent mandate of the committee this is precisesly the same problem that occurrs with every csae brought before it regarding individuals. There is almost always an automatic verdict of guilt once the case is chosen. Since it was one of there own there was no need for a csae and they simply reacted but the end result is the same as it has been to other editors brought before them. A loss of tools and or a ban of some length. Whether the mailing list or what it contains is or is not appropriate is irrelevent. The releasing of the privacy related information it contained was a violation of trust to the committee and the community just as if she was a sockpuppetteer, edited through a block or used her admin tools inappropriately. There are a lot of people trying to justify that what she did was right or acceptable and it was neither. Arbcom incurred a temporary suspension of some tools based on her conduct. They could have done much worse like say she isn't allowed to run for Arbcom again which they did didn't do. I agree with many of the comments that it won't affect her reelection but maybe it should. I also agree that Jclemens should also have been suspended but that's just my opinion. ] (]) 17:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****If I understand correctly, she disclosed certain comments made by ''another arbitrator'' that does not include any private information about ''other users.'' That does not break my trust. If fact, it might be even a good idea to make discussions between arbs more public. That would possibly gain ''more'' community trust. To the contrary, suspending a whistleblower decreases my trust. ] (]) 19:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******Not quite. Elen discussed the material with an unknown third person, and decided she was overreacting; then what she disclosed to this third person was disclosed to others. Then there was a time for finding out from her what was disclosed, which she did not come forward with, until more information made it's way out, which she regrets. ] (]) 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (See, , , -- ] (]) 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)) | |||
| *****Suspending and penalising whistleblowers has always been a favourite passtime of the Arbcom; especially when it's they and their friends that the whistle is being blown on. ] (]) 19:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****{{ec}} If her intention was whistleblowing, why did she release the email content, secretly, to a friend who presumably had no power or standing to fix any misuse of the mailing list? Surely if one wishes to blow the whistle on serious misbehavior, one does it by ''publicizing'' the behavior, not by whispering to a friend, who then whispers to another friend, and so on, during an election. If this was intended to be whistleblowing, it would have been among the most ineffectual whistleblowing campaigns ever. She didn't go to Jimbo, or the ombudsman commission, or the community at large. She didn't go to anyone who had any ability to examine or stop the behavior she felt was so bad. Instead, she went to a friend who ''could not fix the issue she was "blowing the whistle" on and who continued along with Elen's apparent wishes that the information not be made public so that it could be acted on''. I would have much more respect for her if she really had acted as if she intended to blow the whistle on something she felt was a serious problem, but I can't respect someone starting a whispered smear campaign to torpedo a political opponent and then trying to claim it as whistleblowing. ] (]) 19:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******That's something best asked of her. My take is that she wasn't intedning to whislteblow mreely exchanging a confidence over something ridiculous and of no great importance. That it has becme a major issue is equally ridiculous. That in doing so, she has exposed the arbcom mailing list as a place of gossip and intrique is enlightening. ] (]) 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****All right, she is obviously not a whistleblower because she did not do it on purpose and apologized. However, let's consider a couple of key points here. (1) ''The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens, and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election.'' . (2) She ''at no time ever disclosed any of the sensitive personal information that has been sent to the arbcom mailing list.'' . Does it justify this motion? I personally do not think so. ] (]) 19:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *****Don't really know. There are two issues, 1) disclosure of what is claimed is "];" and 2) (mis)representations about the disclosure. We don't have the text of the representations Elen made to the committee about the disclosure (perhaps, ironically, because those are privileged). ] (]) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******If she was releasing the information to notify someone or the community at injustices or unethical behavior of Arbcom then that's one thing and could be considered a whisleblower. I do not think that was the case however but if that were true then there is a much larger can of worms to be opened here. It seems as though from what I hear that it was more of a venting of frustration to someone or someones based on something that occurred in discussions between arbitrators where there was an inferrance of privacy. Believing the latter to be true myself I believe that the breach was not one of exposing some illicit behavior on the count of Arbcom but a general disagreement about information in a discussion in which case I do not consider it whistle blowing. The latter would in my opinion justify the sanction currently placed, if not more. I do also agree that she should not have to bare the burdon of this alone. At the least Jclemens should have been called out on the carpet as well as possibly others based on the information in the messages I am not privvy too. It doesn't seem like its a conspiracy but there are certainly more details that we are not privvy too beyond what we already know. ] (]) 21:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *******Agree, "whistleblower" does not seem to fit, from what we know. The issue is remedy for both the disclosure and not being "up-front" about the disclosure. ] (]) 21:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Per Hersford above (1601, 28 November): ''Later, when we discovered a full email had been released, she denied having sending it despite being asked multiple times, which would indicate to me she knew that disclosure, at least, had crossed a line.'' How can this be be seen as "she did not do it on purpose" or as apologetic? However despicable people think Jclemens is, I don't see how his behavior in the same league as lying to ArbCom repeatedly. Nor do I see why his behavior on the ArbCom list couldn't have been dealt with by the Arbs themselves. ] (]) 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Of course I knew it was going to be seen as breaking the rule. I didn't want to get the other guy into trouble. And yes that was plumb stupid, and I'm sure I'll go down with 'egit' engraved on my forehead. But there was actually nothing Arbcom could do about JClemens (if indeed they thought something needed doing). Even the attempt by several other Arbs to shut the thread down failed. There's actually no comeback for anything you say on the