Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tznkai (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 19 July 2009 (→Declassification of ArbCom documents). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:38, 19 July 2009 by Tznkai (talk | contribs) (→Declassification of ArbCom documents)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:

requesting arbitration: WP:A/R
discussing finalised decisions of the committee: WT:ACN
discussing pending decisions: find the proceedings page at Template:Casenav
discussing the process of arbitration: WT:A/R

Shortcuts

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

WT:AC Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Predeciding the Durova case

Taking a bold step and collapsing. Too often, Wikipedians raise issues of principle as if they were bargaining chips--things to remind others of when one finds it convenient for them to act a certain way. Real principle is what guides one's own actions in decisions that are inconvenient but right.

This thread was started in violation of policy: WP:LINKVIO to be exact. That is a policy I've acted upon many times before, and the right thing to do is to act upon it uniformly. If he exposed a greater wrong, I was the only one harmed by it. So surely I cannot be accused of coverup in a situation where exposure would only help me. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences.

Over the last few years people have confided in me in situations where they were unsure whether to trust the Committee's confidentiality: these people were deciding whether to blow the whistle on improper action by Wikipedians in high places; a few had been subject to offsite harassment; a small number even feared for their livelihoods. An indispensable part of ArbCom's mission is to be a venue where people in those situations can take legitimate issues.

