This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) at 03:32, 25 May 2009 (→How to minimize this happening again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Discussion of agenda

Audit subcommittee

I'm a bit confused:

1. Appoint initial subcommittee members by April 25
2. Prepare subcommittee procedures by April 25
3. Appoint final subcommittee members by June 1

Why two groups of members?--Tznkai (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The structure of the subcommittee isn't final yet—although I would expect an announcement very soon—but one of the possibilities is to have a mix of Committee-appointed and community-elected members; the gap in the schedule is intended to cover a possible election. Kirill  01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hokay. --Tznkai (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of announcements

Standard operating procedure: CheckUser and Oversight

Original announcement

Well done. When does the timer start on people with the tools today? From today? Or from the last time they used the tools? Is there any plans for a minimum threshold of uses in a given time frame? Or if I'm a CU, can I keep it indefinitely with one check per 365 days? rootology (C)(T) 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want to be doing all we can to get rid of as many CUs as possible? For my part, I'd like to know what the method for recovering the permissions is. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be "on request", barring exceptional circumstances. ] 07:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't want to get rid of CUs to get rid of CUs, but no "rank" on Misplaced Pages, from +Rollbacker up to +ChairoftheWMFBoard or +ExecutiveDirector(the people really in charge) are permanent. Any of the technical ranks can be removed from any user at any time if the community deems it required to be removed: Abuse Filter editors, Account creators, Administrators, Bots, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Founder, IP block exempt, Imports, Oversighters, Rollbackers, Stewards, Transwiki importers, Uploaders.

Since we are currently requiring for the community to vet and validate anyone with access to the AC, CU, or OS capabilities, I would imagine any user who has not previously been vetted in public by the community would be--that's what the AC said previously, at any rate. I wanted to confirm and to make sure the system couldn't be easily be gamed by a random (even if needed) CU every 300+ days or something similar. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If CUs are "gaming" this system, we have bigger problems than inactivity.

I remain unconvinced by the argument that elections are worthwhile, particularly for people who have previously been trusted and considered competent before, unless circumstances have changed dramatically.

One more question for the Committee: is the functionaries-en mailing list included in this measure?

] 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the people with CU or OS access rarely used them. These people don't need the tools. We don't need lurkers on Funct-l, CU-l, and OS-l, so the people not using tools or commenting in discussions will be removed from the lists. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The categories listed at Misplaced Pages:AC#functionaries-en are "Arbitration Committee members and former members, CheckUser and Oversight operators, and selected other editors". Are we to presume this has changed? Are you going to remove these guys from the list? Are we to assume, then, that functionaries-en is no longer considered by the Committee to be an advisory group and that it solely exists for the purpose of co-ordination among users with the CU and OS permissions? ] 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just speaking as an outsider, but I've been getting the vibe since last year's AC that the general trend is heading toward the sitting, elected-by-the-community making decisions, or wanting to, without all the prior arbs weighing in on everything... and that the sitting arbs would go to them when they want feedback. Which makes sense, since so many of the new Arbs the past two years came in with demands from the community to fix what many perceived as a failing, archaic system, and reinvent aspects of it. Which they're definitely doing. rootology (C)(T) 17:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then say so, do it publicly and be done with it. I for one would absolutely respect that. If I was on the Committee, I might well even vote for it. I am less impressed by the gradual creeping move to remove the ancien régime under the pretence of inactivity. ] 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they seem to want to baby-step it along, which I can respect as well, since we know that everyone here reacts so well to sudden change. ;) In fact, I wish they (the sitting committee) would go all out at once and announce that future AC elections would be ratified solely by the community (there is an exceedingly simple and fair method for that here) and then limit all the core lists to people who need to be on them. Appointment to the AC directly from the Community, control of the AC from the Community, no offense to Jimbo--the AC can keep him on the list if they want, since it's their list--but if you did this and added in shorter terms (2 years) and term limits (2 terms), you'd have a constantly evolving and vibrant AC year over year that answers to no one but Misplaced Pages itself. But imagine if they did that all at once--people would be berserk. rootology (C)(T) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these points tend not to have been phrased in this way but in (rather incredible) terms of inactivity, and done in a little-by-little way rather than up-front and openly. If the members of the current Committee want to remove former members from the list (and I think they do), then let's hear that. ] 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the people that have access as former arbs will remain on the funct-l IIRC, ArbCom-l was pruned periodically in the past to remove people that were no longer active. Similarly, we will likely prune the Funct-l of people that do not comment in order to keep the membership of the list to active users that are engaged in the discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, arbcom-l was not pruned. And what on earth is the rationale for "keeping the membership of the list to active users that are engaged in the discussions"? Confidentiality? Again, we have bigger problems if you don't trust the members of the list to keep things private. ] 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been leaks before from all of the lists. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to check the archives to make sure, but I do think that it was pruned to remove people that were no longer active. The issue is more complex that saying that we don't trust users to keep issues private. We know that in some situations issues have been leaked from private lists. The leaks happen for a variety of reasons. But in each instance decreasing the number of people with access decreases the risk of accidental or deliberate leaks. The leaks are of great concern to the Committee. We want to give people greater confidence in the Committee and Committee related lists, so removing lurkers seems prudent. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The confidentiality argument is a reasonable one, although I'm sceptical it will have any impact whatsoever. What will you do if a list member removed for inactivity comes back and asks to be let back on the list? ] 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FloNight is correct about past pruning. Paul August ☎ 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake then. I confess to being surprised -- could you give me a name or a date? (Privately, obviously.) ] 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam, you participated in the discussion last March (2008) when we removed 5 former arbs. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing! ] 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

• Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Fys (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dbiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original announcement

Thank you for all of your work on the Committee. It's a thankless job and you've served admirably. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work, Sam. I have three questions for the Committee, and Jimbo, that both require answers for the community.

1. Was your history as Fys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) known to Jimbo and AC before your election and appointment?
2. Were they aware edits between your two accounts overlapped?
3. Are you being replaced with the next runner-up from the last election?

Thanks. rootology/equality 17:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, the current Committee was not aware of the past history here. We're still looking into whether anyone else may have been informed, however.
2. See #1.
3. Given that the Committee is currently well ahead of where we traditionally have been in terms of both size and level of activity, there aren't any current plans to call up additional members until the next regularly scheduled election. That may change as we move forward through the year, though.

Kirill  17:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware and my informal checking with other former members has not revealed that other arbs or former arbs knew. I thank Sam for promptly addressing our questions over the last 24 hours so we could move forward. I agree with Kirill that we do not need to replace him now. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't know about Sam's alternate accounts, and as far as I know no one else knew either. Paul August ☎ 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Adding my confiormation that this wasn't known by any arbitrator I'm aware of, last year. So far as I'm aware, Sam's contributions as an arbitrator were both above board and of a uniformly fairly high quality. I'd be prepared to review that impression upon evidence, but that would be so for any user or functionary. FT2  22:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

After the facts become clearer, I think a motion from the Committee with a brief background and timeline would be appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks Kirill and Flo. Sam-- you were a fine Arb during your time. Thank you. rootology/equality 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fys (talk · contribs) was renamed from Dbiv (talk · contribs) CHU.

In 2005 Fys was elected an admin (RfA) and ran for Arbcom in 2006 (ACE), he was desysopped in 2006 (RFAR) for extensive abuse of admin tools.

In 2008 Sam accepted and voted in the RFAR on William M. Connolley and Geogre RFAR, among other things restricting WMC's admin abilites. In 2006 Fys filed an RFC against WMC who had blocked him .

In 2006 Tango (talk · contribs) blocked Fys and in 2008 Sam made extensive comments about Tango at his RFAR. I wonder if the arbs can indicate what type offwiki (Mailing list) comments were made in regard to this case after Sam recused.

I've identified another account that is related to Sam/Fys, however it is his real life name and not otherwise linked these accounts. Is there any knowledge of this account to ArbCom?