list, because it can't be disclosed anywhere else. As has been cited elsewhere, in October Risker repeatedly asked him (including onwiki) to publish his views and open them up for debate, because she was so concerned. But she couldn't actually say anything. The list is a trap in that sense - you can tell people what you intend,or make personal attacks or whatever, but no-one can take any action. After the big leak from a couple of years ago, several instances of bygone Arbs in quite vicious personal attacks on non-Arb editors were published, along with the very limited response from the rest of the committee. All you can do is say 'tut tut' ] (]) 00:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Elen: I think my views on Jclemens are pretty clear (I thought he should have been removed after "not a Wikipedian", but whatever). But if you wanted help from outside the Committee, this was totally the wrong way to go about it. I think the community would have reacted a bit more favorably if you had copy-pasted the entire email onto your talk page, or followed the typical "definition" of whistleblowing. Again, it's nothing personal, and I hope you continue as an editor, but to me, this incident is incompatible with the high level of trust required for a functionary. --''']]]''' 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Overall, agreed. Once again, WP and folks like the Queen of Hearts are out screaming "off with her head" over the wiki-equivalent of a speeding ticket. Maybe she went 30 in a 25 zone. I doubt she'll do this again, ever, particularly after going through this gauntlet. So give Elen a freaking minor wrist slap and be done with it; it's a first offense, for crying out loud. No need to throw her to the wolves. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::More or less agree with that statement. Except I think this was more than a speeding ticket...more like reckless driving to me! ] (]) 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: But what was reckless? If anything, I didn't go far enough. I should have just put it on my talkpage but I wanted to talk it over with someone first, see whether I was overreacting. Too cautious, rather than too reckless I fear. Reckless would have been posting personal data that perhaps endangered someone's safety, made them vulnerable to a stalker. Rather in this case, I can't see how JC could have aright to send a threat of that kind to the Arbs who were up for re-election and expect to be protected by the sanctity of the list. ] (]) 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::At most, 35 in a 25, and that to avoid a collision with a careless driver. But to the point, one citation, even a fairly bad one, doesn't get you enough points on your record to lose your license altogether. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree with ] - and more like reckless driving while drunk going 90 in a 25 mile zone, not wearing a seat belt, and possible man slaughter (of self). Just really really bad judgment. How is lying to ArbCom repeatedly justified? Why not actually "whistle blow" as suggested above? How can secret "chat" be the route to go? ] (]) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: But...think about it. If the other party had just said "oh, don't be silly, it'll be all right" and dumped the information, then there would have been no drama. If I had posted it on my talkpage the reaction would have been pretty much exactly the same as it is now. Putting the information under 'seal of the confessional' rules meant that the only 'right' thing I could do was keep quiet about it. I'm not Boadicea, normal people often ask their friends for advice. ] (]) 01:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But, Elen, what ''purpose'' was disclosing the actual email supposed to serve? Even if you needed friendly advice, would not an executive summary or a general description have served just as well? It's arguable that Jclemens misused the mailing list's implicit confidentiality to do politics – but if he did it would have been wrong ''exactly'' because those emails aren't supposed to be disseminated; something which you took upon yourself to do. If you feel one of your colleagues is doing something wrong, sharing it privately with a third party is exactly the worse thing to do. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Am I absolutely alone in thinking that if one is going to report what someone else said, it is better to report what they actually said than to give your version of it. Particularly when there is the possibility that the version in your head is less flattering than what they actually said. Why are the words so sacrosanct? ] (]) 01:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ec}} And if you hadn't leaked anything, there would also be no drama. If you had posted it to your talkpage, giving some indication that you felt this was a serious issue that you were willing to step out of the confessional to get handled, there would have been some drama but you would have had a solid basis to claim it was necessary. You did neither of those. You leaked to a friend, you tainted the election with a whisper campaign about the leaked information (whether you intended that to happen or not, the content came from you and you are responsible for its release), you denied it when you were asked if you had violated arbcom's and the community's trust, and you continued to lie about it until you were forced to acknowledge the truth. You did this for your own pleasure/comfort (and possibly that of your friend), not for any moral motivation that might have been a mitigating circumstance. "Normal people" are not arbitrators who signed onto a job that has a written policy prohibiting them from leaking mailing list contents; you stopped being a "normal person" who had the luxury of discussing anything you want with your friends the moment you accepted this job. If you weren't willing to adhere to arbcom's policy, you should not have taken - and you should not have, at this point - this job. ] (]) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: My God Fluff! Normally you talk good sense, but that's a bloody ridiculuous statement. Is this a collaborative project to create an encyclopaedia, which periodically elects a handful of people to deal with intractable disputes. Or has Arbcom suddenly turned into the ]. ] (]) 01:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Your increasingly cavalier attitude is alarming; that you were willing to damage the Committee was bad enough, but that you are holding *our* confidence in such low regard and demonstrating such a sense of being above it all frankly causes me repulsion. And I'm curious to know why we care what the WMF thinks about your breaches of confidence; we didn't elect them either. ] (]) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Personally, I don't think it's terribly ridiculous to say that if you accept a job which has a policy that confidentiality is required, you have to maintain that confidentiality. After all, you've told us many times in this discussion about how your rl field has confidentiality requirements - would you say it's ridiculous for you to have to adhere to that policy? If not, why is it somehow ridiculous for you to have to adhere to a similar policy here, in a job you volunteered for? After all, if you didn't like it, it's not like this is your livelihood. You could ''abolutely'', at any point in the last two years, said, "You