Revision as of 05:16, 1 October 2009

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Discussion of agenda

Agenda

According to the agenda, the development of an arbitrator recall process was supposed to have proposals prepared by 5 September and decided upon by 26 September. I realise that the EE mailing list case has no doubt occupied a lot of time, but the community has been waiting a very long time for a resolution to arbitrator recall. A viable arbitrator recall process could also serve as a template for the long-needed administrator recall process. Would an update on the progress of this agenda item be available? EdChem (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of announcements

Trial unblock of User:Life

Original announcement

Full clerkships

Original announcement

Congrats kids.--Tznkai (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What happy timing. Apparently recent cases have been so well run that all must have prizes William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think the clerks on "recent cases" have done an admirable job given difficult situations. I certainly hope you are not implying that clerks are somehow to blame for results you disagree with. ATren (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Whilst most of the blame must lie with arbcomm, certainly the one we're all thinking of was not handled "admirably" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not blame the clerks for your misbehaviour. --bainer (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, if you think the case pages were a disaster area primarily because of WMC then I can only infer you were asleep during the case. Hint: WMC wasn't make allegations about a cabal involving a group of other editors... WMC didn't present evidence in several dozen volumes... And, all those appeals from other editors for controlling the case pages, removing accusations and slurs, etc, didn't go unaddressed by WMC...

It is true that the Clerks don't deserve all of the criticism for the conduct of the case and control of the case pages... much criticism properly belongs with those who failed to offer leadership in dealing with the problems as they arose. When you are trying to identify who I mean, if you are struggling, I suggest trying a mirror. EdChem (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that; Mr Connolley is just the most recent to have tried to shift the blame onto the clerks instead of accepting responsibility for their contribution. --bainer (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that Hersfold had an "educative experience" while clerking the Abd-WMC case. As a new clerk that never carried a case by himself he did it as well as he could. And I think that he did it quite well given the complications in the case. We should be grateful that he didn't burn out.

Also, carrying personal grudges from old cases into discussions about other persons is Not Good, and these guys don't deserve that sort of crap, so please cut it out and go fight at your talk pages or something. WMC and bainer, that means you. Hush. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Also, I think I've said before: the blame lies primarily with arbcomm, not the clerks (oh look, I said it just above; I wonder how TB missed it; selective blindness I think). But to write that the clerks worked tirelessly in this case, or that they did well, is to lose track of reality William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the clerks deserve appreciation and commendation for their tireless efforts on behalf of the community and its elected arbitrators. —Matheuler 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I second. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This should have been done some months ago, I think. By delaying these promotions, the operations of the clerk office were put under strain that was quite avoidable. That said, I echo the congratulations offered above: welcome aboard to the "new" clerks. AGK 14:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the delay is simple. We were waiting until all the trainee clerks had clerked a full case. It would have been nice if other clerks had helped out during the summer, thus relieving the strain, but that didn't happen. AGK, maybe you could suggest a way to avoid that in future? Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer is trivially simple, and I'm disappointed that an Arbitrator wouldn't immediately see it. Back in the shadowy mists of time, there were no clerks. Arbitrators directly 'clerked' the cases themselves. To my knowledge, there has been no sudden and dramatic increase in the caseload of the ArbCom. Either they should have been planning ahead to recruit and train clerks to meet their needs, or they could buckle down and get their hands dirty doing a bit of the scut work themselves.

If there was inadequate communication between clerks and the ArbCom about the availability of clerks and Arbitrators over the summer months, the responsibility ultimately falls at the feet of the ArbCom. Arbitrators select their clerks; arbitrators choose what cases to accept; arbitrators decide when to close cases; they completely control their own workload. There's no excuse for cases left in limbo because no one could be found to clerk — the Arbitrators are supposed to step in if no one else does. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been stepping in when no clerks were available (they are volunteers, just like us), and I've said before that ArbCom takes ultimate responsibility for situations like the absence of a clerk. We don't completely control our own workload, as declining cases merely because we have too many to deal with at the time of a new request, is something we've discussed internally and rejected. What we probably should do is defer some cases in some instances, or formally put them on hold so we can concentrate on others. This is effectively the situation at the moment, with most attention being directed to one case that is taking a lot of our time. But this is something beyond the scope of this section. As you know, I've made attempts at documenting the work done over the year so far, so that people can make suggestions for how to improve ArbCom's management of its workflow, but any help with that would be greatly appreciated. I am hopeful that while management of our workflow is by no means perfect, things have been improving. Anyone is welcome to contact the clerks and ask to help out, and eventually become a clerk themselves if they enjoy doing that. Someone has offered on the clerks noticeboard. Anyone else interested should offer there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European mailing list

Original announcement

NOTE: Temporary desysop should not be interpreted to mean that Piotrus has violated any of our policies. ArbCom simply needs to investigate the matter fully before Piotrus' status as an administrator can be resumed. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why has he been desysopped? Majorly talk 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The committee may want to give a clearer summary for those not in the know, instead of forcing people to scour through various noticeboards.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read the noticeboard thread, but haven't seen any allegations that would lead to desysopping - particularly as a temporary measure in the absence of a conclusion (by the 3 committee members voting) that he had violated any policies. I'm a little surprised, and probably not the only one, that this sort of drastic step was taken so quickly and with so little explanation. Nathan 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

At a rough guess, I'd say that either the Arbitrators are bored that they haven't desyopped anyone in the last 48 hours, or they have seen contents of (purported) messages that were not posted on the noticeboard, that call into question Piotrus' trustworthiness. Thatcher 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what I assumed initially, but CHL's comment that it "should not be interpreted to mean that Piotrus has violated any of our policies" suggests otherwise, doesn't it? Nathan 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec a couple of times) I hardly think a temporary desysop is "drastic." Hell even a permanent desysop is not drastic in the grand scope of Misplaced Pages. If Piotrus did nothing wrong he'll no doubt be exonerated by the committee, but I can only assume that the Arbs (or at least several of them) saw something that could be troubling in the evidence presented to them and decided a temp desysop was needed as a precaution. If that turns out to be wrong then Piotrus gets the bit back, no doubt with an apology and a statement that he's a fine admin. It's not a big deal. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, when a bunch of arbitrators are lawyers or law students. To me it says, "We're pretty worried, but we must allow for the possibility that things are not as they have been initially reported to us." OR whatever. Thatcher 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am bit surprised with the Committee (I've never been temporarily desysoped when I was a party to a formal arbcom before, and there is no arbcom opened yet...), but I hope this will be clarified in due time. I invite everyone to look at my admin contrib log and tell me if anything they see there seems problematic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I'm never on the fun mailing lists. Since I was pounded on pretty heavily for trying to answer a couple of Eastern Europe-related arbitration enforcement requests, I'd appreciate knowing if I was discussed on this list and if the response against me was coordinated. No hurry though. Thatcher 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any mailing lists fun? Majorly talk 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pornopedia-l is probably good times. Lara 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Pornopedia-l list is moderating it. You check a new mail for approval and make a u-turn to find it's not the gender(s) you were expecting. Much better on the user end. Keegan (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of tucking and rolling then, huh? Lara 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the only way off this page. Keegan (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Naa, it's all a bunch of wank. → ROUX ₪ 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this list archive was allegedly stolen by person/s unknown, posted on some share site and then subsequently downloaded off by some admin. The original allegation was that the archive contained some 3000+ emails with more than a half filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. 1500 emails about Russavia? Seems to be a bit far fetched to me. Some have said that this alleged archive contains personal information, there is a privacy issue involved here, apparently. --Martintg (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the large number of emails on the functionaries mailing list that some (seemingly minor) disputes generate, and having seen the enormous quantity of email, noticeboard, enforcement, and talk page stuff about the EE arbcom case, I can believe 1500 emails. I hope it's just a misunderstanding (but I also hope Bigfoot will one day be proven true). Thatcher 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would be functionaries beware - being on mailing lists sucks--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - only apply if you like seeing 50 new emails in your inbox every hour (only 4-5 of which may actually apply to you) Hersfold 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We should write a primer for the next elections (Hello worthy candidates. This is why you should run screaming now)--Tznkai (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. My mail filters were woefully unprepared when I was added to that list... :D (also)Happy‑melon 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are potential privacy issues which made continued public investigation of it on ANI untenable. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Summary version: There is an email list that allegedly involves off-wiki coordination within the Russian and Eastern European topic areas. If the allegations are true, there has been significant manipulation and disruption of the project. The Arbitration Committee is currently investigating the matter. ArbCom is not stating at this juncture that Piotrus has committed any particular wrongdoing or abused the tools. While some appearances may be worrying, we have not yet have the full opportunity to review the evidence before, solicit further evidence, hear from involved parties, or otherwise acquire the information and take the time we need to make an informed final decision. The desysop is a preventative matter, equivalent to an injunction, pending the full resolution of the investigation and any accompanying case. Vassyana (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is the time certain people should be thinking about two other editors Irpen and Ghirla, both of whom were practically hounded from the project. Giano (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot get into specifics, if for no other reason than because I have not fully reviewed the evidence before us. However, the impact on specific editors and what the information might reveal in restrospect about particular situations are certainly two aspects that will be examined. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the evidence goes back that far, so you will be dependent on honesty, and that is in very short supply on Misplaced Pages. Giano (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A question if I may. As yet we have only been advised of User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo and User:Radeksz being amongst the members of this email list. I have suspicions that User:Martintg, User:Biruitorul and User:Jacurek are also involved in this debacle. As there is going to be an arbcom on this issue, and due to the amount of evidence that it is likely that targetted, harrassed and stalked editors will need to provide, is the committee able to provide information on whom the involved editors are, in order to assist editors who will need to present evidence to begin the search for diffs and the like, in order to give Arbcom a clear view of what is what. These editors have clearly stepped over the line, and it is only fair that their victims have the right to present evidence. Additionally, will editors who have been targetted, and are unlikely to even know about that fact, nor the fact that they have been discussed at length in regards to being attacked; will they be contacted in order to give them a voice also? --Russavia 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well I don't support arbitrary desysops, if that's what they've done, although if they read the last few emails in the last week (and if they think it is real) then it wouldn't be surprising that they would desysop Piotrus for real things. I don't agree with random desysops for smelling dodgy. People just check the length of the black book when judging people so even if Piotrus is cleared, others will just assume he's a crook anyway. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The sensitivity of this specific case is appreciated. As a matter of generality, however, it would be interesting to solicit the views of other experienced editors regarding the role of ArbCom (and all Misplaced Pages dispute resolution mechanisms) in affairs involving off-wiki evidence. What is the purpose of evaluating evidence from external sources? If an editor's behavior was wrong, it would be wrong whether or not they wrote emails or posted blogs about it, wouldn't it? Doesn't it seem that if editors were clearly baiting or otherwise harassing another editor, that would be wrong regardless of any proof of conspiracy? While it is easily seen why behaviors indicative of a conspiracy would be repugnant, could matters not be handled in a simpler manner if the on-wiki evidence were solely considered and evaluated empirically? What are the reasons why on-wiki behaviors cannot simply be evaluated based on their own merits without recourse to external evidence? It is certainly not my intention to have the very busy arbitrators respond to this general question. A sampling of a spectrum of the editing community would be lovely. —Matheuler 02:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Many edits, like gaming 3RR or vote-stacking, look legitimate in isolation. However, they're still violates if they've been coordinated elsewhere. On the face, there seems to be a lot of coordinating evidence, and it's worth examining whether it illuminates possible policy violations here on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have received this and read much of the content. The list is a veritable bonanza and shows certain users operated exactly the way I always said they did. I hope I'll be getting apologies from ArbCom and other fellow admins who were fooled into making my life hard with regard to these chaps. Piotrus 2 made a laughing stock of ArbCom and now everyone who gets to see these emails will know this for themselves. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, I am going to repeat what I said to Alex here . You DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION to make the contents of these emails - be they genuine or fakes purporting to be genuine - available to ANYONE. These emails supposedly include personal information which raise privacy and security concerns for people involved. These personal private emails were most likely obtained through the commission of a crime and then probably tampered with. In fact you do not even have my permission to view them and I ask that you immediately delete them yourself (and I'll assume good faith here).