The current Committee is almost entirely composed of different people from 2007; this is being reviewed in good hands. My request to the community is to exercise discretion and dignity. If broader questions remain after this instance is handled, please raise those questions then. Both the questions and the responses are likely to be wiser that way. Durova 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again the iron fist inside the velvet glove eh Durova:) But I will agree with you that dredging up this old muck accomplishes nothing. Those highly regretable 2007 events occurred under what I refer to as The Fred Bauder Court. At that time its main goal was to Get Giano, for reasons both political and personal. They needed a causus and leaking classified info (Talking about Fight Club:) provided them with as good a reason as any. You were simply collateral damage- An accptable casualty and an expendable cog. And thus an ill considered, 75 minute block perminately stains your otherwise commendable record of service. It is also a prime example of why Smoke-filled rooms, especially when they are off-wiki, are bad things. Until you learn the lesson that greater transparency is not the disease but the cure, I fear you will not find redemption.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova helped me with an issue when I had concerns of harassment. I had approached her in offsite communication; the matter could not have been handled onsite. I respect her decision to risk the outcome of her own appeal, in order to preserve this level of trust with others. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The rest of this enlightening discussion can be found here--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how Durova blanking a discussion critical of the Committee's coordinator would "risk the outcome of her own appeal." Her specious appeal to WP:LINKVIO has foreclosed a conversation which can only have deeply uncomfortable for Mr. Lokshin; shall she now go unrewarded?70.90.183.122 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
I've just been sent (redacted by Durova per WP:LINKVIO) link with what appears to be arbitrators meatpuppeting to get the arbcom case on Durova accepted. Basically, Kirill Lokshin, arbcom co-ordinator is asking for someone to bring the case forward so he can accept it, and ex-arb Dmcdevit is agreeing to with the proviso that the case is accepted quickly so that it will "deflect the inevitable drama coming way". This is a fairly old case, though its effects are still felt. The point here is that every single case brought forward to ArbCom no has no/little integrity, when we have shenanigans like that going on behind our backs. How do we know that arbitrators aren't meatpuppeting each other to accept/decline cases according to their own preference? It is concerning that the "co-ordinator" of Arbcom, Kirill Lokshin is involved with this, and it makes me wonder how frequently this goes on. It is a violation of arbitration policy, point number 6 when arbitrators are being requested to rule. Like any government system, there is always going to be corruption of some sort, it seems. Majorly talk 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Use of words like "corruption" is unhelpful. Beyond that, I was not an arbitrator when the Durova case was decided, so I can't comment on what took place internally on the committee at that time, beyond noting that may have been inevitable that this particular dispute would have come before the ArbCom in some form. Instead, I will respond with a general process question. All of us as arbitrators are also editors and administrators and are frequently aware of issues that are percolating within the community. Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC) It is interesting to note that of the parties involved in that discussion, only Kirill remains as an active Arb. Plus he was a mere freshman Arb at the time, though now he's a senior. I don't see why he should be singled out for that reason. Especially since he had the least to say in the matter. Of course sunlight is the best disinfectant for these sorts of things. Which seems to be the direction the committee and the community are moving towards. Away from off-wiki sooper sekret mailing lists and the Don't talk about Fight Club mentality:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I would like to note that the Arbitration Committee and their clerks attract users that are interested in dispute resolution, have high dedication to the project, and ideally, the cream of that crop is taken in. Restricting that group from being proactive in addressing issues is not unlike tying both hands behind our collective backs. More over, as much as I appreciate transparency, I appreciate sensible and proactive actions more.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Nobody's hands are tied behind their backs. It's really very simple: you can be a litigant, or you can be a judge, but you can't be both at the same time. Jehochman 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Majorly, other aspects of this case are already under discussion by the Arbitration Committee, following a submission made recently. What you have posted will be taken into consideration in that discussion. Could you please remove the link you have placed above and e-mail it to us, and we can then confirm whether or not what you are linking to is an accurate copy of the discussions that took place at the time, and look at the surrounding context for that discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Hi Majorly, would you consider reverting your post? Having once objected to the publication of private correspondence, I am ethically bound to request that all such matters be handled upon the same principle. I was already in possession of that log. If it was your wish to be chivalrous, please respect my wish to treat other people with dignity. Durova 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Leave the post. The private correspondence is published off-wiki. It will not go away and any futile attempts to suppress the evidence will just foment more drama. If somebody thinks the evidence is fraudulent, let them say so plainly, rather than by innuendo. Jehochman 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Kirill's post below renders parts of my post above superfluous, but my main point stands. If people do come into possession of 'leaked' correspondence like this, there should be a better way to handle it, if only because documents can be altered before they are leaked. In this case, the leak had the potential to disrupt and delay an ongoing (June and July 2009) discussion about that case (i.e. the timing was incredibly poor). Another point still stands: there are other participants in that discussion who may still have expected some degree of confidentiality to be observed. They may still request that the link Majorly has provided be removed - in my view, the summmary Majorly gives following the link, in combination with Kirill's answer, is sufficient, and the link should be removed, though if all those who took part are willing to see the correspondence published, in the interests of transparency, then it should be officially published, not leaked out bit by bit. The final point I want to make is that of context. From my past few months experience on the arbitration mailing list, there will have been a lot more discussion both on-wiki and off-wiki that would put the e-mail exchange in question in its full context (who here, for example, remembers all the discussions that took place at the time?). My concern here is that future leaks should not be taken at face value until the accuracy is confirmed, and the context in which e-mails were written can be assessed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm rather surprised that, of all the things which might be questioned, this one has come up. To address, first, the question of policy: the arbitration policy requires only that the Committee be requested to rule; no restrictions are placed on who may make such a request, or why they might be motivated to do so. If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted. The letter of the arbitration policy was, indeed, met by Dominic's request. If you wish to consider the spirit of the policy, on the other hand, I will say that I do not believe it was the intent of those who wrote it to force us to be willfully blind to obvious problems merely because nobody had yet filed the proper paperwork. Yes, we did desire that a case be brought—but we did so because the community was being torn apart by strife caused by an obviously (and admittedly) mistaken block. If the community truly believes that it would be better for us to sit on our hands while the project burns around us, then so be it; but I cannot believe that we would be expected to have so little care for the health of the project, and I do not think we can be blamed for believing that a judgment from the Committee would be the best way to restore peace and resolve the conflict. It is quite easy to scorn a decision in hindsight; but I continue to believe that we made the best decision we could have under the circumstances as they stood at the time, even if our methods were somewhat unorthodox. As for the allegation that we "predecided" the case itself, which you allude to by your choice of header: by the time the case opened, the facts of the situation were not under any reasonable doubt; the entire narrative had been extensively (too extensively, even) aired across a variety of venues over the preceding days, and the only question left to examine was how we should move forward. Were a similar situation to come before us now, we could simply rule on it with a summary motion, as we have done with a number of cases; but, in late 2007, we simply did not have such a method developed, and were thus forced to continue with a full case despite there being no real need for one. I do not think it was unreasonable for us to begin discussing the content of the decision at the time we did, given that the case had been accepted and that there was no argument as to the facts of the matter. We are called upon to be fair, not blind. If there are any other questions or concerns about this matter, or my role in in in particular, I would welcome them, either here or in another forum. Kirill 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC) The conduct was improper, and you should do something about it, Kirill. Discussing a case and deciding how it should turn out beforehand is just plain wrong. I was an aggrieved party in that matter, even though I escaped the attempted railroading. At the time I sent a scathing email to the committee about this case, detailing in particular that the prosecuting party was in on the deliberations via the ArbCom mailing list. Now I see that there was communication between the committee and the prosecutor egging him on beforehand. If administrators are held to higher standards, arbitrators need to be held to even higher standards of ethical conduct. That expectation was not met here. Jehochman 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with an arbitrator filing a request for arbitration, as long as they don't discuss it beforehand with the committee members who will be reviewing the case, and they fully recuse from the deliberations, including removing themselves from the mailing list threads that discuss the case. My objection here is to 1/ the predetermination of the result, 2/ there being an agreement to handle the case so swiftly that time was not even allowed for the accused to present their evidence, and 3/ several parties did not recuse when they were in on bringing the case. Jehochman 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC) As I've stated above, the facts of the matter had ceased to be in dispute long before the case was filed or accepted. It is unreasonable, I think, to say that we had already decided the outcome when there was, in very real terms, nothing left to decide; the case was, in some sense, merely an exercise in setting obvious truths on paper. Or do you honestly believe that there could conceivably have been some defense presented, or some evidence produced, that would have disproved those facts? Fairness does not require ignoring the obvious, nor maintaining a false pretense of uncertainty long past the point where those at fault have already admitted their actions. I apologize for the unorthodox way this case was brought before the Committee, and for the haste with which it was handled; neither of these aspects were ideal, and we have collectively taken steps to prevent their recurrence. I remain convinced, however, that the path we chose at the time was the best of the bad ones presented to us. There was no good way of resolving the strife and healing the rift within the community at that point; all we could do was to try and end the conflict as quickly as possible, and hope that people would eventually forgive and forget. If the verdict, in hindsight, is that we chose poorly, so be it; but do you believe that, knowing what we did under the circumstances, we could have found a better approach? Kirill 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I don't think the case resolved anything. Durova was requesting time to present her side of the story. As the end approached I told her that the decision appeared to have already been decided, as you have here confirmed. At that point she resigned. It was her action that ended the drama, not the Committee's. You should thank her. I am glad you now see that the matter was handled poorly by the Committee. It was a show trial. For the future, if you accept a case you need to accept it with an open mind and allow all parties a fair chance to present their evidence and ideas. Your acknowledgment satisfies my concerns. You should ask Durova what steps may be necessary to satisfy hers. Jehochman 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Kirill Lokshin wrote, "If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted." No one is saying that Dmcdevit couldn't request a case because he is a former arbitrator - though in light of the collusion on display here, such a rule might be a very good idea! It seems to me that the real issue here is than he pretended on-wiki to request one on his own accord, but actually was just responding to Kirill's solicitation, while Kirill's "accept" didn’t mention the fact that he was accepting his own request, laundered through Dmcdevit. Though here Kirill calls it "unorthodox," in private, he's characterized such solicitations as an ArbCom tradition. Since Kirill maintains that this is a legitimate method of doing business, I wonder if he would be willing to provide a full list of case requests which were proxied by the Arbitrators?70.90.183.122 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I can't recall ever having referred to the events that took place in this case, or anything like them, as a tradition, and I don't think there's any conceivable reason to consider them as such; off the top of my head, I cannot remember any other case that was brought about in a similar way. The Matthew Hoffman case was brought by a sitting arbitrator, and the Orangemarlin fiasco last year happened entirely sua sponte to begin with; but neither of those is really the same. (Not that something being a "tradition" would be any indication that it's a good way of doing things, in any case. Having former arbitrators on arbcom-l was a tradition for years, for example, and yet something we've chosen to do away with.) The scenario that played itself out in the Durova case was extraordinary in a number of ways, and those of us on the Committee at the time agonized considerably over how we could best help resolve the conflict, presented as we were with a number of choices, none of which were truly good ones. We may, indeed, have acted too directly, or too forcefully; but it is easy to condemn when one has the benefit of hindsight. I have apologized for the approach we took in bringing this case about, and for our haste in trying to resolve it; and I regret that we may have inadvertently made worse a situation which we were trying to make better. I can offer no apology for doing my best to carry out my duties as an arbitrator for the benefit of the project, or for trying to resolve a conflict rather than standing idly by. Kirill 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. Can you look into who's been leaking private correspondence from the ArbCom mailing list? It is going to discourage people from writing to ArbCom about sensistive matters if they feel their correspondence may be published afterwards without their permission. Jehochman 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) The evidence we have points to a leak of old list archives sometime late last year. We have been unable, as yet, to determine who was responsible; in the absence of any substantive evidence, the matter remains firmly in the realm of speculation . We have, however, taken certain steps to tighten security, and we believe that the arbcom-l list is currently secure. Kirill 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) presumably you believed that before as well? ;-) - something that I've been curious about though - do you actually know who each other are? (have you identified to each other, as well as to the foundation?) - finally, (really just to Kirill) - what do you think about some sort of a wiki FoI policy? Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) There isn't necessarily a formal identification process internal to ArbCom, but, informally, I think everyone's identity is known by some or all of the other arbitrators. As far as FoI and similar things go: I suggested, at one point, that we "de-classify" anything in the arbcom-l archives that doesn't actually contain private information some fixed period (e.g. 3 years) after the discussions in question. Unfortunately, it's not always clear what is or isn't private, and we don't really have the manpower to sort through thousands of old emails carefully. Some sort of FoI-like "release after inquiry" approach might be feasible, at least in theory; but I'm not sure how we could set it up in practice. It's something that should probably be discussed further at some point. Kirill 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Could we please publish a direction to users that the ArbCom list, while generally confidential, does occasionally suffer leaks, and that any truly sensistive matter should be directed to WP:OTRS instead? The general rule should be don't write anything to ArbCom that you wouldn't want to see published. Jehochman 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Without ignoring your concern about confidentiality, Jehochman, the overwhelming majority of email messages that are directed to Arbcom-L involve something that is uniquely within the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and sending the same material to OTRS will most likely result in OTRS admins referring the matter to Arbcom (I assume with the permission of the sender) or being unable to take action on it. To be honest, if someone is going to leak private mailing list information, there's no reason to think they won't also leak private OTRS information. Risker (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC) A few posts above, Jehochman suggests that Kirill Lokshin contact me to ask what steps may be necessary to satisfy my concerns. Jehochman himself has not contacted me regarding what my concerns are, his representations are unreliable, and the best thing Jehochman could do to satisfy me is to avoid all further involvement in this matter. Durova 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) doesn't he just say that they should ask you? am I missing something? Your post sounds a bit grumbly, but I can't work out why.... /me scratches head and looks confused (no jokes about not being able to tell the difference, thank you very much.......). Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I've just been sent (redacted by Durova per WP:LINKVIO) link with what appears to be arbitrators meatpuppeting to get the arbcom case on Durova accepted. Basically, Kirill Lokshin, arbcom co-ordinator is asking for someone to bring the case forward so he can accept it, and ex-arb Dmcdevit is agreeing to with the proviso that the case is accepted quickly so that it will "deflect the inevitable drama coming way".