know what? I don't think I'm ok with following this policy. I'm going to either resign, or see about getting it changed" and lost nothing. And yet you signed up for - and remained in - a job with a policy that says you cannot distribute to your non-arbitrator friends copies of what's said on the arbcom mailing list, and you proceeded to do that anyway, and you appear to be utterly gobsmacked that this is seen as a sign of you not taking your responsibilities to the community and your position seriously. I'm...not really sure what anyone can say to that to help you understand at this point. ] (]) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::No, the more I think about it, the more it's your view that seems out of whack. The information that I deal with is confidential because of what it is. It's people's financial situations, their bank details, whether they get welfare benefits. There are records about children in care that are so sensitive that only a handful of people can see them (not including me although I am responsible for the facility). There's real life implications to it. But no amount of sticking TOP SEEKRIT on someone's opinions will make them confidential. Cllr Foo chewing out the Head of Recreation for closing the swimming pool is a public document, available upon application. There is no reason that 80% of the traffic on that list warrants confidentiality - there's no reason that over 50% of it is even on the list. Information emailed to the committee by third parties and discussions that include personal data both warrant confidentiality, but the rest is just a smokescreen so Arbs can say what they like without fear of censure (although most of what is said is dull, and no-one would want to read it anyway) ] (]) 02:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::@Elen, what is astounding is that you've held out this long without resigning, with several arbs and functionaries and admins and editors saying that you should resign. It is clear that you have lost the trust of a significant portion of the community, and arbitrators have resigned for errors that were far less. Obviously not all the community, but a significant portion. I thought it was horrible when Jclemens didn't resign, and that is why I wrote the resignation question on my arbitration election questions this year. Virtually everyone wrote something along the lines of a) inactivity or b) losing the trust of the community, except yourself, which is concerning. --''']]]''' 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====Some thoughts on the voting from an editor of no importance===== | |||
| Ok, I decided to see if I could follow the voting logic of those supporting this motion. Now, I freely admit I'm biased, because I don't believe Elen did anything wrong, apart from possibly a minor lapse in judgement. Nothing serious, and no breach of any editor's valid expected right of confidentiality. Jclemens could be the only 'victim', not that any victim was intended, and he sacrificed his right to any such protection when he abused the list for electioneering, political machinations, and jockeying for position. | |||
| Anyhow, I thought I would share the notes I made on reading the rationales. Only my views, and coloured by my bias, no doubt, but nevertheless, here they are: | |||
| # Courcelles, who cannot "put up" with Elen. Well, ok, probably better ways to express it, but that's his vote. | |||
| # Hersfold, a strange, rambling vote that seems to seek to keep everyone happy. Starts off by saying he sympathises with Elen, and agreeing the posts from Jclemens were inappropriate. Goes on to imply that however inappropriate they should still be confidential, because otherwise the arbs will have nowhere to vent about editors and each other. Explains this is necessary because his fiancee doesn't understand him when he talks about cases. Aside from the interesting question about how talking to his fiancee is any different to Elen talking to a friend, this is an odd statement to say the least. Goes on to imply that had Elen 'confessed', the punishment might have been more lenient - so we plea bargain as well? Does not think she will leak anything truly confidential, but his trust is shattered. So what does he think she will leak? Hmmm. | |||
| # SirFozzie, whose vote I disagree with, but at least he states his position clearly. I disagree, because once Jclemens stepped outside the appropriate use of the list (as arbs have confirmed he did), none of the private, sensitive, and/or confidential information conditions should apply. But that's my opinion, and he's entitled to his. | |||
| # PhilKnight, who thinks a 'suspension' is a proportionate response. Presumably the logic being that after a short 'punishment' she can be trusted to 'behave herself' again? I thought we didn't punish? Or maybe he thinks it's preventative, because she'll leak stuff during the month. | |||
| # and then AGK, whose "arbitrator's opinion is that she is not" trustworthy. Still, it's not all bad for Elen because "If Elen is re-elected then, privately, I(he) shall be very glad". I stopped trying to look for logic in that statement after that point. At least he confirms that "Most arbitrators were appalled by Jclemens' decision to send the e-mail that was subsequently leaked". | |||
| No matter which opinion one has on the issue, one can hardly view these votes without a confused shake of the head. I think the plot is well and truly lost here. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately this is not the first time that an Arbcom decision made me shake my head. Stick around and keep watching and your liable to feel a slight whiplash after a while. :-)] (]) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it isn't uncommon, I agree. It's the problem with politically elected "officials" who need to protect their own image as well as fulfil their roles. I sympathise with them to a degree, but when the situation arises that this happens during an election it just emphasises how broken the system is. I don't know what the alternative is but this dichotomy of self interest weighed against serving the community is patently not working. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====AGK's absolute standard===== | |||
| Regarding AGK's claim the list confidentiality is . Risker tipped us off to a jclemens proposal on arbcom-l back . Admittedly, it was orders of magnitude less of a leak than Elen's, but it certainly revealed a lot to those of us who have been following the Rfa amendment drama. So, either you do the absurd and eject Risker too, or you start applying common sense, context, judgement. <small>]</small> 02:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :While I wasn't particularly happy with Risker's on-wiki invitation to self-disclose private material, I entirely agree that it was order'''s''' of magnitude less serious: Risker didn't conceal what she did, nor did she mislead anyone else about it. ] (]) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I'd still encourage you to post it onwiki six weeks later. ] (]) 05:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::And absent the rest of the context of that conversation, it would be inappropriate to do so, which is why I don't plan on posting anything else I wrote to the Arbcom mailing list(s). ] (]) 05:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Jclemens, Risker asked you to put your thoughts on civility into the current ] so that the community could