I agree with MZMcBride that further comment/motions from ArbCom will be required.MBisanz 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Sam Blacketer has made the current Committee aware of the other account you refer to here. Risker (talk)18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe Sam should also be desysopped in light of the passed deysop motion against Fys. Utterly disgraceful. Abusing the trust of this community and misusing your admin tools and your judgment as an Arbitrator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? What past desysop motion?? I just saw Nishkid's diff. I agree, and at the least any access to AC tools, CU, OS, etc., need to be immediately removed today. rootology/equality 18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's slow down a bit. If there isn't serious misconduct as Sam Blacketer, and he created the new account to make a clean start and move past his problematic history, then immediate tar and feathering can wait until a full account has been developed. Nathan 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fys desysopped. He abandoned Fys/Dbiv, returned as Sam Blacketer, gained adminship and membership into the Arbitration Committee, and participated in cases against individuals who he had clashed with (WMC, Tango, etc.). I see serious misconduct all over this one. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And as I noted above, he overlapped both accounts. This is very bad, on the same wavelength of the games that Poetlister pulled on Wikiquote. rootology/equality 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such participation is wrong, but I still think it behooves us to approach this situation more carefully and with a full understanding of the facts. His participation in the WMC case did not effect the outcome, and he recused from the Tango case after a single paragraph of comments which did not effect the outcome. Yes, such behavior is wrong; but it absolutely does not rise to the Poetlister level, and even that outcome waited on a complete investigation. Nathan 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<-I tend to agree with Nathan here. Sam is a prime example of someone who learned from his earlier mistakes and made a fresh start. While, in hindsight, it has the appearance of impropriety, I don't believe it was done in bad faith. I also don't believe that an investigation of Sam's conduct toward those involved in Fys's desysoping & blocks (the investigation does need to happen) will turn up any bad faith actions. --Versageek 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Everyone take three steps back, make a nice cup of tea, and allow the full facts of this situation to unfold, before jumping to any rash conclusions. We've already driven one editor away from Misplaced Pages this week for past actions that were blown way out of proportion. Let's not make it two. Happy‑melon 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Versageek, how is deceiving the community about their past not an action of bad faith? If he honestly felt he had a good track record as Sam Blacketer, why didn't he appeal his previous desysopping to the Arbitration Committee? Why did he feel the need to continue covering up his past, if he didn't believe that his past would cloud his chances of political ambition on Misplaced Pages? What does this say about the Arbitration Committee if Arbitrators are willing to overlook the fact that he was formally desysopped in 2006? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Steady, you're doing it already. It only "says about the Arbitration Committee" if they were aware of the coverup and wilfully took no action; you have absolutely no evidence that that was the case. Equally, you have no idea what actions were or were not taken and why. Unfounded speculation is the source of 99% of on-wiki drama, in my opinion. Happy‑melon 19:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and at this point there is no evidence that either present or former AC members knew anything about this. As I said above I didn't know and I have no knowledge that any others did either. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was actually talking directly to Versageek. I mistakenly thought Versageek was on the Arbitration Committee, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've finished my researching and only found a couple more noteworthy points:

Fys showed he was deeply involved against JzG (talk · contribs) at JzG resignation, insulting JzG, more JzG insults (among many other places), after JzG had blocked him . Sam voted on the JzG findings at a past RFAR and is currently voting on JzG findings at a current RFAR.

Sam commented extensively on Everyking's appeals at RFAR talk and voted on at least one of the motions that dealt with Everyking and Phil Sandifer. Fys endorsed Phil Sandifer's response at RFC.

Fys was blocked by Viridae . Sam voted to admonish Viridae at RFAR.

Fys supported SlimVirgin's position at RFC. Sam voted not to desysop SlimVirgin link. MBisanz 19:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just blind, but where did Fys support anything at the SlimVirgin RFC? --Conti|✉ 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, found it, he was User:Dbiv at that time. --Conti|✉ 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually do not see any "insults", only critics. Ruslik (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Concern - There was previously this thread calling for Sam to be outed. I am concerned with the participation by certain people above here and in that community. I think that their level of conduct is particularly unbecoming, especially their status as an admin, and their pursuit of this issue is to create drama and disruption, and not about the integrity of this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a link to a Misplaced Pages Review thread, for those who care about such things. ] 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To Sam: thank you for your service and by doing the right thing and resigning from the Committee. This comes as quite a surprise, so let's not rush to judgment. Would like to see a full explanation, preferably by Sam himself. Respectfully, Durova 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For people reviewing, it is probably worth noting there are 2 block logs, one for Fys and one for Dbiv since block logs were not transferred in old renames. MBisanz 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the committee did not find out about these other accounts of Sam's back in February when he indicated his intention to resign? It would be good if an approximate timescale of when the committee found about them was provided. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

They found out roughly 24 hours ago. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on correspondence from an arb, on the functionaries list, I believe that Sam informed the rest of the committee last night. Paul August ☎ 20:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) There is absolutely no reason for desysoping Sam at all. — Aitias // discussion 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitas, I think you are making an indefensible argument.