This is a fairly old case, though its effects are still felt. The point here is that every single case brought forward to ArbCom no has no/little integrity, when we have shenanigans like that going on behind our backs. How do we know that arbitrators aren't meatpuppeting each other to accept/decline cases according to their own preference? It is concerning that the "co-ordinator" of Arbcom, Kirill Lokshin is involved with this, and it makes me wonder how frequently this goes on. It is a violation of arbitration policy, point number 6 when arbitrators are being requested to rule. Like any government system, there is always going to be corruption of some sort, it seems. Majorly talk 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of words like "corruption" is unhelpful. Beyond that, I was not an arbitrator when the Durova case was decided, so I can't comment on what took place internally on the committee at that time, beyond noting that may have been inevitable that this particular dispute would have come before the ArbCom in some form. Instead, I will respond with a general process question. All of us as arbitrators are also editors and administrators and are frequently aware of issues that are percolating within the community. Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that of the parties involved in that discussion, only Kirill remains as an active Arb. Plus he was a mere freshman Arb at the time, though now he's a senior. I don't see why he should be singled out for that reason. Especially since he had the least to say in the matter. Of course sunlight is the best disinfectant for these sorts of things. Which seems to be the direction the committee and the community are moving towards. Away from off-wiki sooper sekret mailing lists and the Don't talk about Fight Club mentality:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that the Arbitration Committee and their clerks attract users that are interested in dispute resolution, have high dedication to the project, and ideally, the cream of that crop is taken in. Restricting that group from being proactive in addressing issues is not unlike tying both hands behind our collective backs. More over, as much as I appreciate transparency, I appreciate sensible and proactive actions more.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's hands are tied behind their backs. It's really very simple: you can be a litigant, or you can be a judge, but you can't be both at the same time. Jehochman 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, other aspects of this case are already under discussion by the Arbitration Committee, following a submission made recently. What you have posted will be taken into consideration in that discussion. Could you please remove the link you have placed above and e-mail it to us, and we can then confirm whether or not what you are linking to is an accurate copy of the discussions that took place at the time, and look at the surrounding context for that discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Majorly, would you consider reverting your post? Having once objected to the publication of private correspondence, I am ethically bound to request that all such matters be handled upon the same principle. I was already in possession of that log. If it was your wish to be chivalrous, please respect my wish to treat other people with dignity. Durova 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave the post. The private correspondence is published off-wiki. It will not go away and any futile attempts to suppress the evidence will just foment more drama. If somebody thinks the evidence is fraudulent, let them say so plainly, rather than by innuendo. Jehochman 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill's post below renders parts of my post above superfluous, but my main point stands. If people do come into possession of 'leaked' correspondence like this, there should be a better way to handle it, if only because documents can be altered before they are leaked. In this case, the leak had the potential to disrupt and delay an ongoing (June and July 2009) discussion about that case (i.e. the timing was incredibly poor). Another point still stands: there are other participants in that discussion who may still have expected some degree of confidentiality to be observed. They may still request that the link Majorly has provided be removed - in my view, the summmary Majorly gives following the link, in combination with Kirill's answer, is sufficient, and the link should be removed, though if all those who took part are willing to see the correspondence published, in the interests of transparency, then it should be officially published, not leaked out bit by bit. The final point I want to make is that of context. From my past few months experience on the arbitration mailing list, there will have been a lot more discussion both on-wiki and off-wiki that would put the e-mail exchange in question in its full context (who here, for example, remembers all the discussions that took place at the time?). My concern here is that future leaks should not be taken at face value until the accuracy is confirmed, and the context in which e-mails were written can be assessed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that, of all the things which might be questioned, this one has come up.

To address, first, the question of policy: the arbitration policy requires only that the Committee be requested to rule; no restrictions are placed on who may make such a request, or why they might be motivated to do so. If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted. The letter of the arbitration policy was, indeed, met by Dominic's request.

If you wish to consider the spirit of the policy, on the other hand, I will say that I do not believe it was the intent of those who wrote it to force us to be willfully blind to obvious problems merely because nobody had yet filed the proper paperwork. Yes, we did desire that a case be brought—but we did so because the community was being torn apart by strife caused by an obviously (and admittedly) mistaken block. If the community truly believes that it would be better for us to sit on our hands while the project burns around us, then so be it; but I cannot believe that we would be expected to have so little care for the health of the project, and I do not think we can be blamed for believing that a judgment from the Committee would be the best way to restore peace and resolve the conflict. It is quite easy to scorn a decision in hindsight; but I continue to believe that we made the best decision we could have under the circumstances as they stood at the time, even if our methods were somewhat unorthodox.

As for the allegation that we "predecided" the case itself, which you allude to by your choice of header: by the time the case opened, the facts of the situation were not under any reasonable doubt; the entire narrative had been extensively (too extensively, even) aired across a variety of venues over the preceding days, and the only question left to examine was how we should move forward. Were a similar situation to come before us now, we could simply rule on it with a summary motion, as we have done with a number of cases; but, in late 2007, we simply did not have such a method developed, and were thus forced to continue with a full case despite there being no real need for one. I do not think it was unreasonable for us to begin discussing the content of the decision at the time we did, given that the case had been accepted and that there was no argument as to the facts of the matter. We are called upon to be fair, not blind.