see where you were coming from. She didn't ask you to post any emails. It seems you have a significant view on civility enforcement which will impact your decision-making in the area, but you refused to disclose it to the wider community prior to the election. --] (]) 07:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jclemens already published one email outside the context of previous emails written either by him or other arbitrators, so the question of inappropriateness seems moot. Jclemens can presumably pick out the emails he wrote addressing this particular issue and then decide which emails from other arbitrators provide context. (Sensitive personal data should be excluded.) Then he could ask permission of those other arbitrators to publish suitably edited versions of those emails on-wiki. That would only take a day or two. ] (]) 06:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have published the one email that had already been leaked and then distributed anonymously. The "Well, you published one, why not everything?" argument was the sole reason I chose to try to avoid publishing even that, and I've drawn a logical line: the worst, most offensive email that Elen could not bear to keep in confidence... that is what I've published. What other arbitrators decide to publish of their own contributions is entirely up to them. ] (]) 06:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Jclemens is being asked to cooperate and arrange matters with fellow arbitrators. Those arbitrators can exercise the right not to have their emails published. According to Hersfold, the most offensive emails from Jclemens have not yet been published. ] (]) 07:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====The motion has passed===== | |||
| When Casliber formally abstained, the number of active arbitrators dropped from 10 to 9, so 5 is a majority. This Motion therefore passed at 02:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC). I left a note on the clerk's noticeboard. --] (]) 03:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As I told you there Noren, it is in dispute what standard to use for the first motion. Until that is resolved, it can't be determined whether it has passed or not. ] (]) 05:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Abstained ≠ recused. <small>]</small> 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| =====What about the other leaker?===== | |||
| With all the usual going for the throat in the above motion, Arbs seem to have (again) dropped the ball on part of the picture. Lest you forget, there is another leaker in your midst, the one who sent the stuff to {{User0|Coren}}. There's one scheming devious little coward in your midst that didn't come forward and played some of the dirtiest politics with this. Regardless of what happens with EotR at the elections, it is highly probable that that person will remain on the committee next year. | |||
| What is the committee doing to minimize the impact of having one unidentified leaker among its ranks? ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 09:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The above is based on a likely incorrect premise. While we cannot rule in or out anything, it is believed that the source of the emails to Coren and other cases came from the full email that Elen disclosed to at least one other person (likely multiple other people) who then passed it on to others. To the best of our knowledge, there is only one leaker, and that was the source of our recent statement. ] (]) 10:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree. I think gives enough information to indicate that the material that was distributed is the same as that Elen showed to her friend. What might not be clear is that the Committee were not aware that this material was being disseminated until after it had been leaked. The person who distributed the email is most likely to come from the group that starts with Elen's friend and spreads out from there to those with whom the material was shared. ''']''' ''']''' 10:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::''"In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee."'' That can indicate that the anonymous gmail leak is indeed one of Elen's initial recipients, or that one of you was lying. Are you willing to continue banking the privacy of the ''real'' arbcom-l content on that assumption? ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 11:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Simple balance of probability, MLauba. It is considerably more likely that it came from one of the persons who had received the email as a result of the first leak – none of whom are actually obligated to keep it private – than to posit the existence of a second independent leak from the committee itself. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The timeline of what occurred, plus the full wording of the Gmail does not support a theory that there is another leaker. It is possible to construct a set of circumstances in which another Committee member could be the person responsible for the Gmail, but while some things are possible, that doesn't make them probable. The likelihood is that someone in Elen's friend's group is the person who wrote and distributed the Gmail. And the further you get away from Elen's friend, the more people there are likely to be involved, and - in a sense - the less serious is the "crime". We don't know exactly who received the Gmail - a number of candidates said they did not get it. At least two people who did get it appropriately raised the mater with the Committee. It may well be that is what the writer of the Gmail wanted - simply confirmation that the contents were true, and sent it to people they thought might be able to get the answers. But we don't know. We can go round in circles with theories of motivation. The fact is that the source was Elen. The likelihood is that the writer of the Gmail is part of the group who passed on the material. And the lesson learned is that the Committee, the community and the Foundation need to continue working on improving the way in which the Committee handles emails and discusses business. ''']''' ''']''' 12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Motion to suspend non-emergency business=== | ===Motion to suspend non-emergency business=== | ||
Revision as of 16:33, 29 November 2012
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| A working lawyer's interpretation of ArbCom's confidentiality policy | 29 November 2012 |
Motions
 | Shortcuts
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Motion to suspend non-emergency business
In light of the current debate and deadlock, I propose that we suspend non-emergency business until the election results are known and new arbitrators are sworn in. The new committee in its entirety can clarify (a) the degree and boundaries of confidentiality the list applies to and what to do about the conditional elements within the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy, namely the "in the performance of their duties" at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency_and_confidentiality, and the word "appropriate" at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators. This will be guided greatly by the community's input into the election which will give feedback on how it would like us to treat this situation. We will still deal with emergencies, but defer all non-urgent business till January.