1. Concurrent use of multiple accounts, a potential breach of WP:SCRUTINY.
2. Failure to disclose prior block log at WP:RFA.

I think those are reasons to take a closer look. Had there been full disclosure of these circumstances, the community might not have granted ops. Jehochman 22:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacketer is listed as an admin open to recall. There is already a mechanism in place to deal with desysopping.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Given MBisanz's findings, case updates?

Can someone please review the cases that Fys/Sam/whomever voted on, and if he was inappropriately voting there, see if any of the fixed decisions would have been altered 1) without his vote, 2) with the majority having been changed? I am absolutely against any such findings, decisions, or remedies (if any) standing, and they need to be undone if his vote decided them. If any have lapsed, but were thus affected, I'd like to ask the AC to issue official apologies to the affected individuals. rootology/equality 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go on the record here to state, without hesitation, that no such thing should take place. While Sam definitely should have made this disclosure earlier, and that it is almost certain that his probabilities of having been elected would have been significantly affected if that information was known before he had a seat, those votes were made while he was an arbitrator in good standing. There are a number of things Sam should have done, but there is no suggestion that he has not acted as an arbitrator with diligence and neutrality during his tenure— or that his votes have suddenly retroactively become invalid.

This new information means that his continued presence on the committee is not appropriate— not that he has become an unperson and that every trace of the past two years need to be "undone".

If anything, Sam is an illustration that it is possible to turn over a new leaf from a bad start on Misplaced Pages to become a respected and productive member of the community. I agree that he went about it the wrong way, but not that his past behavior is suddenly false. — Coren  20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm somebody who had a bad start and turned over a new leaf, using the same account, not a new one. If Sam had recused from the cases where he should have, your logic would be sound. Any case where he should have recused but didn't should be subject to review upon appeal by any party. It's not fair to have an adversary participating in the deliberations. Jehochman 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just echoing what Jehochman said. I don't want the entire AC history reviewed and 'overturned' back to his appointment, just a review of the cases he was required to be recused on (which MBisanz has been citing extensively already). rootology/equality 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, recusal is usually determined by the arbitrator themselves. Unless the community considers the rest of ArbCom uninvolved on matters relating to Sam Blacketer (which if it did, would be riddled with problems of its own), the options available are limited and time-consuming. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a problem all around, since Arb recusal should be enforceable in some way. The "doomsday" situation of an Archtransit or Poetlister reaching the AC has happened, here. Something needs to be done to make sure everything Sam touched was clean. rootology/equality 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There was not evidence that Sam was indefinitely blocked on another name. This verifies that his account was not indef blocked. He also did not operate on an outside website and manipulate many admin here to helping him get around his indef block. As such, your comments are highly inflammatory and a gross breach of Civil. Sam is still a member in good standing regardless if he lied or not about who he is. He already resigned, so any of the above claims are purely punitive and damaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ottava here, what he did may have been somewhat deceptive, but comparing him to banned users who only acted good to be able to abuse the admin tools is rather inappropriate. I don't think there's anything to suggest that the only reason he was a good user was to become an arb and abuse his authority. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This leads to a more general question, tho: When should an arbitrator recuse? Should an arb recuse himself when he signed a view on an RFC about a party to a case three years ago? That doesn't seem very practical to me. --Conti|✉ 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a very good question, and not one that's trivially answered. Most of us use a fairly simple standard ("Can I be impartial, and will I be perceived as such?"); and many of use interpret even that fairly liberally— I will usually recuse on request when the case is marginal. But I agree with you that "Has interacted at some point in the (distant) past" rarely justifies recusal. — Coren  21:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is what should qualify for recusal?, but are there facts that are relevant?. The participants in these cases were unable decide if they should ask Sam to recuse because they were unable to connect his prior actions. Admin and Arb actions should be trackable, even if it is through userpage redirects, rename logs, etc. Otherwise it obscures transparency. MBisanz 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In that, we agree. In fact, that Sam participated on a number of cases where his recusal would, in normal circumstances, be considered is the primary reason why his resignation has been tendered. My point is not that this shouldn't be the case, but that reexamining those cases a posteriori would not be useful and is not required or justified. — Coren  21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For all the good it would do? I can't think of any cases from which an arbitrator recused at somebody else's request (except for FT2 on one occasion, but even that was like pulling teeth). — CharlotteWebb 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can ask the question, Would a reasonable arbitrator have recused in this situation? If somebody had blocked Fys, no way should Sam have been in on those deliberations. The Committee would not have permitted it. Jehochman 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agreeing with Coren here. — Aitias // discussion 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