If there are any other questions or concerns about this matter, or my role in in in particular, I would welcome them, either here or in another forum. Kirill 01:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The conduct was improper, and you should do something about it, Kirill. Discussing a case and deciding how it should turn out beforehand is just plain wrong. I was an aggrieved party in that matter, even though I escaped the attempted railroading. At the time I sent a scathing email to the committee about this case, detailing in particular that the prosecuting party was in on the deliberations via the ArbCom mailing list. Now I see that there was communication between the committee and the prosecutor egging him on beforehand. If administrators are held to higher standards, arbitrators need to be held to even higher standards of ethical conduct. That expectation was not met here. Jehochman 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with an arbitrator filing a request for arbitration, as long as they don't discuss it beforehand with the committee members who will be reviewing the case, and they fully recuse from the deliberations, including removing themselves from the mailing list threads that discuss the case. My objection here is to 1/ the predetermination of the result, 2/ there being an agreement to handle the case so swiftly that time was not even allowed for the accused to present their evidence, and 3/ several parties did not recuse when they were in on bringing the case. Jehochman 12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the facts of the matter had ceased to be in dispute long before the case was filed or accepted. It is unreasonable, I think, to say that we had already decided the outcome when there was, in very real terms, nothing left to decide; the case was, in some sense, merely an exercise in setting obvious truths on paper. Or do you honestly believe that there could conceivably have been some defense presented, or some evidence produced, that would have disproved those facts? Fairness does not require ignoring the obvious, nor maintaining a false pretense of uncertainty long past the point where those at fault have already admitted their actions.

I apologize for the unorthodox way this case was brought before the Committee, and for the haste with which it was handled; neither of these aspects were ideal, and we have collectively taken steps to prevent their recurrence. I remain convinced, however, that the path we chose at the time was the best of the bad ones presented to us. There was no good way of resolving the strife and healing the rift within the community at that point; all we could do was to try and end the conflict as quickly as possible, and hope that people would eventually forgive and forget. If the verdict, in hindsight, is that we chose poorly, so be it; but do you believe that, knowing what we did under the circumstances, we could have found a better approach? Kirill 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the case resolved anything. Durova was requesting time to present her side of the story. As the end approached I told her that the decision appeared to have already been decided, as you have here confirmed. At that point she resigned. It was her action that ended the drama, not the Committee's. You should thank her. I am glad you now see that the matter was handled poorly by the Committee. It was a show trial. For the future, if you accept a case you need to accept it with an open mind and allow all parties a fair chance to present their evidence and ideas. Your acknowledgment satisfies my concerns. You should ask Durova what steps may be necessary to satisfy hers. Jehochman 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin wrote, "If the letter of the policy permits sitting arbitrators to bring cases—which precedent says they may, so long as they recuse themselves from the proceeding—then certainly former arbitrators are similarly permitted."

No one is saying that Dmcdevit couldn't request a case because he is a former arbitrator - though in light of the collusion on display here, such a rule might be a very good idea! It seems to me that the real issue here is than he pretended on-wiki to request one on his own accord, but actually was just responding to Kirill's solicitation, while Kirill's "accept" didn’t mention the fact that he was accepting his own request, laundered through Dmcdevit.

Though here Kirill calls it "unorthodox," in private, he's characterized such solicitations as an ArbCom tradition. Since Kirill maintains that this is a legitimate method of doing business, I wonder if he would be willing to provide a full list of case requests which were proxied by the Arbitrators?70.90.183.122 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall ever having referred to the events that took place in this case, or anything like them, as a tradition, and I don't think there's any conceivable reason to consider them as such; off the top of my head, I cannot remember any other case that was brought about in a similar way. The Matthew Hoffman case was brought by a sitting arbitrator, and the Orangemarlin fiasco last year happened entirely sua sponte to begin with; but neither of those is really the same.

(Not that something being a "tradition" would be any indication that it's a good way of doing things, in any case. Having former arbitrators on arbcom-l was a tradition for years, for example, and yet something we've chosen to do away with.)

The scenario that played itself out in the Durova case was extraordinary in a number of ways, and those of us on the Committee at the time agonized considerably over how we could best help resolve the conflict, presented as we were with a number of choices, none of which were truly good ones. We may, indeed, have acted too directly, or too forcefully; but it is easy to condemn when one has the benefit of hindsight.

I have apologized for the approach we took in bringing this case about, and for our haste in trying to resolve it; and I regret that we may have inadvertently made worse a situation which we were trying to make better. I can offer no apology for doing my best to carry out my duties as an arbitrator for the benefit of the project, or for trying to resolve a conflict rather than standing idly by. Kirill 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you look into who's been leaking private correspondence from the ArbCom mailing list? It is going to discourage people from writing to ArbCom about sensistive matters if they feel their correspondence may be published afterwards without their permission. Jehochman 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The evidence we have points to a leak of old list archives sometime late last year. We have been unable, as yet, to determine who was responsible; in the absence of any substantive evidence, the matter remains firmly in the realm of speculation .

We have, however, taken certain steps to tighten security, and we believe that the arbcom-l list is currently secure. Kirill 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

presumably you believed that before as well? ;-) - something that I've been curious about though - do you actually know who each other are? (have you identified to each other, as well as to the foundation?) - finally, (really just to Kirill) - what do you think about some sort of a wiki FoI policy? Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't necessarily a formal identification process internal to ArbCom, but, informally, I think everyone's identity is known by some or all of the other arbitrators.

As far as FoI and similar things go: I suggested, at one point, that we "de-classify" anything in the arbcom-l archives that doesn't actually contain private information some fixed period (e.g. 3 years) after the discussions in question. Unfortunately, it's not always clear what is or isn't private, and we don't really have the manpower to sort through thousands of old emails carefully. Some sort of FoI-like "release after inquiry" approach might be feasible, at least in theory; but I'm not sure how we could set it up in practice. It's something that should probably be discussed further at some point. Kirill 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we please publish a direction to users that the ArbCom list, while generally confidential, does occasionally suffer leaks, and that any truly sensistive matter should be directed to WP:OTRS instead? The general rule should be don't write anything to ArbCom that you wouldn't want to see published. Jehochman 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Without ignoring your concern about confidentiality, Jehochman, the overwhelming majority of email messages that are directed to Arbcom-L involve something that is uniquely within the scope of the Arbitration Committee, and sending the same material to OTRS will most likely result in OTRS admins referring the matter to Arbcom (I assume with the permission of the sender) or being unable to take action on it. To be honest, if someone is going to leak private mailing list information, there's no reason to think they won't also leak private OTRS information. Risker (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A few posts above, Jehochman suggests that Kirill Lokshin contact me to ask what steps may be necessary to satisfy my concerns. Jehochman himself has not contacted me regarding what my concerns are, his representations are unreliable, and the best thing Jehochman could do to satisfy me is to avoid all further involvement in this matter. Durova 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

doesn't he just say that they should ask you? am I missing something? Your post sounds a bit grumbly, but I can't work out why.... /me scratches head and looks confused (no jokes about not being able to tell the difference, thank you very much.......). Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen

Above (collapsed) Newyorkbrad writes a question to the community that worries me a little:

Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that the arbcom was so strictly enjoined from opening a case sua sponte. Of course the committee also deals with stuff that doesn't exactly amount to opening cases. I'd like to know if other similar matters must also be addressed by the "happenstance" of an unaffilated user bringing them to the committee, or else be ignored? To exemplify: if I want the arbcom to deal with the issue of Jimbo Wales's "Jimbo block" of myself on May 22 (which I do), would it be an advantage for me to file a case about it? If I don't file one, might I find it dismissed as something that "can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over" ? It's a matter which it seems fair to characterize as "boiling over", after recently being subject to mediation. A pretty unique question, I realize—uncharted waters—but can the committee be relied on to deal with it as far as in them lies—somehow—I obviously don't know what, if anything, they might do—or is anything like that up to me? Ought I to bring it to the committee's attention if I want them to take notice of it? Does the involvement of a GodKing make it more, or perhaps less, necessary for me to act for myself? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC). Please do not collapse this. It's a (multi-headed) question for the committee, and I want them to see it. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

In general, yes. If you feel attention should be given to what you feel is admin misbehavior, then it needs to be brought to the committee as we have no generally applicable mechanism to deal with incidents we do see but for which we have not been requested to intervene. In fact, my recent break had to do with the necessity to step back from the frustrating situation of being unable to do something I felt was important because our hands are tied exactly that way.

That being said, in general we pretty much decline to intervene is short blocks (mostly out of practicality, any short block would have long expired before we could render a decision), unless there is a pattern of egregious misbehavior to examine and a case can be made for it. — Coren 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a disappointing, kind of stunted and lawyerly, reply, Coren. OK, I did ask a question; I didn't post in order to hold forth on my own opinions. But even so... as I said, it's a pretty unique question, and I request that you address it as such. Surely you're aware that the length of the block doesn't come into it; that Jimbo Wales' use of his tools isn't common or garden "admin misbehaviour", regardless of when it took place; that there is a pattern of egregious misbehaviour (see examples at User talk:Bishonen/block discussion); and that this is a GodKing we're talking about. Could I have a more responsive reply, please? I can't believe that Coren's is the sum of the committee's views on my query. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

No, it's just my own. At any rate, part of the reason why my answer was vague is that your question was vague: if you told me what you expected the committee to be able to do in that case, I'd be in a much better position to tell you how to go about it. You'll find that (mirroring the community) the arbitrators' positions on the propriety and well-founded of Jimbo's block is varied but that unless you contend this is a valid case for an emergency desysop there is nothing ArbCom can do on its own impetus. In other words, what relief do you seek? — Coren 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What relief do I seek? Let me see... OK, I seek an acknowledgement from either the blocking admin (Jimbo Wales) or the arbitration committee in my log that the block was wrongful. And I further seek an admonishment of Jimbo Wales by the committee. I'll be glad to suggest some suitable phrasing of that admonishment if desired. Now that I've said so, can/will the arbcom act under its own steam? Or not? Bishonen | talk 18:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

Such an admonishment would normally only come out of a full case, which you would have to initiate (as Vasyanna correctly notes below, it is extraordinarily difficult for the committee to do so itself). Obviously, we cannot coerce an apology (and a coerced apology is meaningless in the first place), but block annotations have been made when the findings warrant it. — Coren 02:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I will respond to Vassyana later. I suppose I do need to go for a full case, then. No, indeed an apology cannot be coerced--IMO it shouldn't even be requested (though Jimbo has insisted up hill and down dale that I need to apologize to what he bathetically calls my "victim"). I only put in the notion of Jimbo annotating my log as an alternative, in case he prefers that to a log annotation by the committee. (Which would not be strange.) You see, I hope, that neither of my requests require any apolology? A log annotation from the committee would be just fine with me; while an admonishment would of course come from the committee, not the admonishee. If, as you say, the findings warrant it. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

(Please note that I am currently on break from the Committee as it regards new matters and that this is only an individual statement.) I cannot posit what the overall Committee response to a request from you would be, but I can offer some general observations relevant to your questions. Jimbo Wales has made it clear that ArbCom has the authority to overturn his decisions and that he would respect such a decision. The majority of the Committee is extremely reluctant or unwilling to open a case without a normal request for arbitration. The involvement of Jimbo Wales has little to no bearing on the latter point, which seems to have been embraced as a general principle. It is based on a number of factors, including the abitration policy (particularly point 6) and previous problems/drama with cases initiated (directly or indirectly) by the Committee and/or arbitrators. I hope this helps clarify the matter. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really make the matter completely clear to me, but thanks, Vassyana. You mention Jimbo Wales' yielding authority to the committee to overturn his decisions. What worries me about that is, firstly, this section of WP:JIMBO, according to which Mr Wales has embraced several mutually contradictory principles for such an authority (or embraced several principles "in tension" with each other, as the page more diplomatically puts it). Secondly, there can't be any question here of the arbcom "overturning" any decisions on my account; a block cannot be overturned once it has expired. Why, then, you might ask, don't I simply let it go? That's something I would explain in my request for arbitration, if I ever manage to formulate one. But I'll mention an incident I consider outrageous, that I think deserves an admonishment at the least: the way Mr Wales' referred to me, by obvious implication, as a "toxic personality". See Raul654's statement here, as well as those of many other people. That's no way for a godking to behave, and not something his subjects should be expected to put up with.

Since you kindly ask, Vassyana, I do have another question: can I request arbitration of one action (in this case, of Jimbo's block of me and attendant conduct towards me, our mediation, etc, which I feel I know about and understand), or would I have to address the entire body of his admin actions (which I have limited knowledge of)? Recollect that I'm not requesting desysopping. There might indeed be reason to consider desysopping, especially for some bad blocks, but I don't have enough information for an overview of those. Would that be all right? Bishonen | talk 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
- I've been pondering about the best way forward to get resolution of the situation between you and Jimbo. The talking it out idea didn't work as well as I hoped that it would. But since talking to each other is the first step in any dispute resolution then it was needed. The next step could be letting it rest for now with both you going on your way. Another option would some type of mediation between the two of you. Another option would be a RFC started where Jimbo and you could get feedback. Since more than you have talked to him about it, then it would be certifiable in my opinion. An arbitration case seems premature. We do take them sooner for admins but not usually for a single short block. I know that there was more to it than the block. As a rule we don't do statements like you suggest for something like this situation. And it really is outside the range of what we would look at for a case. Those are your options as I see them now. I exchanged a few emails with Jimbo in mid June when you alerted me to your concerns. I'll talk to him again informally if you like. I really do care that you and him are having this dispute. I want to fix it if I can. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Flo, I don't think pondering and caring is going to do it. I see that those arbs who have responded to me here insist on speaking of Jimbo as merely "an admin", and his block as a common or garden "short block."