More generally I want the Arb Com to make a general announcement that any further dissemination of any of these supposed "archives" (judging by some peoples' comments it seems there's more than one version floating around), if they include personal names and other information (as they almost surely do) is forbidden and can be punished by an indefinite block per Outing and private correspondence guidelines. I am amazed at how brazenly some people think they can violate others' privacy and endanger their physical and professional well being.

I've never been part of an ArbCom before so I am unsure what the appropriate venue for making such a request is.radek (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could pass a motion discouraging or prohibiting dissemination of the archive. You can normally propose motions on the workshop page, but in this case you should just email the committee directly at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Usually motions are passed as a preliminary matter in the case. Do note, however, that we've already posted notices reminding users that posting the contents of these emails on-wiki violates our policies. Cool Hand Luke 04:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody appears to have hacked User:Tymek's account and used that to email the archive link to me early on the 16th of September. I blocked the hacked account and forwarded things along to ArbCom. I believe the link was emailed to others as well. I did not look in the email archive because of the way it was obtained. Gentlemen don't read other peoples' mail. Jehochman 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman. And it's not just a matter of courtesy and social ettiquette.radek (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You may not want to thank me too thoroughly. I think an analysis of on wiki behavior would be a good idea, as would stricter application of our behavioral standards. Editors have been getting away with harassment for way too long, as Giano has pointed out in the cases of Irpen and Girlandajo being run off. This battlezone needs to be shut down for a good long time with a liberal application of bans. Jehochman 03:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point maintaining privacy and security are my main concerns as some of the stuff that's gone on is frankly somewhat scary.radek (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal information I'm certain will be kept well under wraps. Ephemeral privacy perhaps less so. What I say to my real life friends is "private" to Misplaced Pages - but if it turns out what i've been saying offline is coordinating the manipulation of Misplaced Pages, that privacy loses the balancing test. If Arbcom gained access to that information, they would have the right and responsibility to address it, but no right to release say, my and my friend's name.

As an aside, the three bad things done on wikipedia I can think of that matter enough to rain hell and fire on people is the abuse of personal information, the deliberate manipulation of content for personal/factional gain, and running off editors. If any of these things are the case, I expect heads on pikes outside the city gates.--Tznkai (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom already should have known what was going on because I, Sciurinae and others were telling them, and even pointed out incidents when this was revealed online along with countless incidents where off-wiki coordination was promoted. User:AldenJones actually revealed on Misplaced Pages that he was asked to perform reverts by one of the users in question, yet they issued a ludicrous FoF saying there was no evidence, admonished me for bringing the case, and drove away User:Irpen with a civility and revert restriction, despite the fact that all he did was speak the truth rather civility while rarely edit-warring. There's an old Gaelic saying, "If reason is not your ally, truth will be your foe" ... All ArbCom needed to do was study the evidence themselves properly, rather than relying on one arb's inaccurate summaries, and then months of hell for various users would have been avoided, good users would not have been driven away, and truth would not appear to be ArbCom's foe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This case was before my time as an arbitrator. Could you post a summary of links to the most helpful evidence on the new case we just opened? I would appreciate it very much. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way here is a good article on email privacy. As you can see, an expectation of privacy should not be assumed. This is one reason why some professions, like stockbrokers, from what I understand, are reluctant to use email to conduct business. If Misplaced Pages now has these emails and, by cross checking the dates on the emails with on-wiki actions, verifies that they legitimately show violations of Misplaced Pages policy, then Misplaced Pages's administrators can do whatever they want to with them, within policy, of course. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason courts exclude evidence acquired through illegal means. We are not a court, but there may be wisdom in taking that approach. It is not clear how this evidence came to ArbCom. I sent it in, and identified it as coming from an illegitimate source. Perhaps they also received the evidence from a legitimate source, or maybe the hacking reported to me was a sham meant to discredit the evidence. We can't know for sure. Clearly some folks are playing games and need to be stopped. Jehochman 05:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As always, there are balancing tests to made. Its worth noting that governments have certain powers that Misplaced Pages can never, and should never have - compelling the production of evidence, warrants for search, seizure and a arrest, and the like. I don't mean to minimize the ethical complications at all mind you, but we are in a very different business than governments.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages admins do not have the actual ability to check other people's email, and so we don't need devices like that to take away the incentive. Misplaced Pages is not a national government. We have very little power (and usually little will) to prevent this kind of disruption, and when evidence comes that helps we use it. We don't have the burden of trying to keep the power of an enforcement agency in check. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not true that, "courts exclude evidence acquired through illegal means": For example, even in the US the exclusionary rule has exceptions for criminal cases and does not apply at all to civil cases (which, at a great stretch, would be the most analogous to arbcom proceedings). The situation is even more complex and varied outside the US, and generally more permissive of such evidence. I have no dog in the fight, but wanted to correct an common and oft-repeated misunderstanding. Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have subpoena power, as Tznkai notes. Without leaks (or some breech of trust) there would be no way to get access to such evidence. I think we have no option but to use it in a way to carefully avoid broader dissemination. If we don't act on such evidence, leakers could only respond with widely publicizing it. In the future, I would like parties to send this evidence directly to ArbCom to avoid wider dissemination, so we should act on such evidence once received.

In other words (and in contrast to when government power needs to be checked, as with the exclusionary rule), acting on such evidence will produce a better outcome than pretending it doesn't exist. Cool Hand Luke 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

CLH, I don't think it is the Committee's purpose to get involved in how hackers act with respect to non-Wiki, private email lists. If you do act on such evidence, at least if you act on it in a particular way, you will only encourage this kind of cyber-warfare, the hacking of users Misplaced Pages and non-Misplaced Pages accounts, and other illegal activity. There is a real danger that acting on this simply rewards this kind of illegal behavior and legitimizes it as a way of carrying out Misplaced Pages battles.

If you were not to act on this, and if the hacker published the illegally obtained information online as a result (which would be unfortunate), this would simply be a matter between the list participants and the hacker (and the server which hosts the illegal information) and whatever law enforcement authorities have jurisdiction in cases like that - basically it would be just like any other case of somebody illegally hacking other's private information.

The only way that I see that ArbCom has a responsibility to act on this (and no, there's no reason to pretend that this illegal information doesn't exist) is to attempt to identify the on-Wiki identity of the hacker who has committed the crime (via Checkuser or other means) and take action in respect to them, and to stand ready to cooperate in any kind of legal proceedings against these hackers that may arise.radek (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is not considering confiscating your property or liberty. The most they can do is restrict your ability to edit a web site. And if there is evidence of wrongdoing in Misplaced Pages (for example, a series of messages discuss how to provoke someone else into doing something they could get blocked for, backed up by diffs showing that it actually happened) then they should certainly take action. You say that acting on the emails will encourage further hacking. Tell me, don't you think that ignoring these emails would encourage further secret mailing lists and coordinated disruptive behavior? Your protestations make me ever more interested in seeing what you wrote in these emails. Thatcher 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is potentially acting in a way which potentially contributes to further dissemination of illegally obtained hacked, private and personal information. Furthermore, it really has no right to look through private emails that had been obtained by somebody through the commission of a crime.