From looking very briefly at his voting on those cases, I don't think removal of his votes would not impact on the findings made. I didn't look in too much detail though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that like others, I had no knowledge of Sam's prior accounts until the last day or so.

On the general issue of when arbitrators should recuse themselves in given circumstances, I have posted my own views on this issue on the workshop talkpage in the Ryulong case, for whatever it's worth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement forthcoming

There will be a statement from the Committee sometime this evening (EDT). — Coren  22:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

hopefully it'll be along the lines of 'Sam done wrong, and has had all privileges removed from his account, we hope he'll stick around and edit productively 'cos we're nice people.' Zero drama, and the right thing to do, I reckon. Privatemusings (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)ps. while we're in 'uncovering naughty behaviour, but maybe it's all ok' mode - d'ya reckon I could get amnesty on my alternate admin. account brewed up during my site-ban, and whom I have to work quite hard to keep below the radar - it'd be cool if I could just step into the light, and carry on admining...? ;-)

Cheeky boy, be patient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If the result is "let him keep admin rights" despite his blatant abuse of the community's trust, what's the next step? If Arbcom doesn't like the idea of desysopping him, what chance in hell does a case have to desysop him? Majorly talk 00:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I hadn't thought much on the admin aspect of it, having only just been able to digest this since finding out yesterday Oz time. We will discuss. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

< statement's posted now - I'd give it a solid 6 out of 10.... with poor marks for timeliness, and failing to end the matter in one dull swoop by resolving the admin. question in the only possible reasonable way, by removing sam's admin.ship - it's no big deal anyway, right? Privatemusings (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)... and I've gotta say that I think Coren's becoming my favourite arb! It's my view that only a gigantic boob would oppose such sensible measures... and sure enough :-)

Poor marks for timeliness? You are aware that there are 15 arbs editing from widely separated time zones? As for Sam's adminship, that hasn't been forgotten. Look around a bit and you will find what you are looking for. Carcharoth (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

From painful personal experience trying to get a smaller incarnation of this committee act quickly, I can attest just how logistically difficult such a thing is. From what I can tell the committee has acted well and with dispatch, and deserves our thanks. So my thanks to the committee. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Paul August; also, we didn't elect the committee to make sudden decisions without much thought or discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So...