Support
- Seriously, the sky is not going to fall in if we do this, but at the moment we're going round in circles. The key factor will be consensus in the voting, and this is central enough that I think we can await an outcome for a few weeks. Really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
- 1. Actually, we're doing just fine with non-emergency business. We managed to thank a retiring checkuser and successfully voted on another checkuser's request to return to activity. We have been handling most of the unblock requests per usual manner. Members of the committee have been reviewing an issue brought to our attention per policy. The committee needs to continue its normal functions so that we don't spend the next six weeks failing to meet our obligations and responsibilities. It is what we are doing right and well. Revoking service to the entire community is wrong, as it will send a message that the concerns they would normally bring to this committee are not important enough for us to bother with. In my opinion, we've sent away people who really needed our assistance far too often this year, and I'm not going to support a motion that institutionalizes it. Risker (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- No Need. There's nothing on our plate at the moment (other then various appeals to the email list and appeals-en). If new business comes in, we should handle it rather then say "We're too busy running around in circles. Please bring it to us again after January 1". This is a problematic issue, but it's being handled. This is a complete overreaction. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per Risker. While the current interpersonal relationships may be a bit strained, I'm entirely prepared to discharge the necessary duties until the end of my term. On the other hand, I would note that last year this time core committee business throughput also took a dive during elections as many arbs were running for reelection. When viewed in that manner, it's really not as bad as to require us to do anything differently... other than the differences inherent in the current situation. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Absurd. The response to a leaker should be to control the leaker, not close up shop and go home. Courcelles 03:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per Risker and SirFozzie. PhilKnight (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The new Committee will likely face a stream of unblock requests, it wouldn't be helpful to add a backlog of requests and other matters. SilkTork 08:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Appearance to the contrary, we can get other stuff done while the elections are going on. The above business needs to be wrapped up, whether by tabling the motion or just seeing where arbs fall and finishing it off; but that doesn't affect any of our other business. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think I'm able to vote on this motion, and I agree with the other opposers that it's a bad idea. (Cynically, I would say that there are two possible bad outcomes if we were to suspend the Committee's work for a month as proposed: either it will turn out that Misplaced Pages can't function without the Arbitration Committee, or else it will turn out that it can!) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Recuse
Abstain
Comments by Arbitrators
- Essentially this debate needs to be broader than (a) some non-recused arbs, (b) some folks who are commenting here and on some guides and talk pages. i.e. we need a few hundred folks' input Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Risker - I suppose I can reword to "not taking cases" - but I'd argue that keeping up our checkuser quota is (almost) emergency business :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Even that is is asinine. If someone wheel wars, or presents us a convincing reason to take a case, to say 'Sorry, we're not taking cases right now. Try again in January' is absolutely a horrible idea. SirFozzie (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- ... Except that non-reelected arbitrators would remain on the committee as arbs pro tem until the end of the last case opened during their term. I'm not sure anyone necessarily thinks that's a good idea in this case. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Comments by the rest of us
- Yes! Wisest thing I've read in days. NE Ent 02:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- This effectively puts the decision in the hands of the community rather than those involved in the dispute and I would consider this the most effective solution. Not optimal, none will be, but the best of a lot of bad choices, and the one with the least drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- A proposal to shut down ArbCom because of what Elen and Jclemens did rather than to make a decision about what they did? That the issue would be enough to cause you to shut down business speaks volumes. Surely the arbs can't find it too difficult to police their own, when they are tasked with policing the community.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. Churchill, November 12, 1936.
- Errr, no-one is invading Europe Sandy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is cavalier contagious? And why is Elen voting? Perhaps you prefer Cromwell?
I have another idea ... why don't you just not have Jclemens and Elen be involved in any cases? Oh, wait ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
- Is cavalier contagious? And why is Elen voting? Perhaps you prefer Cromwell?