You're assuming that there was "coordinated disruptive behavior". There wasn't, there was a group of people discussing Misplaced Pages matters, like people do on countless forums across the internet. But really, this is none of your business. And seriously, which one is a worse thing to encourage? That people gather together and discuss Misplaced Pages in private, among themselves, or that people start going around and illegally hacking people's emails. Hint: one is a criminal activity, the other is not. Your last sentence appears to be saying "if you defend your right to privacy, that means you must be guilty of something". I'll leave that without further comment.radek (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The emails suggest that there were a lot of violations of our policy going on. We're going to investigate and either corroborate them with on-site evidence, or discount them. We will not pretend it doesn't exist—doing that would in all likelihood increase the mystique of these files and broaden their distribution even farther. Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The emails (whether they are genuine, fake or doctored) supposedly contain a ton of personal private information which you have not been given permission to review. The emails were obtained by a hacker most certainly through illegal means. So you're looking at illegally obtained private personal emails and information, which you have not been authorized to review. While your concerns about not increasing the "mystique" of these files are appreciated, this is simply not your job. If people who are most affected by the ArbCom case, because it is THEIR personal information that has been hacked, think that it would be better for ArbCom to concentrate on finding out the on-Wiki identity of the hacker rather than start what could turn into a very closely watched public event which attracts undue attention and furthers the dissemination of this hacked personal information - then you should listen to them. It's their privacy and personal security at stake here.radek (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to play the game that Arbcom is bound by the same rules and procedures as a criminal or civil court, you should probably read this. Consider especially the argument about social cost; that is, the social cost to Misplaced Pages and all of its editors of ignoring this information. Thatcher 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already clear that you are desperate for arbcomm not to read this list, and it is also clear that they are going to ignore you. Why keep adding words here? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say they are "most certainly through illegal means"? It's not clear to us how they were obtained. Nor is it within our capacity to investigate that matter. Again, we do not have subpoena power. If you think a crime has been committed, you need law enforcement. We could cooperate with law enforcement, but we will not act like we're police officers because we're not; we have neither the mandate nor the ability to do what you propose. We do have the ability to look after our own project, however. If we ignore the files, the problem of compromised privacy will not go away—and in my view it will be aggravated. Cool Hand Luke 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of odds, its much more likely that someone on the list leaked the materials. The idea that anything can just be trivially "hacked" is mostly a myth perpetuated by movies and other fiction that use hacking to fill plot holes. Mr.Z-man 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, before starting to read private emails obtained without permission from the people who wrote them, has the ArbCom contacted the Misplaced Pages legal team to clarify whether doing that is legal? Loosmark (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's legal. No court in the free world would prosecute someone for reading an email. The only person who might face legal action would be the hypothetical hacker, but if it was someone in that mailing list who leaked the email that wouldn't be illegal either. Could you imagine the legal and bureaucratic nightmare that would occur if a government did try to make it illegal to forward email to someone, or read what was forwarded to you? It would be absurd to try. -- Atama頭 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But for example if somebody stoles emails from your mailbox and then sends them to other persons, and they know it was obtained without your permission, do you think they have the right to read them? I don't know, you might be right, but it sounds a bit weird to me. Loosmark (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, legality is not an issue. Even publishing them may be legal (I am not suggesting the arbcom do that!). For example consider this recent high profile case in which a sitting US state Governor's private emails were published by a newspaper without any repercussions or even threat of legal action. Its fair to discuss how the arbcom should treat and trust the email evidence, but lets move beyond the legal red-herrings. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well but Sanford is a politician and privacy standard for public figures is considerably lower because there is something called "public interest". It is for example similar situation to a magazine publishing a pic Britney Spear on the beach vs a pic of a normal person. Loosmark (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They have a right to read them. What they do after reading them might be illegal, but actually reading them isn't illegal. Imagine someone gave you a piece of paper and said it contained confidential US government secrets, could you be arrested for reading it? Not even then. If you photocopied the paper and handed it out you could face prison or worse, or if you gave it to someone else to read, or told someone what you read. So Arbcom might have to be careful what they do with the information, but they can certainly read it. -- Atama頭 22:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. Loosmark (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• With some surprise, I note that I have been named as a party to the case. I have made a public statement at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Statement_by_Sandstein and will not make other statements in this matter.  Sandstein  08:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Please note that this is a very preliminary list based on the participants of the ANI thread. If it's any comfort to you, there are even more surprising names on the list. It will be revised, I promise. Cool Hand Luke 13:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On whole, I think the evidence can be used. Misplaced Pages's goal is to make the site better. It is not clear how the evidence was obtained. There is no proof of hacking. We have somebody who claimed to me that they were a hacker, but that person could have been lying. A hacker is somebody capable of dishonesty. Jehochman 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To your "Irpen and Girlandajo" per Giano point above, these were among the most virulent of combatants and ran off dozens of reputable editors with their constant attacks. If you'd like documented evidence of Irpen's edits deliberately misrepresenting a source, also summarizing that source in direct contradiction to the authors' own statements, I'll be glad to go back and provide those diffs—on Holodomor, a major area of contention. If the intent is to make past history part of this along with an invitation to dredge up every perceived slight by the current short list of Russavia, Offliner, et al. on the part of a set of individuals they consider to be their opposition, nothing good will come of this. You of all people (per your own off-Wiki interview) know Misplaced Pages has no due process. Let's not open the door to infinite indemnity regarding the past. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

¿Qué? Jehochman 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Que indeed Some grovelling appologies are looking to be a little overlate in coming. Giano (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ekhm. My offer to all to list my problematic admin actions here (or in arbcom evidence) still stands. So far as AFAIK not a single one has been listed anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence to support any finding of fact will be given to all parties that will be mentioned in the ruling. The material will be supplied either by email or on the workshop page, or a combination of both as needed to maintain privacy. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS review per WP:ARBDATE?

One of the enforcement provisions of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking was that after three months passed from the case's closure, the Committee would review the manual of style for stability (remedy). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue (I originally brought this up at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests and was referred here by a clerk). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Now why wasn't that put on the agenda and calendar? I will flag this up, but if things are slow, the best way to get action on this is to file a request for clarification. That tends to focus attention more than a talk page post does. But wait a bit and see, as my e-mail pointing this out might get something happening. What would help is some indication of whether such a review is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that; this whole ArbCom "filing system" is very confusing. As to whether a review is needed, I think things have improved quite a bit. However, it's hard to tell for sure when the part of MOSNUM that was in dispute during the case has been semi-protected for half a year. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was unclear. I was saying why didn't we (ArbCom) put it on the calendar. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Original announcement

• I disagree with WMC's desysop based on my own principles on what should lead to a desysop. Sure there was bad judgment outlined and the abd block was a very, very bad move - but I fail to see how a full removal of his adminship is of real benefit to the site. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll save you from reading about 2 MB of mostly content-free text: The case was moving toward a do-nothing result until Abd tested the page ban and WMC blocked him. This pissed off arbcom, so they desysoped WMC. Arbcom planned to essentially ignore Abd's disruption until Risker proposed the three-month ban in the final days. The end. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too late, I read through pretty much all of it over the past month in anticipation of the case's end. Pretty much sums it right up, though. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another seriously flawed decision. Just plain lazy on the part of ArbCom. I've applied page bans before. I've also applied page bans on articles in which WMC was helping me out. He's a well reasoned, and highly dedicated administrator. To revoke his mop is childish. Hey ArbCom; Restore his mop. Now. You do not craft policy by holding people retroactively responsible for violating non-existent policy. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, William violated existing policy. He blocked Abd during the case, when he was clearly too involved to legitimately take action. One could perform a root cause analysis to figure out how things reached that point, much in the same way the NTSB attempts to reconstruct the chain of failures leading to a plane crash, but it would be a depressing and academic exercise. If there is a moral, it's that admins who fail to recognize goading, swallow their pride, and ignore it will not be admins forever. MastCell  04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What MastCell said. There has been several issues of questionable actions with the admin tools in the past, and blocking someone you were in an arbcase with (at the time the ArbCom case is going on) is pretty much not going to fly, ever. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC did violate policy - he responded to the deliberate provocation of an editor even ArbCom agrees is disruptive and tendentious. It would have been wiser for WMC to resist the temptation offered by the bait. More importantly - and much more disappointingly for Misplaced Pages - it would have been wiser for ArbCom to consider what was in the best interests of developing high-quality encyclopedic content rather to act on the afront it felt about WMC's unwise block. Unfortunately, the messages from this ArbCom case are (i) that ArbCom either cannot or will not control its own case pages; (ii) that the quality of the science content of the encyclopedia is not a priority of the Committee; and consequently, (iii) that the Committee will not offer any encouragement for adminisatrators to work in contentious areas but rather will continue pretending that science-literate uninvolved administrators (a highly endangered or extinct species) are in plentiful supply. The burnout and departure of science-literate editors is also apparently not a reason for concern. The Committee could have acted against WMC with a forced break and acted in a way that loudly reinforced their dedication to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Arbitrators but the decisions their judgements and priorities in this case have been poor. EdChem (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it is very foolish to do such things while ArbCom is actively looking at you. It's not smart to do them in the first place, but during an arbitration is asking for trouble, sadly. Still, the main result was right: since his return from a block in 2008 Abd has been on a path of escalation to burnout. It's remarkable he's lasted as long as he has before being blocked for a long time especially given his tendency to scream "cabal" at every turn. After the last arbitration he seemed to believe that he'd been fully vindicated and carried on precisely as before (if not worse), which is one of the things that sent me on a long wikibreak. Life is too short for your hobbies to be dominated by obsessives with no goal in mind other than to hound you for failing to agree with The Truth™. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the eventual outcome, but I was alarmed at the degree to which attempts to demonize expert editors were successful. Just because somebody has expertise in a subject, does not mean he has a conflict of interest. We've seen on Misplaced Pages for some time now concerted efforts by the wilfully ignorant to set themselves up as somehow in opposition to expert editors and to attack their excellent work. Instead of dealing with those people for timewasting, there has been a tendency to treat them at their own evaluation--as somehow being engaged alongside those who have taken the trouble to study the subject in an endeavor to improve Misplaced Pages. That isn't the arbitration committee's job. It must recognise that some of these "disputes" are in fact political attacks, often openly orchestrated off-site, and intended to distort the facts and weaken the integrity of Misplaced Pages. --TS 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be taken into account by the Committee when considering their practice of allowing people to keep evidence in userspace and link to it from the Evidence case page is that there are hundreds of thousands of bytes of smears and innuendos, insinuations and unfounded accusations about other editors in Abd's user space that were entered as part of Abd's "evidence" in this case. When I complained about the extent to which my positions, intentions, actions and motivations were misrepresented throughout the case, an arbitrator said, as a way of consoling me, that since I wasn't mentioned in the final decision, I could assume that none of that was taken seriously by the Committee, but that if I felt strongly enough about it, I could ask to have the material blanked. Well, I guess I'm not very consoled, since I value my reputation for integrity and am sincerely offended at being so throughly defamed without any discernible purpose, and I'm not sure how blanking the inaccurate and misleading accusations could be accomplished, when the misrepresentations of fact were strewn liberally throughout the case, and much of the offending material is in Abd's user page.