Are there any other arbitrators who wish to come forward and admit they are reincarnations of a desysopped admin? This is incredibly embarrassing (for ArbCom), to put it plainly. Does "Sam Blacketer" still have admin rights? I would surely hope as well as resignation from ArbCom, his admin rights are handed back too. Majorly talk 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone has been desysopped for abuses in the past, it seems inappropriate to run again under a new account without disclosing that history. At the very least, another pass through RfA with a slightly more optimal level of honesty and disclosure would seem reasonable. MastCell  23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's such a shame actually. I never thought Sam or whatever he's called was abusive, or misused his tools. The fact he passed under a new name, hiding his past, just goes to show what a polical arena RFA is. It's not about whether the person would make a good admin (which I don't think anyone is disputing), but whether the guy has behaved or not for an arbitrary period. I've said it before: RFA should be about whether the candidate would make a good admin, not your own personal opinion about the individual. Whether he would have passed as Fys is unknown, but perhaps if he'd waited awhile, he would have done. Sigh. Majorly talk 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly: Why? — Aitias // discussion 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, because of his blatant deceiving of the community; his abusive sockpuppeting; his COI voting as an arbitrator. I could go on, but it's so patently obvious I shan't. A question to you: why should he continue, after deceiving the community the way he has? Are you saying it is acceptable to leave one username, and return as another, and make no mention of the fact you were desysopped for abuse, at any point? Majorly talk 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, but this explains a bit... that you should have to ask doesn't really speak that well of you, aitie :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly: No, I don't think this is acceptable (it's indeed unjustifiable) and I'm in perfect agreement with you — however, the point I was trying to make (above) is that we should not ignore the very huge amount of good work Sam has done. Hence, I cannot see a reason for desysoping him — no instances of abuse of the tools as Sam Blacketer (i.e. while using this username) have been presented. Taking this into account, desysoping appears to serve no other purpose but being punitive. Of course, in case I'm missing something, I'd appreciate any pointer. — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tons of editors have done good work, who would never be admins, because of their "bad" past. Adminship is not a reward for good behaviour or work. ArbCom voted to desysop Fys, therefore Sam should have run as Fys. Instead he deceived the community. Someone who has betrayed and misled people this much, regardless of whether they abused tools or not, is unfit for adminship in my view. Adminship involves having a certain level of trust in the community. Finding out this has been going on behind our backs is hardly trustworthy. Majorly talk 00:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, Coren puts it much better than I ever could. — Aitias // discussion 17:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with his adminship? Majorly talk 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I disagree that it's embarassing for ArbCom. They have no control over who is elected to the Committee, and rightly so. I'd say it's more embarrasing for the community, but even then, barely so. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's credibility has just suffered a new low with this. Majorly talk 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, just what could ArbCom (by which I mean the 15 current arbs) have done to avoid this? As soon as we became aware of this we paid it immediate attention, and we are currently discussing the wording of a statement on the matter. It takes time to get agreement between 15 people on the wording of a statement, and not all of us are around yet to contribute to the discussion. If you want to help prevent this happening again, please come up with some constructive suggestions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, I'm simply stating facts. Taking a firm approach and desysopping the user in question should have been the obvious response to this. Majorly talk 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Majorly. This has every appearance of being yet another example of wikipedia's two-tier system of justice. Firm action's required, not hand-wringing; regular editors don't get away with undeclared sock accounts. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that Sam personally attacked people or acted incivil? Do you have evidence that he blocked people inappropriately? If so, please provide it. He already stepped down over the matter, and he only desired probably what you also would desire - a chance to start with a clean slate without having done anything majorly problematic. Yes, it was bad that he had two accounts simultaneously, but is there proof of abuse during that time? If so, please provide. Of all the people that we should be forming a mob to attack, I think Sam is far down on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see the evidence near the top of this thread. Also examples: , , , etc etc. There's loads more, just look through the contribs. Majorly talk 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything not over 2 years old? If you want to make a case for there being a double standard that he isn't desysopped now, you should definitely show incivility that is less than a year old. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He didn't use his other account after 2007 so you're asking for the impossible. The fact is though, he was making those kind of comments while he was grooming his Sam Blacketer account up for adminship (and later arbitratorship). He would never have been endorsed by the community had they known this. This deceit and sly behaviour is unbecoming of an admin. He might not have abused tools, but he abused the community's trust. Majorly talk 03:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? The comments seem mild and I've seen people say far nastier things and pass their RfAs. And deceit at an RfA? Did you call for Tan's desysopping? Or are you? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is Tan, and what has he got to do with someone being desysopped for abuse and returning under a new name and getting adminship, whilst still continuing to edit under the previous name, making frequent uncivil remarks and personal attacks? Majorly talk 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent point was about being deceptive during an RfA - Tanathas was a case of just this that was revealed rather quickly. I'm surprised you didn't know about this, as it comes up quite often at ANI and WT:RFA when talking about "gaming" RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He admitted he gamed the system? That's nothing compared to this. Majorly talk 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(to Ottava): "He already stepped down over the matter, and he only desired probably what you also would desire - a chance to start with a clean slate without having done anything majorly problematic." I don't desire that at all as it happens. I'm not ashamed of anything I've done; admittedly I may not do it exactly the same way again today, but neither would I run away. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you don't desire for people to hold a few early mistakes against you, which obviously snow-ball over time (people like to all it "progressive blocking"), I'm sure you can understand someone who would, no? I'm not asking for him to be seen as innocent (as he isn't). But I am trying to point out that what he did was understandable and not as awful as a lot of people. Merely perspective. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Clean start"