If you feel attention should be given to what you feel is admin misbehavior... (Coren)
We pretty much decline to intervene in short blocks... (Coren)
We do take them sooner for admins but not usually for a single short block. (FloNight)

Is that how you speak of Jimbo amongst yourselves? And have you noticed how he speaks of himself? (Hint: like a GodKing.) Are you aware of the substantial section of the community which falls down and kisses the hem of his garment (and spits at me) when he makes a royal pronouncement about my personality? Jimbo should be careful with his pronouncements, his attacks, his casting-out of editors into outer darkness, for it affects their standing in the community beyond what he seems to be aware of. (Unawareness is the charitable interpretation—the AGF version.) Therefore, it seems obvious enough that your proposal for an RfC ("where Jimbo and I could get feedback", forsooth) would amount to the village stocks for me. Or would you yourself fancy the type of "feedback" supplied by the users I give diffs for above? Think about it. And is protesting against "what I feel is admin misbehaviour" all I'm doing by appealing to the arbcom here?

As for the talking-to-each-other thing Jimbo and I have done, I found it disappointing. Apparently you did, too, Flo. Mediation sounds only too much like more of the same, so I would have small hopes for that. Very small. But I suppose I'd be (groan) willing to try (weariness), considering that the committee clearly so very much prefers not to touch my problem with a long pole.

I'm quite disillusioned with the arbcom's disinclination to deal with this matter. I only seem to get any reaction from them when I make a fuss, as I'm doing now. And then it's a "perish-the-thought" reaction. If there are any arbitrators out there who feel differently, I wish they'd speak up; but it's not looking much like it. (Newyorkbrad? My question was originally addressed to you. See your page.) Bishonen | talk 10:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

I have been thinking about this a bit. One aspect which might be worth discussing at an RfC, and hopefully someone having a look at the history of the concept of 'involved', is the concept of 'involved' - in a case where editor A and editor B are clearly friends, and admin C is known to have an issue with editor B, but then blocks editor A in a borderline case. Similarly with points of view etc. For instance, I am an inclusionist, and as such I would not block a deleletion-minded editor on pronciple unless it was a blindingly obvious totally unambiguous reason to do so - however, when I expressed this elsewhere, it appeared my criteria for 'involved' were broader (or stricter or whatever) than other admins. In general, this might be a good thing to nut out, unless done so elsewhere (????). Of course, it is better not to use specific examples in RfCs, as this not only polarises opinion but distorts it as well as editors will subconsciously associate a specific action takne against a specific editor (which they may disagree with), whereas they might have actually been in favour of the principle or vice versa). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think people will have difficulty discussing anything behind a barricade of such rampant discretion and such a high level of abstraction, Casliber. Would you like me to translate for you? Bishonen | talk 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

I don't know what Casliber is talking about either (sorry, Cas!), but I can translate some of the other bits above for you Bishonen. If you want to request a case, you are on the wrong page. If you want to continue with other means of dispute resolution, you are also on the wrong page. This is advice I would give anyone in dispute with anyone. We can't make that decision for you Bishonen, and we can't say (or shouldn't say) whether we would accept or reject a case unless you ask us officially. This whole thread is turning into a request, and it shouldn't be doing that. Ask where everyone else asks: WP:RFAR. But if you do so, then please be prepared to accept the results (for all named parties). And for the record, there have been numerous examples this year of incidents where ArbCom might have accepted a case, but in the end nothing got done, or things were left half-dealt with by others, because we felt constrained to keep quiet (speaking out would have prejudiced any future action in the eyes of many) or other things came along to occupy our attention. How to deal with such things where we are "aware" but no-one else is acting or seems to be concerned, is something that (as your quote of Brad indicates) needs to be addressed in some fashion. But there are pros and cons to nearly all approaches to such things. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not be concerned, Carcharoth; I know this is not the page to request arbitration. If I ask, I will do it officially. I merely thought it proper to reply to Coren's significant question what relief do you seek,and the rest flowed from there. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Shortest. Wikibreak. Ever.

Given the recent attritions to the Committee, I felt it wiser to cut short what I had intended to be a considerably longer break away from the Wiki and am returning to duty. I very much empathize with my colleagues frustrations at having our hands tied most of the time combined with the certainty that no matter what the committee does (or does not do) there will always be a number of editors willing to jump at the opportunity to attack the committee and its volunteers with surprising bile and viciousness.

While none of us signed up under the impression that we would be loved and paraded, it does tend to affect one's morale over time no matter how much we attempt to harden ourselves to this inevitable reality. Nevertheless, I don't believe that a committee that has whittled down to less than a dozen members is healthy.

Thank you to all of you who offered words of support and wishes for my return during my (short) break. — Coren 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to Coren's comment above, I profess my love for the Arbitration Committee, and I am totally willing to parade this fact on my user page if ArbCom members can provide a suitable userbox. Wikipedians should be aware that ArbCom is very important for the project, and there really aren't any upsides to being a member of the committee. You guys deserve more credit than you get, and I hope Kirill and Rlevse can be coaxed back in. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that I think this ArbCom as a whole has been doing a better job than any previous ArbCom. You've been taking on tough issues, without letting them just fester for months, and bringing them to conclusions that -- while necessarily falling short of most people's idea of a perfect outcome -- are not too bad. That, I recognize, is tough to do. rspεεr (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad that you're back, Coren! :) — Aitias // discussion 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are any other members of the committee planning to flip their shit in the near term, and have any other members of the committee been undermining the committee's already questionable authority and judgement? Hiberniantears (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that helpful? Do you expect an answer to your question? Has any ArbCom member asked you about your shit before? -- FayssalF - 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they haven't answered any other question I've ever asked them, so what the heck, right? Well, with the notable exception of your response to my last. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which questions they haven't answered, Hiberniantears? Are you referring to Arbs' resignations or what? -- FayssalF - 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was. Then you snarkily asked if I expected an answer to my snarky-though-legitimate question. In any event, I didn't ask about your shit, I asked if you were planning to flip your shit. If you aren't, then you have nothing to be frustrated about. As for my question, it strikes me that ArbCom has been a dramatic train wreck over the past few weeks (understatement, I know), and more than a few admins would like to know if we should expect any additional surprises in the near future. A simple "We're sorry things have been a mess over here, but those of us left, and those of us who left and then came back anyway, would like to assure the community that we will start behaving in a more responsible fashion" would do. I'm not convinced this is such a disrespectful request given the fact that we all have to abide by the decisions you make. Yes or no, are there any further shennanigans we should be expecting/aware of? Hiberniantears (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not. We (those of us left) had considered a statement on the matter, but then realised we had other things that needed attention, and set a short-term priority list that got internal co-ordination re-established (Roger agreed to step up and do the co-ordination, and we are chipping in to help where we can), and focused on getting the one existing case closed and dealing with the backlog at RFAR. The one item left at RFAR (case requests) I've just asked the clerks (at their noticeboard) to archive. The backlogs at requests for clarifications and amendments is nothing new, but also needs dealing with. An arbitrator has volunteered to take on the new case that just opened (we are waiting for a target date to be set). The items on the agenda are slipping a bit again, but the current top item (the review of what we have done this past six months) is nearly ready (I've been working on that). A summary (in prelude to the full report) should be out very soon - I just need to get my colleagues to approve it. It will be announced on the noticeboard along with any other notices needed as we continue to carry on with the normal business of arbitration (several ban appeals are being dealt with in the background as well). Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want a cookie? Here.