The "cabal" userpage has been nominated for MfD, but a common argument against deleting it is that it is part of evidence in an ArbCom case so can't be deleted. There is an entire page-long section about me on that page, and the "evidence" is just an attempt using synthesis and OR, using a couple of quotes from user talk pages totally out of context to try to make a case that I had an "axe to grind", simply because I said that in my opinion there were sockpuppets involved in the delegable proxy mess, because I felt that Kirk Shanahan's preferred version of the cold fusion page was more neutral than Abd's preferred version, because I had once supported Science Apologist, and because I had said that I didn't find discussion with Abd to be a particularly productive way to spend my time. These are honest opinions, I hold them still, but for them to be entered as evidence of my "involvement" with a "cabal" is simply beyond incredible. There is no credible evidence for any "involvement" with the other editors listed in the cabal, even if collusion isn't part of the definition. I believe this entire page should be blanked; I request formally that at least my section of it should be blanked. It seems to me it's the least the Committee could do, to remedy a little bit of the harm that's been created by this case. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to AGF; after all, I was specifically encouraged by an arbitrator to make this request, so I'm making it. But it's really a bigger issue that I'm raising here: encouraging editors to exceed the evidence limit by linking to unlimited text in userspace can have at least two unintended consequences: (1) it can lead to a proliferation of mudslinging and unsubstantiated accusations cloaked as evidence, as in this case, since it effectively voids the requirement to keep evidence concise and supported with specific diffs, and (2) it creates the problem of evidence in the case not being kept on the case pages and archived with the case. It's just out there in userspace; users could alter it, delete it, add to it, do anything they want with it, rather than it being protected with the case for historical reference. I just think the Committee should think about the consequences when allowing this practice in future. Woonpton (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the problem you describe may be pretty unique to the editor. As for reference, just link to old revisions or copy/pasta into your userspace. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton, thank you for reminding me about this. I will go and carry out the courtesy blankings now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, when you've finished holding your breath, do you think you could give arbitrators a chance to respond before you insert a cynical soundbite like that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley

My thanks to the open minds willing to discuss the transparency of the committee's decision. Oh wait, you arrogantly closed this thread. I guess absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. Once again, any editor is free to disagree with your decisions. Any editor is free to voice this disagreement. Likewise, any editor is free to have these disagreements heard openly. Lastly, any editor is free to wield a minority opinion, and have it not be silenced. I urge you guys to remeber this. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

In regard to item 5 of the Arbcom decision:

5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

I have created a relevant discussion page at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Arbcom_directed_discussion_-_Policy_on_non-consensual_topic_or_page_bans. Manning (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. When I have a few moments, I will try to post some background that will be relevant to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy#Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged, probably the better place. Based on an initial thought expressed there, I have drafted a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Discretionary sanctions that would generalize the "discretionary" sanctions approach used by the ArbCom in various cases.  Sandstein  17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I really don't like the way that arbcom has encouraged what amount to straight votes. The subtext in "should come to a consensus in one month"... The only way that could be guaranteed is by doing a straight vote of some sort, like what happened with Ireland, which has turned into some wet dream for people interested in voting systems. Did everyone forget why we don't usually vote? Gigs (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No voting implied or needed. Discuss things, and if there is no consensus for any change, then nothing changes. i.e. if there is consensus, then make changes, but if not, then don't. What is paramount, though, is to publicise the discussion widely. Get lots of views, of both admins and non-admins. Don't just get the views of those following arbitration cases. Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Publicising discussions and see if the advice there has been followed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of case pages

Following on from Woonpton's request above, I have courtesy blanked the following pages of this case: the proposed decision talk page, the evidence page, the evidence talk page, the workshop page, and the workshop talk page. I also intend to blank the user subpages that were used to present evidence in this case (or move them to subpages of the evidence page and blank them, but need to leave a note at an ongoing MfD first). I think Abd and Enric Naval used subpages in this case - will need to check that. Starting this section to enable discussion of these actions because WMC left me a note saying he objects to the case pages being blanked. I don't object to my actions being changed or reversed (e.g. by adding a link to the pre-blanked version in the page history), but if some discussion and input from others (including other arbitrators) could take place first, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision and wish it to be reversed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As a thoroughly naive onlooker, I am perplexed at this flurry of "courtesy blanking"? What exactly is the difference here between "courtesy blanking" and "attempt at suppression"? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! Me! I know this one! Courtesy blanking avoids gratuitous hurt while leaving the entire history for anyone who wants to look, whereas suppression is a term almost exclusively used by people who mistake Misplaced Pages for an experiment in free speech (which it explicitly is not). Guy (Help!) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I too don't get the "Courtesy" bit. Presumably the main effect of blanking is to exclude the content from searches? If so it is a tricky call. It is in all our interests to rebuild Arbcom's credibility and brush some of all this under the carpet. No admin will put the project first if Arbcom cannot be relied upon to be careful and fair. At the same time there is an issue of fairness to WMC and negatives of drawing a veil over the repute of some other individuals concerned which will be unhelpful to the project (e.g. in that it will adversely affect quality of decision making in the next Arbcom elections, it will make identifying other trolls a tedious job from contribution history rather than an easy one etc). On balance WP favours openness so I think the pages should not be blanked. A gui, de to their content might help--BozMo talk 08:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the case it is not easy for an uninvolved editor to get a handle on things in the first place. The de-sysopping of a longtime administrator performing substantively correct administrative actions in protecting the encyclopedia against disruption, over what look to be procedural violations, seems extraordinary. Perhaps I just don't get it. I am certainly going to get it a lot less if Arbcom blanks pages of evidence and deliberations. Arbcom cases are supposed to be handled in a transparent way, aren't they? If you blank the record, I would hope you would vacate any findings and sanctions to which that part of the record applies. Otherwise it becomes a secret tribunal, something that should be reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances. There are other ways to avoid ongoing damage from unwise things some may have said. Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is usually asked for if someone has been needlessly harangued or the parties require some privacy due to real-life concerns. The article history still has the entirety of the information on it, so the information is not being deleted, merely hidden from casual view. -Jeremy 09:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And if some other involved party, such as WMC above, feels that "courtesy blanking" compromises the history of what had happened to them, where does that leave things? --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the page history, two clicks away. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it doesn't help in deciding what to do in the present case, it is worth noting that a major cause of the problem that now exists is the breakdown in control of the case pages. There certainly needs to be a discussion of the lessons that this case has for case management, and I'd like to know whether ArbCom and the Clerks are planning to have any such discussion, and if so, whether it will be on wiki. EdChem (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, even though WMC behaves sometimes like a complete idiot, warranting a thorough rap-over the knuckles, he is still, all in all, one of the more useful administrators Misplaced Pages has been privileged to have, and something has gone significantly wrong here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC),

There is a confluence of interests here. Woonpton is (rightfully) bothered at Abd's unfounded smears. Arbcom completely failed to maintain control over this sprawling case, so it is in their interest to keep it out of casual view. Thus when Woonpton asked for blanking, Arbcom was all too happy to oblige. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris, there is no way you can stop Abd from engaging in these problem behaviours short of bannination, and that's not consistent with allowing him his day in court. You'd have to have clerks following him round the entire project, or temporarily restrict him to case pages only (I'd have asked for that temporary injunction but that's because I have previously experienced Abd's obsessive behaviour). Guy (Help!) 10:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It rather looks as though C has misinterpreted W's request; see William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Who was it supposed to be a courtesy to? Stifle (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Woonpton; see top of this thread William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is just that, a courtesy, born out of common decency for others who feel that their lives will be adversely effected by the page being open to casual view. If anyone is so curious as to see the Scandal! that they believe was there, they merely have to exert more effort. Now, we can spin our wheels in glorious cynicism about who is gaining what advantage over the political machinery of a website, but I'm entirely more concerned about maintaining the above common decency on the off chance that someone's real life is adversely effected because of something stupid that happened in the backstage of Misplaced Pages.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vair nice, but as it is now clear that W doesn't want the pages blanked, and I don't want the pages blanked, and no-one else has asked for them to be blanked, please explain (since arbcomm, as usual when things get sticky, has suddenly gone silent) for whose benefit the blanking has been done? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal. There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case—at least Abd's evidence. Hell, there was an aborted blanking campaign right in the middle of the case Several users supported blanking the evidence pages in Abd's space, including some of the people commenting here. I found this to be a reasonable request, so the pages are now blanked as a courtesy. If in fact no one wants them blanked, I'm confident we will undo it.

Perhaps this was a mistaken reading of the participant's sentiments, but selectively blanking the pages is not an option we've ever entertained. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a mistaken reading -- indeed, Woonpton said "it blows my mind" that Carcharoth (and now you) could interpret her request in this way. But stuff like that doesn't surprise me anymore. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. My apologies (I think me and Carcharoth were on a similar wavelength here).

Now that it's understood that blanking is an all-or-nothing proposition, does anyone want the evidence pages blanked? Cool Hand Luke 18:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear whether you're speaking for yourself or arbcomm at this point; if the latter, how and where this decision has been made. I would assert a distinction between pages in user space and those in arbcomm space. I maintain my desire to see the pages in arbcomm space unblanked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone wants them blanked, but I say, leave them as is. It is the Arbitration Committee who let things run completely out of hand, and now the involved users feel negatively affected. I don't think that blanking is the solution to that. I don't like rugs, but for those who do, this does not belong under it. --Dirk Beetstra 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "it is now clear" that I don't want the pages blanked; the statement on my talk page simply clarifies that my specific request was about a particular section on Abd/Cabal rather than a request to blank the case; it didn't occur to me at that time that anything could be done about the false accusations and extreme distortions of fact that were liberally larded throughout the case, but at least I wanted that one section with my name at the top of it to be blanked. My feelings about the blanking of the case as a whole are mixed, as anyone reading my statement with any feeling for nuance (I'm realizing that this seems to be a scarce commodity in Wikiedia) should be able to see. On one hand, I would prefer that the false accusations, insinuations and accusations about me not remain fossilized here for everyone to see; on the other hand I can see WMC's argument too, that the case should be preserved for the record. But isn't it true that if you go back in history to the version before the blanking, it's all still there? So doesn't the blanking serve both purposes: conceal smears from public view without eliminating the content? Or does it really affect the usability of the information in some way?

It is my personal opinion that this case was a complete disaster from beginning to end, and the damage that the case will have done to the encyclopedia will remain, no matter what happens to the case content. I will assume that if the blanking of the case was indeed done in response to my comment, it was an honest attempt to be responsive to my concern (although strangely late; the problem should have been stopped while the case was ongoing, and I find it curious that arbitrators who had no interest in my complaints and the complaints of others while the case was going on should suddenly become so attentive to our concerns, after the horse is long out of the barn). But I'm not the only one to be considered here, and I wouldn't want my ambivalence about the blanking to be taken as a signal to unblank. There are others who have been equally affected, who should speak for themselves on the issue, although at least one of them is unable to at the moment.