- Errr, no-one is invading Europe Sandy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- She is still an arbitrator, as is Jclemens, as is Newyorkbrad, as is David Fuchs (the last three having abstained above). This is a committee motion. As long as they are part of the committee, their votes are weighted the same as the rest of ours. We've been here before, SandyGeorgia, although several here might not have been around the last time we went through it. The difference is that the last time was at the start of a term, not the end of one, and the committee had more internal resources. We didn't, however, have a way of removing someone. Now we do. That the threshold is not being met does not mean that we are doing it wrong. Not even the proposal being made at the top of the page would remove anyone's authority to vote. Risker (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- It can be simpler than that, Risker. A blocked arbitrator cannot edit the vote page. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- She is still an arbitrator, as is Jclemens, as is Newyorkbrad, as is David Fuchs (the last three having abstained above). This is a committee motion. As long as they are part of the committee, their votes are weighted the same as the rest of ours. We've been here before, SandyGeorgia, although several here might not have been around the last time we went through it. The difference is that the last time was at the start of a term, not the end of one, and the committee had more internal resources. We didn't, however, have a way of removing someone. Now we do. That the threshold is not being met does not mean that we are doing it wrong. Not even the proposal being made at the top of the page would remove anyone's authority to vote. Risker (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- We hired ArbCom to solve our disputes, not pass the buck. --Rschen7754 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a community dispute but a constitutional conundrum, and we are not GovCom. And firming up some of these really needs more input than a handful of folks here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Both Elen and Jclemens are part of the Misplaced Pages community, and what about a case request for next week? --Rschen7754 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on the urgency, but often enough little would happen before January anyway even if a case were filed tomorrow. Well, yes they are, but had this taken place elsewhere, we'd be having a community-based discussion (RfC) before a case. Finally the community as a whole's view is a really important piece of the puzzle here, so I do not think it is passing the buck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- ... so you're now giving people a get out of jail free card until January? This will encourage the sort of bad behavior that a case is needed for. --Rschen7754 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on the urgency, but often enough little would happen before January anyway even if a case were filed tomorrow. Well, yes they are, but had this taken place elsewhere, we'd be having a community-based discussion (RfC) before a case. Finally the community as a whole's view is a really important piece of the puzzle here, so I do not think it is passing the buck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Both Elen and Jclemens are part of the Misplaced Pages community, and what about a case request for next week? --Rschen7754 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a community dispute but a constitutional conundrum, and we are not GovCom. And firming up some of these really needs more input than a handful of folks here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- In light of the "constitutional condundrum" this is a sound course of action. Don't force an issue that impacts the legitimacy of the committee if it can be avoided. As an addendum, either the Committee or the Community will want to amend the removal policy to better address a situation like this where recusals interfere with the required super majority. The question of the threshold for partial removal of the rights granted to arbs will also need to be addressed. Monty845 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Makes little difference now. The damage to reputations is done. This could have been the basis for a better initial motion, although speculation and drama would still have ensued, but the well is now successfully poisoned by the first motion. Begoon 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- adding - as for: "This will be guided greatly by the community's input into the election which will give feedback on how it would like us to treat this situation." No, I think the community needs to tell you what the rules will be, not "advise" you. This fiasco demonstrates that self government of arbcom does not work. I mean, how could that possibly go wrong? Judge and jury over yourselves... Begoon 03:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Risker, "Closed for business because we are incompetent" is a not a good look. Why not just all resign? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- This post gets my vote for the winner; certainly trumps Churchill and Cromwell. Wandering off to figure out who Alanscottwalker is ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the intention here - the paralysis the committee (and, to some extent, the community) is already suffering over this issue is evident - but I don't think crossing your arms and stating that you can't and won't deal with it, or anything else besides, is the answer here. Arbitrators are in their positions because we believe them to be rational, intelligent human beings who are more capable than the rest of us at resolving intractable disputes and behavioral problems. If you're all really, seriously unable to resolve this dispute, in any way, in either direction, with all the tools at your disposal...I don't know. "Why don't you all just quit?" isn't the answer here, but guys, we specifically picked you to do this stuff. What are we supposed to do when you just refuse to do what we "hired" you to do? We can't do your jobs. There are no arbitrator scabs hanging out in the background who can do your jobs. If you also can't or won't do your jobs, they simply won't get done...and we have an Arbcom in the first place because the things you guys do are important and necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- We're seeing the tail-end of a dysfunctional ArbCom, in which I think the community has little trust right now (at least, those of us who care about such things). What I'm seeing is desperate measure upon desperate measure to try to hold things together, just like we see in failing political states around the world. I think the most honorable thing for the current ArbCom to do right now is resign from everything bar the most essential of duties, and leave the community to decide who to trust. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- That would be a start, but do you think that goes far enough? To quote Battlestar Galactica, "this has all happened before, and it will all happen again". It's not the people that are "broken" mostly, it's the system that allows these splits to be so damaging. Refresh my memory - what usually happens next in those failing states? Begoon 13:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good question, and a good point. I really don't have a longer term answer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- That would be a start, but do you think that goes far enough? To quote Battlestar Galactica, "this has all happened before, and it will all happen again". It's not the people that are "broken" mostly, it's the system that allows these splits to be so damaging. Refresh my memory - what usually happens next in those failing states? Begoon 13:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't either. I think we will need at some point to ask some serious questions, though. Is it an arbitration body we want? I don't think that's what we have. It doesn't arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. I think we have to accept that what we've ended up with is GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. We treat it as a government, with election campaigns etc, and once elected, we relinquish all control to it and tell it to govern itself too. That's great, because then we can go to the pub secure in the knowledge we've left someone in charge of the shop. Unfortunately, the danger in that is that when we get back it's not our shop any more. The place we are now is an inevitable result of that. Perhaps that's the first question - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be? I'm rambling, because I don't have the answers - but I'm damn sure there are enough clever people in this community to talk it through and try and find some answers, given the will. Problem is, I don't even know if that will exists - maybe everyone is happy, and thinks this is crazy talk... Begoon 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
A working lawyer's interpretation of ArbCom's confidentiality policy
"Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy says that Arbitrators should preserve in appropriate confidence
- the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and
- the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations and
the Committee treats as private
- all communications sent to it, or
- sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties."