I respect all the hard work, not being paid and all that, and being the subject of the slings and arrows. But as I just commented on the noticeboard, we all get accusations. It's not unique to Arbcom. How do you think we regular editors deal with it when someone says mean things? Without tools or status we have no choice. We either quit the project or let it pass. If I give up in exasperation because people say bad things about me, and because there's a real world job, would anyone lament my absence? I don't think so. Contribution has to be self-motivated and self-rewarded. Arbcom members should strive to be more philosophical than the general membership here, not less, when confronted with accusations. Wikidemon (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you say here. You might want to clarify who your comments are directed at, or whether they are general. I was attempting to explain what we are doing in the short-term, in answer to the question about "any further shennanigans", attempting to show that things are continuing as normal. You then seemed to change the subject to talking about responses to accusations and people giving up in exasperation. I think you might be bringing in thoughts from a different thread. Maybe the NoSeptember#Leaving one below is more about what you are saying here? Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking Arb Comm election pages

I former candidate for the Arbitration Committee has asked me to blank (not delete) pages and page sections related to her candidacy. Are there objections to my doing so? As far as I can tell, it's never been done before, but we do semi-routinely blank RFAs at the subject request (whether or not the user is leaving Misplaced Pages, which this user has), and this seems to me to be comparable. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with a courtesy blank.--Tznkai (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I rarely favor courtesy blanking. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with blanking project pages that are primarily about a person who has left. I would be more cautious about blanking individual sections of pages; but if there were parts of the section which were causing harm and were no longer of any use, I might leave the section title in place but remove the content of the section - this allows searches to pick up the section name. I've not had time to find and review the pages in question. John Vandenberg 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If courtesy blanking of a candidacy became necessary, I would rather see a page blanked in its entirety than it be redacted (mainly because the former approach is less likely to lead to mislead or confuse a reader). AGK 14:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Update

Since this is not an official notice, I think this is the best place to put it, but I wanted to point people to this post I made in a section above, which updates things somewhat after recent events. Just to lay out what the response has been so far to the resignations and to indicate that other arbitration business is still proceeding much as normal. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/Leaving

I'd encourage all Arbitrators to read or re-read User:NoSeptember/Leaving. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

?...oh ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey look, I'm already on that list! :-) It doesn't strictly apply to resignations from elected and appointed positions (such as the Arbitration Committee), but John Vandenberg has indicated such, and I agree with that sentiment as well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rlevse (who was one of those who recently resumed his service on the committee) has already observed that he probably retired too hastily. I suspect that Coren thinks likewise, on the basis that he has now also took up his seat again. In any case, a little sympathy is needed—arbitrating is not a job I would say that any of us think to be an easy one—but I'd nonetheless prefer to see members of the committee who feel a little stressed out to take a fortnight- or month-long wikibreak than to retire and so stir up drama. (I say this whilst fully aware that, until such times as I've put my money where my mouth is and actually served time on the committee, I am in no position to fairly criticise. *shrug*.) AGK 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that a large dose of sympathy is needed. That said, there's a very real concern regarding the community's confidence in the Committee. Simply put, if the Committee has the outward appearance of being unstable, erratic, and on the verge of coming apart, it cannot effectively work. Are a few heat-of-the-moment retirements going to be the end of Misplaced Pages or even the end of the Arbitration Committee? No, surely not. But as anyone in public relations knows, outward appearances are very important. Diffs to "omg I quit" aren't particularly inspiring. Though, like you, I say this as someone on the outside looking in. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone who signed that pledge back in 2006 (#4, not that numbers matter :) ), I think I can say that some latitude should be allowed to ArbCom members, but MzMcBride is right about the need for stability, or at least the appearance thereof. THAT said, I'm glad Rlevse (and Coren) came back to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's no so much that I feel I left hastily (I still need(ed) the break), but that the timing ended up being atrocious at best. I did agree to a responsibility that I take seriously, and the good of the committee does override my own desires, at least to a point. That being said, even a short break gives one a better perspective on things that seem overwhelming from within; so I wouldn't leave so abruptly again, favoring instead short periods of lower activity for rest. — Coren 01:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. Look at my contributions by month. You'll see periodic spikes in activity and valleys of inactivity corresponding to real world activity levels. Misplaced Pages is my hobby, it isn't my life. Too many forget that around here, with the heaviest focus of those who forget concentrated in the ranks of admins, crats, and ArbCom members. Text based, volunteer, online encyclopedia. Try to keep that in focus. ArbCom, by virtue of the process that grants you your seats, is a reflection not of the community, but of the most addicted members of the community. So when you have a dramatic break down, in the guise of the most drama prone and addicted members, it undermines the committee in the eyes of the larger community, who are here simply to tinker with or create articles. 99% of the people who come to Misplaced Pages either do not know what you are, or just don't care that you exist. For most of us, you only matter when we run into some asinine half-baked semi-solution that does little to solve an underlying issue, but does a lot in the effort to create more process. An encyclopedia is about content. You don't deal with content. Every dispute on Misplaced Pages is ultimately about content. This makes you... what, exactly?

Whatever it is you are supposed to be, 99% of us don't care about it. We care about content, and are stuck having to kiss your hind quarters simply because you exist. Not because you serve a purpose. So when you start behaving like imbeciles, dropping off the committee and rejoining it in a dramatic, childish, foot stomping manner, you become an obstacle to creating a better encyclopedia, because any authority you have is entirely undermined by the dramatic display of immaturity. I'm in my 30's. I'm married, and I own a house. I participate in Misplaced Pages because it is an intellectually stimulating exercise that gives me the opportunity to learn and think. I'm an admin because I feel, after four years contributing, that I have some sense of ownership here. My thoughts, my ideas, my research, and my time are all woven anonymously into the fabric of this project. When people talk about Misplaced Pages, I don't jump out of my seat and point to it as my own. But I do silently acknowledge with a deep sense of pride that they are discussing something which I build, and protect. So when an institution like ArbCom exists in such a project, I believe that it should be devoid of drama created by the seated members. Drama will always surround your decisions, but when you are the fuel for the fire, it is a profound annoyance for those of us forced to abide by your thinking. What reasonable person would allow themselves to be judged by a group of unknowns who give the outward appearance of spoiled 12 year old children? I can hardly take you seriously, and I'm an administrator who has never been on the wrong end of an ArbCom decision. There are what, 600 active admins? That's your constituency, base of support, and talent pool to fill future opening. A handful out of millions of users who don't know you exist, and don't care that you're stressed. That handful probably breaks pretty evenly into camps that support your effort out of a sense of supporting those who take on a thankless task, and a camp of those who are simply baffled by your thinking and know that we could manage this place whether you existed or not. We tolerate you because we have to. You occupy a position of authority that few can achieve here. That is a privilege. If you drop off the committee, you have lost our trust. You need to recognize this, and take responsibility for your actions since you are the people who make other people take responsibility for their actions. Remain off the committee. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I have to say that I disassociate entirely with Hiberniantear's - an admin and editor I have a good deal of respect for - above comment. I know about stress, and I know about the crippling effect it has upon perspective and distance and calmness and the ability and desire to continue engaging upon the issues which gives rise to the internal tensions. I'm even older than Hiberniantears, and I interact on Misplaced Pages as a volunteer because for me also it is a hobby - one that provides me with intellectual relief from the mundane pressures of family life and employment. Admins, and those few established editors whose orientation is entirely content production or promotion but choose not to seek sysop flags, are the very fortunate ones owing to the elder states(wo)man status that it entails. I am in awe of those volunteers who decide to take on the extra responsibilities and attendant pressures of ArbCom (and 'Crat and Steward) for the negligible, and even negative, "rewards" that accrue.