@Tznkai: my concern isn't at present a real life concern; I just don't like being lied about. However, there are others who are affected who may well have real life concerns; I wouldn't want to be seen as speaking for anyone else. Woonpton (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Woonpton, and in general, I think the same principle applies even for mere emotional dislike, though it is obviously less of a big deal than say, impending job loss.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra perhaps I've completely misunderstood you (and if so I apologize), but it seems to me what you're saying is the following: 1. ArbCom has mucked up, failing to address 2. a mess where a bunch of people got unjustly attacked and thus 3. ArbCom should not courtesy blank the same so their mistakes are transparent. That seems to leave keeping the mess that adversely effects innocent parties, because you want to punish/expose ArbCom.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Tznkai: I want Arb.Comm. to come with a real solution? --Dirk Beetstra 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@W: Apologies for misrepresenting your views. Thanks for stating them clearly here. Would it help at all if a header was put clearly at the top of all these pages, something along the lines of "These are the preserved record of an arbcomm case; the presence of an allegation in these pages carries no implication at all that it is true"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if CHL's ref'ing etc is trolling or just a failure to understand. Assuming the latter: that was a last-gasp attempt to do arbcomms duty for it and try to keep some kind of order on the pages. Alas it failed; arbcomm voted for the current disaster area. Which is indeed part of the point: you've failed to keep any order during the case; it is just too late now to say whoops lets shovel it all under the rug. If this info was so terrible that allowing people to stumble over it is terrible, then how could it be allowed on the case pages for months on end? That position makes no sense. Also where does There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case come from? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not trolling. Other parties do not have the right to control the presentation of another's evidence during a case. Nor should others control how evidence is kept after the case is closed.

To clarify an earlier question: I'm speaking only for myself here, and you should always assume that's true unless I explicitly say otherwise. That said, I don't think many arbitrators would support selectively blanking evidence from one party of the case without a really good reason.

There's no rug-shoving going on here. Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked. You might note that I didn't even participate in the deliberation of the case; the interpretation of a cover up did not occur to me until several users here made the accusation. Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked - I assume that is true. Indeed, you said: There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case. However, I've asked you above why you believe that and you're distinctly reticent on that point. Do you now accept that is an error? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Past tense, per the widespread support of blanking here. I am not now sure whether there would be support for complete blanking, but I do not believe selective blanking is acceptable. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A point of data: I am generally in favor of blanking procedural pages as a matter of routine (or at least on simple request) at the end of a case. This, obviously, does not include the decision proper; nor does it include deletion. This is a matter of simple courtesy.

Suggestion of selectively blanking parts of pages because one doesn't like them is... ethically unacceptable. I'm surprised anyone would even consider such a thing— obviously that will never be allowable. — Coren  19:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage you from doing so as a matter of routine, and ask you where you think your mandate for doing this comes from. or at least on simple request is regrettably ambiguous - do you mean, one request from any one participant (not even a party) is enough for you to blank, even against the expressed wishes of parties? A simple majority? I don't think you should do anything after a case that hasn't been decided during a case. If you want this as a matter of routine, you should include it as a routine motion in each case. That would give everyone a chance to express an opinion in an (ahem) orderly fashion, instead of this rather all-too-typicaly disorderly process we've ended up in. Anyone seen Carcharoth around recently, BTW? Blank-n-run seems rather poor form William M. Connolley (talk)

You're making, I think, the unwarranted presumption that there is value to keeping the case pages around after a case has closed. Certainly, the arguments and reasoning have historical value and need to be kept for transparency, but they do not need to be displayed or (worse) mirrored by the myriad leeches out there that are uninterested in keeping that material off search engines.

As far as I and most other arbs are concerned, the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages (and the talk pages) are mere artifacts of the process, and can be blanked without bureaucracy. In fact, many of us have express dismay on how complicated doing seemed to have been in the past. I would have agreed with your concerns if there was discussion of deleting the pages (which is generally not done), or of altering them in a way that can twist their significance; but a simple blanking that leaves the history intact is at worst harmless and at best can help put a matter to rest and keep possibly prejudicial crap off the search engines. — Coren  22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

67.122.211.205 (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coren, this is helpful. Perhaps I misunderstood the arbitrator who told me on the proposed decision page that if I was unhappy about false accusations and inaccurate statements that had been made about me, I should feel free to request that the material be blanked; I understood that to mean that I could request that parts of the case be blanked. (And while no one has answered my question about whether blanking affects the usability of the content, I found that when I went to bring up that diff to link to here, I wasn't able to bring it up. So that's a problem, I agree).

I didn't see any reasonable way to blank comments that were threaded with other comments, so I wasn't requesting that information be selectively blanked out of the case pages, and I wasn't aware that the entire case could be blanked on request. I just made this little request about this one section that had my name at the top of it and was all about me; it was really just a token request, as a protest against the wholesale defamation of editors in this case. I didn't realize that this was not a reasonable request, especially as I thought I'd been encouraged by an arbitrator to request the blanking of defamatory comments. But (to clarify again) I was happy (delighted, in fact) with the decision to blank the entire case and felt that my concerns were finally being heard; my understanding was that the courtesy blanking was "on behalf of multiple users" so I felt this was a response not just to me but to concerns of the community. I thought that was the best solution to the whole mess, so I was surprised (blown away) this morning to see Carcharoth's statement above that it was done solely in response to my request, and I was also surprised to find that there were people who were very unhappy about it. I believe Luke when he says he was genuinely trying to respond to concerns (and he's right that a number of people commenting on the MfD thought the page should be blanked; where are those people now?). I guess I just want to go ahead and leave, and you guys can do whatever the heck you're going to do about this. I thank those who tried to be responsive to my concern, and wish you well. Woonpton (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment to say I'm aware of the responses here, and to reply to WMC's "blank-n-run" comment above. If you look at my contributions log, you will see that I started the courtesy blankings between 00:44 and 01:14 last night (UTC). My computer then crashed (as was noted in my edit summaries later on) and as it was late I decided to finish things off in the morning. I saw WMC's comment on my talk page and between 07:48 and 08:22 I replied, finished off what I'd started the previous night, and started this section as a place for discussion to take place (the latter action was prompted by WMC's objections). I then went to work. As it turned out, I had to work late, and then I had to get a bus home because of flooding on the London Underground (heavy rain here today). This is why I haven't been around to answer questions. (If anything is ever really urgent, I can be contacted by e-mail during the day). I had always intended to return to this section, so a bit of patience would have been appreciated, rather than "blank-n-run" comments and wonderings about where I'd got to. Having said that, I do need to deal with something else urgent now (trying to set priorities here, and making this post here was my first priority, but there are some other things that need attention as well), but I will come back to this later tonight (in a few hours), and respond further to what has been said here. I do in particular want to try and clear up any misunderstandings about the blankings. In particular, please note the last sentence of the post I made to start this section. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Just a brief update to point to what I said here (replying to WMC on my talk page). It doesn't cover everything that was said, but hopefully it will answer some of the questions. As I said there, I want to say more tomorrow, time permitting. Bottom line is that either everything that normally gets blanked is blanked, or nothing. No selective blankings. The diff of what I originally said to Woonpton is here. I think she was looking for that. Hopefully that will clear up a few things. I've been consistent with what I said in that diff, and I stand by what I said there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is all this crap about? Blanking a page changes nothing as to what actually happened on a page. It just removes it from search view. So long as the main ArbCase page remains, every single one of the links are there and as noted, several editors are aware of the History tab. I'd also be thinking that consolidation of several other "evidence" pages should be moved under the parent case page and blanked. Many more than the participants and adjudicators of this case are aware of what a black stain it is - but there is no reason that various search engines should casually pick up and rate the various search phrases, surely that is an unintended consequence. There is no doubt that many people will retain an institutional memory of what happened here and will be able to find links quite easily. So what exactly is the rationale to not courtesy blank all the relevant pages (and move them into case sub-pages)? So long as the main or index page which leads to all the rest is present and public, what is the compelling reason to preserve every one of them? Selectivity is unfortunately not an option here. It's all a bad scene... Franamax (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing that any other case pages be similarly blanked? What's so speial about this case that they should be? 98.210.193.221 (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose no such thing, though I wouldn't necessarily object. An "ArbCase SearchPage" function wouldn't be all that hard to design (hint: it would search the 2nd-last version of a page, if the last one had changed radically in size). Blanking of ArbCase pages is not exactly unheard of. But I shan't cite specifics.

In this specific case, whilst we are not apparently faced with a specific request, we have general concerns raised about certain spurious allegations raised within the case. In addition, we're faced with a purported evidence page in a userspace which raises even more spurious allegations. (And other upages of purported evidence, which validity I've not examined) In the one page case of which I'm aware, concerns have been raised to the point of MFD nomination, and the existence (but not text presence) of the page has been defended as it being a record of the Abd/WMC case. Fine, the page should be preserved. What I suggest is that all such userpages containing evidentiary but unsubstantiated suggestions(/accusations) should be moved under the master case page and blanked en bloc, so that no unsupported accusations remain open to search-engine ministrations. We've had enough damage here and many editors will know where to look. There is at least one "evidence" page that should be blanked and more than one are prejudicial to innocent editors. Remember that moving and/or blanking pages hides nothing - it just organizes and creates a different condition for search engine discovery. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So... lets try to sum us where we all are on this disaster. Its become clear that arbcomm would rather "courtesy blank" these pages, but it now looks like the courtesy is to arbcomm rather than anyone else. Ca now admits that he knew halfway through the blanking tht there was no support for it, but continued anyway to get a fait accompli. His current response is I do in particular want to try and clear up any misunderstandings about the blankings but note that he is very careful to avoid suggestion that he might undo it. Meanwhile, CHL's support turns out to be based on "overwhelming consensus" on some entirely different page. What we're not getting is a restoration of the status quo ante while the matter is discussed; arbcomm are just stonewalling. I didn't think you could possibly make this ill-managed case any worse managed but you have indeed succeeded. Given that no magic pixie dust is going to make this decision for you, please explain just how you are going to acheive "consensus" on what to do William M. Connolley (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you are being — to be generous — disingenuous. There is no stonewalling, here, and no drama to be had beyond what the copious amounts of bad faith your are displaying generates. Go do something else for a while. — Coren  13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that bad faith here is any faith placed in ArbCom. Pages in wikipedia arb space should not be blanked without good reason and an official request, with discussion. The blanking of user space pages should be decided by the community, and ArbCom and clerks should have never have allowed Abd to spam his accusations all over the place. ArbCom should have never taken this case in the first case - the community was willing to deal with it. The disaster that arbcom and the clerks managed to turn it into would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that you (the arbs) have actually managed to damage the project. A few individual arbs seemed to be sensible, but I would encourage them to leave the stinking carcass of arbcom before they become irredeemably tarnished - like FT2. Undo the blanking of arb pages until an involved user makes a specific request here or by email (and the request is posted here). I warned Abd off AC, as I knew it would end badly for him, but the ridiculous damage to the project, and the view that arbcom is above criticism, is truly something else. Verbal chat 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that bad faith here is any faith placed in ArbCom." Quotable.

