Revision as of 21:44, 5 October 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM 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.

• WP:A/R/M

With respect to User:Law and User:The undertow

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools. At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee ban.

Motion:

(For the purpose of this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so the majority is 6)

The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow (talk · contribs). He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.

Support

1. Risker (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg 05:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
3. With the caveat that this is not a complete response to the situation. Vassyana (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support  Roger Davies 05:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - 11:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Cool Hand Luke 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. on account of friendship with editor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Arbitration Committee members

Clerk notes

Recuse due to my involvement in the investigation that led to this. Daniel (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from others

• See also related discussion at WP:ANI#Community ban discussion regarding The undertow. I would like to thank the Committee for their straightforward resolution of this matter.  Sandstein  07:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure of known alternate accounts

Seeking a position of trust with an undisclosed alternate account — especially when knowledge of other accounts held by the editor might materially affect the discussion — is an act of deception incompatible with the sought position. The committee notes that, at the time of Law (talk · contribs)'s request for adminship, there was no policy requirement for any editor to disclose, unprompted, what they may have known about a banned editor returning to editing under an alternate account. However, nominating or promoting such a candidate while aware of the alternate account is an act of commission, not of omission, and displays — at best — lack of judgment.

(For the purpose of these motions, there are 11 active arbitrators, 3 of whom are recused, so the majority is 5)

GlassCobra

1. GlassCobra (talk · contribs) nominated Law (talk · contribs) for adminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously banned and desysopped editor The undertow (talk · contribs), and GlassCobra made his nomination while aware of that fact and without disclosing it. GlassCobra has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position of an ArbCom clerk and has resigned from that post at the Committee's request.

Support

1. Noting for the record. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

GlassCobra, Jayron32 and Jennavecia admonished

2. GlassCobra (talk · contribs), Jayron32 (talk · contribs) and Jennavecia (talk · contribs) are strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor they knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. They were aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with their support.

Support

1. First choice. In my opinion, this was very poor judgment that skirts — but not quite crosses — the fuzzy gray line between a stern "don't do that ever again" and a desysop. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference to desysop. Lack of good judgment by concealing the information from the Community. But since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Note: Jayron32 was added to the motion after this vote (they were overlooked in the drafting). — Coren  18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

GlassCobra, Jayron32 and Jennavecia desysopped

2.1 GlassCobra (talk · contribs), Jayron32 (talk · contribs) and Jennavecia (talk · contribs) are desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor they knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. They were aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with their support.

Support

1. Second choice, per above. This is just too severe in my opinion, but acceptable if regrettable. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference to admonishment. Since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. But I do understand that this misrepresentation of facts has called their judgment into question, so a desysop until a RFA happens to reconfirm their trust is not unreasonable. I'm not going to stand in the way if other arbs feel that it is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Note: Jayron32 was added to the motion after this vote (they were overlooked in the drafting). — Coren  18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This needs to be split. There are differing levels of involvement and different responses to the community and ArbCom regarding the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Recusals

1. Recuse based on prior issues and interaction with The_undertow. For the record, I did not know that Law was the same individual until within the past couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Recuse per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Apology from John Vandenberg --John Vandenberg 10:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
3. This case involves a Misplaced Pages Review regular, therefore I recuse, Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

   A more complete statement is: "I have significant involvement with one of the parties, who is a regular on Misplaced Pages Review, such that my participation could lead to the perception of prejudice." Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Arbitration Committee members

• Some of my colleagues may want to suggest more than those three motions, but I think that 1 and one of the 2 should allow us to close this matter. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Should the desysop proposal include a comment about when the editors are eligible to submit a new RFA and/or request resysopping from Arbcom? Thatcher 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)