As my user name might imply, I am in fact a working attorney. In the past, I have served as general counsel for several privately held corporations. In that previous capacity, I have had numerous occasions to review under applicable American law what constitutes communications and other acts undertaken by an officer or employee of an organization in the performance of their duties. I have also had occasion to write numerous standalone confidentiality agreements and confidentiality clauses included within larger documents, as well as to review and revise the confidentiality agreements and clauses drafted by other lawyers. Several years ago, I even attended a three-hour continuing legal education seminar on the drafting of confidentiality agreements. So, I know a little bit about the topic on which I am going to offer an opinion.
Before someone gets bent out of shape and feels the need to remind me that my professional status has no particular significance on Misplaced Pages, or to accuse of me of being a "wikilawyer," let me acknowledge that I am just another member of the Misplaced Pages community here–albeit one with a slightly different perspective because of my professional education, training and experience.
I have been pondering the most recent ArbCom dust-up regarding Jclemens and Elen of the Roads. From the standpoint of the core reasons for ArbCom's confidentiality policy I had little doubt: to preserve the confidentiality of (1) evidence and suggestions submitted to ArbCom by case parties and other editors, (2) the arbitrators' deliberations regarding cases before the committee, and (3) identifying personal information regarding the real world identities of editors. Now, that I have located the actual language of the ArbCom confidentiality policy, and had an opportunity to read it, I have several interpretative observations.
I have included the actual policy above (the indented parsing and bullet points are mine). While the policy itself is not a model of clear drafting, and would present several problems in enforcing it in a court of law, I nevertheless believe that its intended meaning is clear enough. First, it obligates the committee members to maintain the confidentiality of "private correspondence" sent to the committee. Second, it obligates the committee members to maintain the confidentiality of the committee's "internal discussions and deliberations." Third, it states that the committee will maintain the confidentiality of "all communications sent to it" (arguably, this is completely redundant with the first operative clause). And finally, it states that the committee will maintain the confidentiality of communications sent by a committee member "in the performance of their duties."
The first clause, regarding the "contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee" has no obvious application in the present circumstances. Nor does the third clause, regarding "all communications sent to it." Both of these clauses clearly contemplate correspondence and other communications sent to the committee by others. So, let's focus on the second and fourth clauses that may have application in the present circumstances.
The second clause, regarding the "ommittee's internal discussions and deliberations," could have potential application in the instant matter. The clause distinguishes between the committee's "internal discussions" and its "deliberations." The word "deliberations," given its usual and customary meaning, presumably refers to the committee's decision-making process in arbitration cases and other matters brought to it for decision. The phrase "internal discussions" is both broader and less specific in its meaning. Does it refer to the committee's official business? Almost certainly. Does it refer to birthday greetings sent from one committee member to another? Well, it could . . . and that's the biggest problem with the way the policy is currently written. A reasonable interpretation of the clause, taken as a whole, was that it should be read that the members will maintain the confidentiality of the committee's official "internal discussions and deliberations" undertaken in the course of its business. But, that's not what it says with the required specificity, unfortunately. From the standpoint of a lawyer who has seen confidentiality agreements litigated, the vagueness of this phrase is probably a fatal flaw to its enforcement for any purpose other than official business. Generally, courts will not construe vague language in favor of the drafter nor in favor of greater duties than those specified or can be reasonably inferred by custom and usage.
The fourth clause, regarding communications sent by a committee member "in the performance of their duties," does have potential application in these circumstances, but this would require a very specific and somewhat odd interpretation by ArbCom. Obviously, the email in question was sent by a committee member, but was it sent "in the performance of duties?" Good question. Do ArbCom members believe that "the performance of their duties" includes campaigning for reelection? Warning other committee members that he will oppose the reelection of his fellow members if they make decisions with which he disagrees? I suppose only ArbCom members can answer whether such activities are within the scope of their official duties. If such activities are not within the scope of their official duties, then the fourth clause does not apply.