At any rate, why do you think that ArbCom views itself as above criticism? As a bloc, we do not want WMC's page to be deleted. I think that criticism is necessary for us to function, in fact. Pile it on. Cool Hand Luke 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest separating criticism of the handling of the case from the question of whether the pages should be blanked. I don't think that blanking is an attempt to sweep anything under the rug; any user with 10 minutes' experience on the site can view the evidence in its entirety, and the blanking only hides it from being scraped and mirrored.

If someone involved in the case (including, for that matter, an Arbitrator) feels strongly that the pages should be blanked, then let's do it. It's a courtesy. If no one wants them blanked anymore, then let's not do it.

I understand the urge to criticize the handling of the case, and I hope that some lessons can be learned from its unfortunate trajectory (and that of its logical predecessor), but that won't happen until the ruckus settles and people (myself included) can digest it in peace. In the meantime, if possible, let's use this thread to discuss the courtesy blanking issue; other venues are probably more appropriate for criticism of the case handling if one feels so moved. Just my 2 cents. MastCell  16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with MastCell's sentiments. Few would dispute that ArbCom members work diligently in a highly controversial arena. It is understandable that editors will, on occassion, disagree (in perfect sincerity) with ArbCom decisions. However, it seems rather irregular to make claims of a conspiratorial cover-up scheme. The blanking is really a rather small issue, and one that should be decided in a collaborative and yielding spirit. —Matheuler 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My response to WMC (on my talk page) is here. I've stated there my view that there have been misunderstandings and incorrect assertions made by WMC and others about these page blankings, and I've suggested a different venue to resolve those misunderstandings, but the relevant bit here is what I've now said and done about the page blankings (paraphrased below):

• (A) I've read through the arguments for and against the blankings in the discussion here WT:AC/N, and given that there was some degree of support for the blankings, and that many people (not just those who objected) had aspersions cast about them in those pages, I'm not going to reverse my actions (though I did come close to doing so). However, given that some people have failed to realise that the full text is still accessible in the page histories, I've modified the notices on each page to include a link on each blanked page to the version of the page before blanking, and to the page history, and links to all the other pages in the case (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I know this is not the full unblanking WMC wanted, but I hope it does address some of his concerns, and the concerns of others, about accessibility, and a desire for people to be able to see and judge for themselves what happened in this case.
• (B) There are a multitude of pages in userspace that still need dealing with in some way. A total of 23 pages. I've made a list here. WMC did ask me not to mix up userspace stuff with what happens to the case pages, so rather than going ahead with what I proposed earlier (moving to subpages of the evidence page and blanking) I've made that list instead, and will leave notices for the users concerned, and then notify my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee, and leave those pages for those users and the rest of ArbCom to deal with.
• (C) If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait a few days or weeks, to see how he feels at that point, and then if he still wants the case pages unblanked, to file a request for clarification. I will abstain from voting on any clarifications filed with respect to the final disposition of the pages in this case, though I may make a statement if needed. I'll remain active on clarifications and amendment requests on other matters related to this case.

As I said, I have to move on to deal with other things now, but I hope this addresses the concerns of WMC and others. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, in future cases, the practice of presenting evidence in userspace subpages be restricted or explicitly disallowed. This looks like a massive pain to clean up, not to mention a potential drama-magnet. Skinwalker (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The evidence limits are untenable in complex cases. Some of the parties under review have made hundreds or thousands of relevant edits, and to fairly review the case they should all be available. It's rather absurd that Arbcom could presume to take a case and not allow the parties to present all of the evidence. If I am a party and I face that limit, I'll summarize on the evidnece page and create a sub-page somwhere with the complete details. Whould would you suggest? That Arbcom members refuse to read it? That it get summarily deleted? That I be sanctioned for creating a page of diffs? Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then lift (or liberalize) the evidence limit. No deletion or sanctions. It is almost always unenforced unless someone steps well over the line, and often not even then. My concern is that someone could file MFDs for each and every one of the 23 subpages Carcharoth lists. Not to mention that Abd scattered, at one count, around 500 kilobytes of "evidence" around the case pages and his userspace, most of which consisted of diff-less aspersions. This is a gigantic mess to clean up and monitor. Also, if you think arbs read all of the evidence presented, you probably don't follow many of their proposed decisions. Skinwalker (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this just gets worse. My response to Ca's inadequate response is on his talk page. As to Co There is no stonewalling, here - that is exactly what there is William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So... given the total absence of stonewalling here, as asserted by at least two arbs (although how that can be reconciled with If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait I don't know. For the record, no, I'm not happy with any of this), when am I going to get an answer to Given that no magic pixie dust is going to make this decision for you, please explain just how you are going to acheive "consensus" on what to do? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought experiment

What do we do if/when we find out there was an off-wiki coordination by cold fusion proponents to delegitimize opponents? Protonk (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads on pikes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan of drawing and quartering myself. Hersfold 06:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File it under "blindingly obvious", recognize it as one of the inevitable drawbacks of a top-ten website that anyone can edit, and resolve not to be goaded quite so easily next time? Question the legitimacy of a field whose proponents seem to spend more time litigating their case on Misplaced Pages than doing actual science? Use the case as a learning exercise to improve our handling of small groups of agenda accounts? All of the above? MastCell  17:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're new around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just regressing. :) MastCell  18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not finished

I've un-archived this as it isn't finsihed: you haven't yet decided the "courtesy" blanking issue. Obviously you're not stonewalling (because you've said you aren't) so please remind me what decision was made and how? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See my points A, B and C at 00:34 17 September 2009, above. To reiterate, I reviewed your concerns and those of others, including those who couldn't understand why you were making a big deal out of this, and I made the decision not to unblank the pages, but made the following changes: , , , , . Those changes were a response to your concern that the previous versions of the blanked pages were not very accessible to those who don't know how to access page histories. My changes made the blanked pages more accessible. The userspace pages (point B) have not yet been dealt with, largely because of your objections and because I said I would ask others to deal with that (because you objected to me doing so). I have asked another arbitrator to review this (the list of userpages, covered in my point 'B'), but nothing has been done yet. I'll quote point C again in full:

If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait a few days or weeks, to see how he feels at that point, and then if he still wants the case pages unblanked, to file a request for clarification. I will abstain from voting on any clarifications filed with respect to the final disposition of the pages in this case, though I may make a statement if needed. I'll remain active on clarifications and amendment requests on other matters related to this case.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this? Do you need a link? Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. I've pointed you in the right direction several times now, but you don't seem to be listening. If you just want to repeat the same things you said before, then we will continue to go round in circles. At the moment, from where I am sitting, it is you who are stonewalling, on the decision that you need to make, on whether to take this further or drop it. Unarchiving this noticeboard talk page thread is precisely the wrong way to go about taking this further. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You've now clarified the only unclear point: that this arbitrary decision was made by you on entirely flimsy grounds. You've stonewalled on the unblanking; the trivial tweaks you've made are irrelevant. The place to discuss this is here. You have nothing more to say; fine, don't say it. Perhaps the rest of arbcomm does William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The "rest of ArbCom" is, in the main, in favor of routine blanking of case material other than the main case page and (obviously) final decision. Mostly confused about why you are making a big deal out of this trivial clerical matter.

To note, I am the one Carcharoth requested handle the user space pages (which I have been distracted from by the current EE mess), and I expect I will be moving them to Arb space and blanking them in a manner consistent with the case pages proper. — Coren  10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology from Casliber

Original announcement

Ok, to get consensus from the community, comment below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted (i.e. stick around)