The ArbCom is not the creature that it was created as - for a long time it has not been Jimbo's retinue or camp followers attempting to replicate his likely responses - and it has been forced to grow without any real direction or plan, but according to the influence of those elected to it by the community and, less significantly over time, Jimbo. Those Arbs in the final year of their term likely are sitting in a Committee vastly different to that which they joined and certainly that which they were familiar with prior to their candidature. Such growing pains invariably impinge upon the considerations of the Committee members as they seek to encompass both the vague traditional role with that of satisfying the demands of an ever wider and better informed community in being the place of ultimate conflict resolution, and the potential of even those persons who were elected partly on the basis of their being able to remain above the emotional aspects of resolving issues becoming soured and exasperated by the conflicting expectations and limitations of the role and making decisions and announcements that may be considered by some as inappropriate for persons in that position. Hell, ultimately they are just volunteers like the rest of us and since they are drawn from that pool then once in a while they are going to model the same behaviours as some of that membership; there being plenty of admins who have stomped away with declarations of not returning, with strongly worded messages of perceived failures of the project, who have returned and often quietly continued with their contributing, and quite a few editors too.

I, too, should have preferred that no sitting Arb would resign over a perceived single matter, but recognise that that one issue was likely the last one of a series that prompted the decision. My preferences are nothing, however, to the need for any Committee member to manage stress in the manner and moment they feel is best, and if a "Grand Staircase Exit" provides the necessary relief then I would not begrudge them that. I think, in keeping with a couple of proposals I have been recently involved in, that the pressures upon ArbCom members in trying to achieve results in an increasingly frustrating environment needs looking at and procedures introduced to help it be better managed - and owing to those pressures that the community should be largely involved in formulating them, with input and perspective as required.

I don't suppose that either Hiberniantears or my singular viewpoints in this matter reflects the admin corp or editorship - those, as H mentions, knows and cares anyhow - one. I simply wanted to place an alternative consideration of there being pressures and stresses in being on the ArbCom, and that sometimes people react in ways that may not be considered optimum by others. It happens. The response should, in my view, to find ways of diminishing it, and not castigating the individual for having human frailties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Declassification of ArbCom documents

We pride ourselves of transparency, yet it is obvious that ArbCom discussions (via its mailing list and possibly other foras) need to be confidential. Still, as time passes, members of the council resign, editors retire, and so on, it seems to me that there are arguments to consider declassification of older mailing list archives. This would go far towards placating the community, improving ArbCom relations with it, lessen the chance of the committee transforming into an unanswerable oligarchy, and not the least, provide Misplaced Pages researchers with a very valuable tool. Hence, I'd like to propose that mailing list archives older than 5 (3? 7?) years should be declassified. Please note that similar legal documents worldwide are subject to declassification after a time, and Misplaced Pages, which prides itself on transparency, should not be more secret than US government (for example :D). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

US Government declassification is often 10 years, sometimes longer, and some Brit rules call for 100 years ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I think the norm is the 30 year rule. Relevance? This is a website, not a state engaged in international diplomacy.--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Government secrecy laws are mostly the means by which politicians and bureaucrats hide their scams and thefts. They don't have much bearing on the ways of a privately owned website. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

At least in my mind there are three types of records arbcom could have.

. Discussions about internal matters and cases (vast majority of records).
. Information disclosed from users that falls under the Privacy Policy (users disclosing real life identities, etc).
. Information arbcom creates that falls under the privacy policy (mainly checkuser and oversight results).

Now under the Data Retention Policy, the third category probably should be deleted after some period of time without ever being released. The second category also probably should not ever be released, but since it is self-disclosed, I don't know if it falls under the data retention policy. As to the first category, I'm not sure how it should be treated. Obviously there are some good (and bad analogies) here. There is the privacy of jury deliberations that is generally not lifted, although many jurors will talk about it afterward. There is the privacy of judges' internal papers, but that seems to expire at death by custom. There is the concept of executive privilege, but even in the real world that is ill-defined. There are the various FOIA/FOIL laws, but even the US law has an exemption for records related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency, so that wouldn't apply here. Given the massive volume of emails they must receive, I would probably lean towards some ruleset that only allows release in response to inquiries by AuditCom to prevent having to create a body to review every arb email ever while still maintaining a sense of accountability. Thoughts? MBisanz 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons that AuditCom was designed with arbs on the subcommittee was to assist in finding threaded discussion about privacy related issues that happen now or in the past on ArbCom-l in needed.

Recently, I had a private discussion with another arb about whether we should release the old arbcom-l emails. I don't think we should unless we have that understanding reached now and it would applied forward looking. The main arguement against releasing all written documents is that ArbCom is different than most bodies in that the primary form of communication is written. There is almost no spoken communication among arbs. And no committee work is done verbally even the preliminary preparation of a draft. So, there is emails that have speculative remarks made that in the end are not included in the final work of the Committee. In my opinion, most often this type of stuff does not make it into documents that are released by government organizations. So, this needs to be taken into consideration when discussion about releasing the information. And it could have a chilling effect on people bringing issues to ArbCom in good faith, if they think that a genuine misunderstanding could be blown out of proportion by the release of the information. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not a nation, and we do not have a government, and certainly no authority that has "classified" the documents.--Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

But we do have significant privacy concerns re arbcom matters. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We should have concerns regarding the legalities of private communications, yes. We shouldn't have concerns about sweeping things under the carpet for reasons of political expediency, if that is what you are arguing. I thought the recent Arbcom's mandate was one of glasnost? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What glasnost has to do with anything? Indeed, what mandate the ArbCom has is a very interesting question, one that is not answered in voting (because some editors may abstain from voting for various important reasons). Perhaps an RfC would be in order? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying, any analogy between ArbCom and government/state/civil rights principles doesn't work well. I think ArbCom should release, or not, as they think best, and the rest of us shouldn't care. I doubt its all that interesting reading to the rest of us.--Tznkai (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press