So, what this all boils down to is this: it's difficult for me, as a lawyer reading and interpreting this policy, to understand how overtly political communications would be within the scope of ArbCom members' duties. Only if we construe the phrase "internal discussions" to extend from everything to the committee's official business to birthday greetings does the second clause apply. I will leave that final interpretation to each of you individually, because the clause in question offers nothing more. Now, you can be your own individual judges and juries. I hope you enjoy the experience. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with your interpretation; the legal side is ambigiguous, and in my biew badly formed and worded. However, it would not really matter if the document had been drafted in Geneva and written in French because Misplaced Pages is a quasi-legal fiefdom and has historically interpreted laws to suit its requirements at he tme. What passes for law and justice in the rest of the civilised world means nothing here. Giano (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good analysis. When confronted with language like this policy, I ask myself "What blacksmith drafted this?" That aside, taking the words at face value, JClemens should have had no reasonable expectation that his e-mails would or should be treated as private and confidential. The way this is written, the first and third clauses are to be read together, as are the second and fourth. In context, the first clause applies only to private correspondence sent to the Committee by a third party. Any other interpretation renders the second clause superflous. The third clause states, absurdly, that every third party communication to ArbCom is treated as private, making the word "private" in the first clause unnecessary, but that drafting flaw is irrelevant here. JClemens is not a third party, and so the first and third clauses simply does not render his e-mail confidential. The second and fourth clauses also clearly apply only to official correspondence among ArbCom members in the performance of their duties. It is clear from JClemens' e-mail that he voluntarily posted publicly, and from all description the others that have not yet been posted publicly, that his e-mails were totally unrelated to ArbCom's official function. Moreover, his use of the ArbCom private mail list for his electioneering was an improper use of that list for which he has been censured. The crocodile tears being shed over the disclosure of the contents of his communications are being shed in vain. JClemens should have had no reasonable expectation that his e-mails were covered by the confidentiality policy and disclosing their contents to third persons is no violation of that policy. Fladrif (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- ArbCom is not capable of resolving this problem either now or after the election. Almost all of the members of ArbCom lack real world experience or training in anything related to arbitration. You are able to see serious problems with the policy because of your training and experience. ArbCom, despite having leaks from its list on multiple occasions before, never identified this as a problem. This is being treated as a situation that policy didn't anticipate. The policy didn't anticipate it because ArbCom failed. ArbCom can't decide if the leak constituted a breach or not. ArbCom can't settle on whether the policy allows them to do anything or not. ArbCom can't decide on whether the proposed motion on Elen has passed or not. ArbCom is fumbling about in the dark trying to come up with solutions to this, but do not have the ability to do so. If they were to recognize their own incompetence, it would be a major step. You can't solve a problem if you don't admit there is one. I can imagine an appointed committee, populated with people such as yourself who have real world training, tasked with reviewing ArbCom policy and procedures. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Silence! What is all this dreadful noise about?
What a mess the Arbcom has got themselves into. If this was a pack of children, one would say to them “go away; sort yourselves out; be nice, and if anyone comes back crying, you will all go to bed early.” It’s quite clear that JClemens is a divisive element who has caused the creation of playground gangs. One gang (The Holier than Thous) has decided it’s ‘Get Elen day’ and the other gang (The Moderates) is too timid to stand up to the other because Elen has been a bit disloyal by making friends outside of either the chosen gangs - a huge playground crime. Finally, we have the class goody-goodies who never utter a significant word in case they get into trouble. So here we are, the whole school gathered in a circle shouting “Fight, fight, fight” kicking and egging on. The problem is that this is not the playground, it’s a small staff room spat that has descended into chaos and if we had an efficient headmaster, he would fire them all and make them all re-apply for their jobs. Frankly, this is is not good enough and we deserve better. Someone (looks like it’s me) needs to tell Elen not to do it again. Tell Jclemens and his gang to stop being such bullying, pompous prats, and the rest to pull themselves together and stand up for themselves and each other. If not, they will all be expelled from the class and replaced by more sensible children. Giano (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem in part is that the Arbs can't decide on what makes a majority here, 6 or 10. Both are legitimate arguments. We have a failure to anticipate this particular situation when designing policy, thus a lack of clarity. Completely understandable as it is a rare event, but this is not a good place to evoke WP:IAR, or to start yet another fight once the 6th vote is struck. It should be obvious how the community feels about this: split, for both rational and purely emotional reasons. The Arb's rationales themselves are a bit meandering and confusing. If you bit-strip Elen and she wins the election (a very real possibility), you risk starting the session on a sour note indeed. She did make a mistake, or a series of them actually but not fatal mistakes that would have released information the policy is designed to protect. The attempt to find the middle ground by just stripping the bits is in good faith but raises constitutional issues. The election is going to be final decision maker here, not Arb, no matter what they do. So yes, the community does have the final say, as they do with all Arbs eventually. When I said we were rushing here, this is exactly the slug fest I was hoping to avoid, a situation that is dividing the community and doing far more long term damage that what Jclemens or Elen did, combined. Nothing we do is going to be optimal, and obviously we need to retool the policy to add clarity in the future. Our focus for now should be on creating the least amount of collateral damage since realistically, the election will be the final decision due to simple timing of the events. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that policy clarity is always a good thing. Disagree that the election addresses it: no voter is required to know, nor are they required to consider the issues addressed here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is no good solution possible. This forces us to consider practical solutions that cause the least collateral damage rather than seeking justice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that policy clarity is always a good thing. Disagree that the election addresses it: no voter is required to know, nor are they required to consider the issues addressed here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion for the sake of legal simplicity (and noting that NYB is a "two handed lawyer" to use Truman's analogy): All mail, email and files sent to any Misplaced Pages mailing list or editor are confidential, and may not be disclosed or posted other than by the original author thereof and not containing any reference to any mail, email or files provided by any other party. Which I think covers all possible Wikiwavering. It would not apply to the case at hand, but I trust NYB would agree it is uniform in treatment for all such communications. Collect (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)