1. You admitted your mistake and are a great arb. MBisanz 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Nonsense. We all make mistakes. –Juliancolton |  23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
3. If we didn't fuck up, how would we learn anything? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
4. If I understand what I believe you are referring to then I say this: I believe that you were put in a tremendously difficult situation. You appeared to handle all that you could with discretion and tact. I've never seen any actions by you that were not directed at protecting and/or improving the project. This is a volunteer project, and you've extended great time and effort to aid this site. I see no reason to accept an apology from you, because I don't believe that one is required; however, I greatly admire your integrity, and strongly hope that you will continue to serve the community as you have in the past. Please continue as you have. — Ched :  ?  23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Speaking as someone who knows EXACTLY what you went through, I can't even say I'm disappointed. SirFozzie (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
6. I'd rather have Arbitrators who learn from their mistakes. I hope this is the last "open secret" we'll have to deal with.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Understand your situation. I thought that this was common knowledge...apparently not. Either way, you do good work, and I'd hate for this one incident to cause you to resign. Steven Zhang 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
8. A mistake for sure, but I have enough confidence in Cas to believe that things like this won't happen again. Far more worrisome is the continuing trend of admins / established editors controversially using undisclosed alternate accounts. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Don't be ridiculous, Cas. You're a fine Arb, and you should not go anywhere. GlassCobra 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
10. I'm with Will. J.delanoy_adds 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Cas, you're a great arb. No one is faultless. I appreciate your current honesty and full-disclosure. hmwith☮ 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Yes, please stick around for now, but also be more careful about this sort of thing. My reading of this situation is that it's pretty ambiguous and perhaps to an extent understandable that you'd do what you did, but always remember that the community can't afford to have arbs who are even perceived as having something to hide. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Please stay, everyone makes mistakes and this in no way erodes my trust in you as an arb. I'm sure that now you'd handle it differently were the scenario to occur again. ThemFromSpace 01:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Don't act like an idiot again, because I won't be coming out of retirement again to support you. I agree with everything Wikidemon said below and MBisanz said above oh, how difficult it is to say that -- Noroton (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
15. I am in particular agreement with Nathan's comment in the discussion section below, sans the portion about other banned users and all that. UnitAnode 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
16. It is indeed that what Law did betrayed the community's trust on him by gaming the system and violating many others. However, the resignation is purely up to your decision and you at least admitted your fault. On the other hand, I would like first to see apologies from User:Daniel, and User:Ironholds because they exposed the truth, just because of their retaliation even though they've known or assumed Law's previous account for weeks. Truly disrespectful behaviors on their part.--Caspian blue 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Please continue as an arb: your bona fides has never been in contention in my mind. This is yet another reason the project desperately needs to tighten up on the use of alt accounts. I see no reason why the standard RfA questions should not include a requirement to disclose. Alt accounts just seem to get us into trouble. It's ridiculous. Tony (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
18. The fact that you are willing to submit to the community consensus here says a lot. This was a clear error (Law's RfA should have been the crossing the Rubicon moment), but Law put you in a rather difficult position and I can sympathize with that. My "stick around" support is very much conditional on one thing though: the Arbs need to privately poll themselves on their e-mail list and determine if other committee members are aware of any similar situations where a banned user (or the like) has returned as an administrator, thus gaming RfA in order to do so. The results of that mini-survey then need to be announced to the community. Really this is something that should be asked of all admins, but the ArbCom is good for starters, as we need to be clear that there are not other "open secrets" (apparently you have to be on IRC or something to know these kind of things—but I better not start down that path) of which some committee members are aware. I would suggest that Casliber initiate that process himself right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Meh. Full disclosure. I also knew that Law = The undertow for quite some time. To tar and feather everyone involved in this case because of some superficial similarities to other alternative accounts that became admins is not called for here. There is a HUGE difference between a good user who made a single error in judgement some time ago (which led to Undertow's desysop) and users who have shown a long-term pattern of abuse at Misplaced Pages. Law/Undertow has basically been one of our best editors and admins here, he got caught up in some political shit that messed up his day, and that others were willing to let him come back "semi-incognito" is not about how untrustworthy we have been, but upon how short-sighted and poorly handled his first desysopping was. Casliber has nothing to apologize about here. --Jayron32 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation accepted (i.e. time to go)

1. As a friend of Casliber's, I think he should resign. We elected Casliber to ArbCom because we believed he could make the hard decisions and because we believed he could be trusted with sensitive information and how to deal with it. However, I don't think he has shown that in this case. Others may believe that this single incident does not require such a step, but I believe that Casliber will show himself to be a more ethical editor by resigning. To me, this would indicate that he both realized that he made a mistake and accepted its consequences. Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Awadewit has essentially made the argument that I was going to. –blurpeace  00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Arbitrators who learn from their mistakes are good; arbitrators who are not unwise enough to make them are better. Cas either knew that what was happening was inappropriate, and let his friendship cloud his judgment as an arbitrator, or he did not believe it was inappropriate; I find both cases unacceptable. We have not such a dearth of arbitrators that we need to keep those who make poor decisions. ÷seresin 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
4. I dont really see the point of this segregation, but I echo Awadewit's sentiments. We really can't do anything when an admin misuses the tools or an arb screws up, 99% of the time; it's up to the offending party. Resigning sends a message and I think preserves integrity all around. I'm not expecting Cas to cave due to pressure here, though, that defeats the purpose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
5. I'm extremely torn on this one. On the one hand, Casliber, I have the utmost respect for your content contributions and have, until now, had an equal amount of respect for your leadership capabilities and ability to make wise decisions. I believe it well within reason that, as a friend and an Arbcom member, you would first seek to resolve this situation privately; however, once Law ran for RfA that should have been the point where enough was enough. By keeping silent, you assisted a banned editor in evading a sanction that your predecessors imposed. If you disagreed with the sanction, it would have been perfectly appropriate to bring that to the attention of the other members of the committee for reconsideration, but you did not. If I ran the world (or at least the wiki), all administrators who knew about this blatant breach of Arbcom sanctions and did nothing would be immediately desysopped, and, according to the penalties set out in WP:SOCK, the nine-month ban for Law/the_undertow would be restarted, with periodic checks for other socks. And that means that I must also call for your resignation, although it pains me to do so. I'm very sorry that you were torn between the needs of a friend and the duties of your position here; that must have been an awful position for you. Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Casliber, I'm disappointed that you have to ask, and that you're putting people in the position of requesting your resignation. You're a member of a committee that routinely desysops and bans people for violating previous bans. You can't be a member of that committee if you're going desysop some of them, but actively cover up for others. It was you who deleted The undertow's user and talk pages on May 26, 2009—eight months after Law started editing, and one month after he became an admin—thereby making it harder for non-admins to follow the trail. I don't know whether you deleted these before you knew he had returned with another account, but what is clear is that you didn't undelete them when you knew he was back, or ask someone else to. This edges closer to active collusion than passive knowledge. If you don't resign, the rest of the commmittee, and more importantly the idea of the commmittee, will be undermined. SlimVirgin 03:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
7. I couldn't care less about what you knew or didn't know in this instance, but I still think you should resign because I don't approve of your general conduct as an arbitrator. Everyking (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
8. This at odds with my earlier statement, but after reading more about the situation than just your apology I am suddenly a lot less willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. And asking for feedback is cop-out.--BirgitteSB 05:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) And your apology probably qualifies a white wash as well. You should have written towards people who were coming in cold not spinning your part in the best light. I know I feel misled by it.--BirgitteSB 05:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
9. I think this pretty ordinary. The only reason Casliber is apologising is because Law/The Undertow has been busted. As a person entrusted by the project with Checkuser and Oversight, it is not just unacceptable that s/he had this information but failed to disclose it, rather it is disgraceful and points to a serious character flaw. S/he should resign all positions of responsibility or be deprived of them. Following that Casliber should be banned without the possibility of return. The only other question Casliber has to answer is what else has s/he been concealing from the Community? Crafty (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Prefer not to jump straight to numbered comments in segregated sections

• Stick around. Resignation/defenestration should be for a pattern of poor behavior, not for one mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I just structured this for ease of navigation and getting numbers. I am not up to reading reams of text today, believe me :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't be making a quick decision today anyway; if nothing else, this forces you to wait to make a decision until you are up to reading reams of text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • True, I wasn't planning on closing this in 6 hours though, and it's a bit out of my hands really and up to the community. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is a really substantial difference between knowing about a problem while trying to resolve it quietly and being actively deceptive; this issue has editors in both categories, and I think its clear that Casliber is in the first. I'm a little conflicted about the question of resignation, though, because I am truly surprised to find that an arbitrator knew about this and did not find a way to resolve it. It's less than I expect from arbitrators, frankly. On the other hand, I think Casliber has been an eminently reasonable and trustworthy arbitrator in every other respect and he's a quite likable guy - and I've been told that there are other administrators who ArbCom knows are returned banned or desysopped users, and no action has been taken. So on balance, I won't call for Casliber's resignation but I can't argue against it either. Nathan 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You've been told there are other administrators who ArbCom knows are returned banned or desysopped users? Could you please tell whoever told you this to contact ArbCom at the mailing list address, so that we can sort this out and not have this accusation hanging over us that we know more than we actually know. Individuals (as in Casliber's case) may be aware of some things, or have some suspicions, or may discuss things with other functionaries and checkusers, but that is a far cry from the committee as a whole being aware of things like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I understood Nathan's statement to refer to individuals. Are the other members of arb com prepared to state whether or not they know of other admins in this situation and who they are? DGG ( talk )

My comment describes what informed my decision not to come down either way; if I had actionable information, I'd have posted it. The folks who do have it can post it or not, whether to do so is not my call. Nathan 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Cas, something stands out at me in your apology. You say you told the committee you knew yesterday, but Sandstein posted the RFAR 10 days ago. Why the delay? Thatcher 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I procrastinated. I am quite busy IRL and there was other arb stuff needed doing. I sat and looked that the Sandstein RFAR and realised I couldn't honestly post anything without some misrepresentation so began seriously thinking about it, but distracted by higher priorities elsewhere. Once the identities came to the attention of the committee, I thought I just better do some explaining. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The committee was alerted to the fact that Law=The undertow via another source, about 36 hours ago. While it was being discussed within the committee, Cas indicated that he was aware of this. John Vandenberg 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• If Law's representations are accurate, his ban was technically flawed and the Committee explicitly gave him a right of appeal at the time when it enacted the original remedy. Yet although (apparently) arbitrators agreed that decision was flawed they refused to reinstate his editing privileges when he submitted his request. I currently know of five different requests and appeals, submitted privately, which the Committee has failed to act upon for weeks or (in most cases) months. These haven't been rejected; they're stuck in limbo. People sometimes resort to bad judgment calls when profoundly frustrated by months inaction. One of them is a banned editor (I won't give away the userame) who hasn't socked but is near the end of his tether. Privately he's declared a deadline after which he will give up on formal process and resume editing anyway. I've been entreating him to reconsider, but when the process and its custodians themselves make so little endeavor at fairness my words ring hollow. Apologies aren't necessary but corrective action would help. What are you doing, as an arbitrator, to fix these problems? Durova 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't really the place to discuss this (this section is really about Casliber's actions or inactions). What I would suggest here is that appeals should be publicly listed (just by appeal number if the appellants wish to remain anonymous) and the arbitrator(s) tasked with dealing with those appeals should be listed there as well. That way the delays in the process can be identified and acted upon. But as I am currently responsible for a long delay in a case being heard (an actual arbitration case, not an appeal), I should go and deal with that now. I suggest discussions of arbitrator workload and time management (and questions of how the community can help track this) be moved elsewhere. Maybe WT:ARBCOM? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Where else would be the place? Only one of those five instances is a ban appeal. I'm not even at liberty to discuss some of the others with the Committee via email because the petitioners confided privately. Suffice it to say that in less than half a year two different arbitrators have admitted to looking the other way at admin socking and a third arbitrator had to step down because he himself was an undisclosed sock of a desysopped user. It is very disheartening to see this unfold yet again, and to watch politically connected individuals receive expedited attention while others vanish into a black hole. Hardly anyone has the courage to call that spade a spade, but it does get noticed. It has a terrible effect on morale. Durova 01:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I said WT:ARBCOM, didn't I? This section is about Casliber's apology, not the backlog in ban appeals. What I would suggest is that you get the five people concerned to e-mail ArbCom asking for an update on their appeals. I will personally look out for those e-mails and give them an update on what is happening. I can't promise a date for when their appeals will be heard, because I'm not dealing with appeals at the moment (BASC duty is rotated for a reason), but I will chase things up for those people and anyone else who is reading this and e-mails for an update. But please don't let this subthread overwhelm this section. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, right. Corrective action means more than apology. It comes as a surprise that you consider it off topic. Durova 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I would generally just echo what Nathan says above (except for the "I've been told..." bit, 'cos I haven't :) I like Casliber and think he's a great content editor and great arbitrator but I'm greatly disturbed that an arb would sit by while a returning and not uncontroversial editor would say "I came from another wiki" in their RFA. I don't understand these supposed "friends" of TU, friends are the ones who sit you down and give you the straight goods, not the ones who sit in the car while you're driving drunk. I'd like to see Cas stay on but this saddens me. I also makes me wonder exactly how many dancing skeletons are still in the Arb closet. Franamax (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sigh. This is not quite resignable, IMHO, but it comes close. Letting someone with the obvious emotional instability of the undertow get through RFA again was a really bad decision that was inevitably going to create drama, because this guy is just not stable. I've been around long enough to remember that he yoyos all over the place. We can't have people like this with sysop buttons. He should have been stopped at the RFA stage, if not well before: Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and all that. Nobody expects arbitrators to be flawless, heaven knows, but not again, please? Moreschi (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Although it was a lapse, the lapse was shared by a number of administrators who took a more active role in promoting Law to adminship despite knowing it was a sock account. There isn't even a consensus, or admission by those who did it, that this was wrong. Without knowing what it is that got The undertow banned in the first place it's hard to assess the gravity of their collective poor judgment: were they favoring a friend? Shielding rulebreaking by an inner circle of privileged editors? Acting out ofor opposition to the Arbcom remedies? Advancing one faction over another? On the face of it, blocks and bans are one of the most serious duties of administrators, block/ban-evading socks are one of the greatest sources of disruption, and fake admin accounts are a significant threat to the project. Looking the other way, or worse, facilitating breaking the most important rules when one feels like it, is fundamentally inconsistent with the duties of an administrator. That sends a bad message to nonadmins too regarding the importance of rules and the fairness of admins. I think we need to look at the larger issue and get a consensus first that facilitating others is a violation of a policy violation, socking in particular, is itself a policy violation. That's probably worth an Arbcom case, rooting out those responsible. That's not what Casliber did, though; Casliber merely looked the other way, and waited a little longer than necessary to disclose the conflict of interest in being asked to rule on the behavior of an editor who was secretly known by Casliber to be a sock. That's not ideal, but I don't see it as getting to the heart of an Arbcom member's duties. Arbcom is already overworked and needs all the help it can get. Too many are resigning or going inactive. The next Arbcom election is the best time to decide: Casliber can decide whether to run again, and the community can say whether it remains confident. Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This guy is making a lot of sense. In particular, I think that GlassCobra (talk · contribs) making what was essentially a nomination that lied by omission was really going way beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Moreschi (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there evidence that GlassCobra knew he was nominating the sock of a blocked user? That's a serious charge.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • For full disclosure: Yes, I was aware that The_undertow and Law are the same person. I have fairly frequent contact with him and am aware of his personal situation. After he created the Law account, we had a long discussion about his approach to Misplaced Pages and what he thought his place was. He stated his desire to leave behind his clouded past and get a fresh start, with Law as his only account, and I determined that I felt sufficiently comfortable to place my trust in him once again by nominating him. I did purposefully leave out any mention of The_undertow in his RfA nomination; I wanted editors to judge him solely by his actions and edits as Law. I would also like to reaffirm my trust in this editor and call attention to his overwhelmingly positive track record as Law; he has written quality articles, collaborated peacefully with other editors, and used the tools in a manner that is a net positive to this project. It is unfortunate that his identity was revealed this way, and I take this opportunity to note my extreme displeasure with the actions and behavior of the other editors involved in leaking the information. As Georgewilliamherbert has noted, the ArbCom has been aware of other blocked editors contributing under new names in the past. We have precedent of blocked users under new names having friends mentor them and supervise their edits, and some have come full circle to gain the tools themselves. It is quite a mystery to me why this particular instance seems to be generating such a dramastorm. GlassCobra 05:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I very much agree with you that we need to reach some kind of community consensus on whether or not it is acceptable for administrators especially to ignore disruptive socking (and per WP:SOCK, this case was disruptive). I'm frankly appalled that so many of those who knew about this case think there was nothing wrong with either their socking or their silence. At least Cas was trying to resolve the situation in the background. Karanacs (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, I find that amazing too. A stack of administrators knew about this the whole time - some supported his RfA as if he were entirely new to them, one nominated him, others either remained silent or participated as though he were new... That many people find this to be completely acceptable... I just find that hard to understand. Nathan 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is up to Casliber to decide based solely on the dictates of his own conscience. The decision should not be based on views of the small cross-section of editors who will respond here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, hopefully it is larger than a smidgen of the community. My conscience feels bad but I still feel I have a lot to offer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• First we must demand integrity of ourselves then we must demand from our friends and then we can demand from the community. That is demand not ask. Casliber if the primary reason behind this tardy revelation is because you were unable bite the bullet and place the demands of integrity over those of friendship, then you should resign. If you had real reason to believe the issue was being taken care of and were blind-sided when those plans fell through, then stick around but calibrate your judgment accordingly. Only you can honestly judge yourself in this, we don't have good enough information to decide for you.--BirgitteSB 02:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Fff! Gah! Alt accounts should be piled in the Marianna Trench and nuked. Even the joke ones. Wasted time not spent improving content. Name changes too unless in cases of stalking or some such. This stupid online skulduggery that is employed just because it can be has repercussions. It is inherently dishonest and allows users to manipulate the good faith of users while promoting confusion to perennially clueless editors like me. This site can't go a week without someone being de-masked as a sock of someone else. Christ. Do what you want to do Casliber. You'll catch shit either way. Either learn how to edit without being an ArbCom member or suck up the guilt and own your mistake and say "Yeah, I did that. Won't do it again. So what?" You'll be Misplaced Pages Review's punching bag for a while til the next sock is uncovered and they move on to something else tawdry. --Moni3 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Is this behavior to be chastised, or commended? We have a long history of problem users reforming and returning (not the rule, but there are plenty of exceptions who were indef'ed or banned for a year who are now productive cooperative editors). We have tended to look the other way if the returned user self-identified. In this case they were outed by someone else, and not given the chance to come to that decision on their own. Casliber has admitted to working with them to convince them to make the admission. I don't know what the right answers are here - but resignation is premature. I think I would have done something different, but I think I want an arbcom whose members balance protecting the community and in the rare case where it's actually possible, rehabilitating those who were abusers in the past. I don't know that this was entirely the right thing to do, but it clearly wasn't wrong (morally, corrupt, failure of judgement) either. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• To SV, the deletion was by request for a RL concern voiced by The Undertow (actually) unrelated to Misplaced Pages. I had not thought of it in relation to this until yesterday, when yeah it didn't look good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you know when you deleted those pages that he was back as Law? SlimVirgin 04:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Yes. As I have said, I was hoping he'd resign the Law account or come clean himself at some point. I was not thinking about the trail WRT onwiki investigations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that, as a member of the ArbCom, you deleted the user and talk page of an editor under an ArbCom ban, who you knew was not only back editing, but who had gained another admin account? Cas, please resign and save everyone a lot of trouble. This can't be justified. SlimVirgin 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that user talk pages were not normally deleted. The user in this case certainly didn't vanish. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be undeleted?   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

@SV I wouldn't say it is entirely unjustifiable. I know of at least five incidents in the past when arbcom members knew of improper alt account usage and did nothing. All five cases are long since resolved, but I can't exactly hold Casliber to a higher standard than the community has held members in the past, at least without saying "we are raising the standard for future actions". MBisanz 04:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Those of us who work or have worked in management positions know that if you give people over whom you exercise some authority leeway with regards to the rules, sooner or later it will come back to bite you. The lesson here is, if you're in a management position, and en.Misplaced Pages arbitrators are in "management", then it's probably safer to abide by the letter of the law in all cases. That's not a very pleasant position to have to be in, but it is safer. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) yeah, big time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• For several months, you were aware that an editor was directly violating an ArbCom-imposed ban. You did not report the issue to the community as a whole, nor to your fellow Arbitrators, on the assumption that you might be able to encourage the editor to reform. You remained silent – for months – even after you found that the account had been granted adminship on the basis of an RfA containing a number of barefaced lies. You only came clean to your fellow Arbitrators after the matter had been reported to them by someone else. In the Abd/WMC case, you (along with your fellow Arbs) endorsed a principle about the importance of administrators "avoiding apparent impropriety" in their actions. Can you reconcile your own conduct with that principle? How does it reflect on the role and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee if one of its members unilaterally and secretly opts to disregard the Committee's own remedies? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to work something out with minimum drama, which unfortunately wasn't successful. I was trying to be pragmatic. I was also aware of the circumstances behind the sanctions (and some of the factors at the time) and was satisfied then they wouldn't recur. Juggling pragmatism and principles can be tricky. Nonetheless, I have made the statement indicating my apology for the slip-up and noting the feedback. (hence the options above) We're all human and we've all made mistakes, expecting anyone to be perfect is an unattainable ideal. I have taken this view in cases and ban appeals as well. As I said, if the consensus is I should go, I will go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it speaks volumes that you either didn't think to, or felt you were unable to, trust your fellow Arbitrators to assist you with this situation. It's not entirely clear to me why a minimum-drama, pragmatic solution could not be arrived at through consultation with the Committee, nor why you chose to go it alone and ignore the Committee's remedy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is 'pragmatic to take care of things immediately before they blow out of all proportion rather and than stalling for a easier option. Stop digging.--BirgitteSB 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)