I thought this was accepted practice, per Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name. The overlapping was presumably done to keep those who'd connect the dots from interfering with the clean start, which seems to have been successful. I do wonder how many regular editors are actually "reincarnations" of this type, but I don't care if they do good work. --NE2 23:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a clean start, as he has apparently been voting on things that affected his former (desysopped) account. Also it says "Discontinuing the old account means specifically that the old account is not used for editing ever again." Sam edited with it again. Majorly talk 23:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Discontinuing the old and starting the new simultaneously would kind of give away the clean start to anyone editing in the same general area, no? --NE2 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A clean start would typically also mean editing all new content areas, and not voting in Arb decisions in line with your previous username's disputes, as well. rootology/equality 23:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing all new content areas? Seriously? Shouldn't improving the encyclopedia in one's area of expertise be the important thing here? --NE2 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Always, that comes first, and that's just one of the two examples I cited. Based on this information and tool, the Sam and Fys accounts heavily overlapped. The problem is that if you go back in again with a new name on the same content areas, if there are disputes, it's flat wrong, as it gives you an unfair advantage in content disputes over the older users. The other important (more important) factor is staying away from your old conflicts and conflict areas. rootology/equality 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So were there any old conflicts that Sam carried over from his old account (apart from the recusal issue)? That's a serious question, because I honestly don't know the answer. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, 463 pages in common is pretty low. In fact I'd bet half of them are ones we all have in common. I checked for shits and giggles and as far as drummed-out admins go it turns out I have 1916 pages in common with CSCWEM, 1536 with Everyking, 1025 with Darwinek, 893 with Ryulong, 744 with Betacommand, 676 with Majorly(!), etc. plus I have a similarly high number of pages in common with certain people whom I actually go out of my way to avoid. Damned if I could name such pages off the top of my head as it's sheer coincidence, not the product of stalking, tag-teaming, or anything like that. I did notice that Sam/Dave did in fact refrain from editing his own bio and the Peter Tatchell article from which he was topic-banned. His interest in Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox (whoever she is) is what convinced me after Tarantino popped the question on WR. — CharlotteWebb 00:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when does "a clean start" mean "editing all new content areas"? That sounds kinda weird. I suppose you could say that a clean start means that problematic behaviour should not resurface, which might mean editing all new content areas, depending on the situation. --Conti|✉ 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's always been my interpretation. You and I get into x number of fights over the years over Some Page. We both net 5 blocks in 2 years over it, and then one of us vanishes, comes back as someone new--and I go right back to Some Page eventually, with a clean record. How is that right? rootology/equality 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends what the blocks were for...were they for revert warring, or for personal attacks? Does the old argument resurface, or has it been resolved? --NE2 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That entirely depends on your behaviour. If you come back and act collegial, honor policies and guidelines and clearly improve Some Page, then I'm really not sure if your previous block log matters much at all. If you act just like you used to, tho, and soon earn another block, then yes, that would be an entirely different situation. --Conti|✉ 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the page when Sam created the new account. There is nothing about a clean start there, and there are a lot more loopholes and relaxed views on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To be pedantic then, if the written policy at the time (December 18, 2006) described practice accurately, then what he was doing was even moreso wrong. rootology/equality 23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In February 2004 the Arbitration policy on transparency was added and has essentially remained that way since then. John Vandenberg 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm… I'm not sure it would be unreasonable to interpret that as "multiple active accounts", or to mentally check that box by saying "I do not have/use multiple accounts". This should be clarified if there is an expectation for abandoned accounts to be revealed as well, though I suspect in the majority of cases there will only be a few trivial "false starts" totally unprovable and not worth mentioning. This line of reasoning does raise (and beg!) the question of whether arbcom would have taken any action. I'd go so far as to suggest that if he'd revealed his former identity at the beginning of his term, he'd be able to convincingly deny it now, having had the advantage of a dozen fellow arbcommies willing to help cover all six(?) of his footprints. — CharlotteWebb 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy at the time linked to the section "Alternate accounts" which includes including WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name (see history). I think it is obvious that even legitimate socks should be included in this disclosure.

More generally, in a policy section called "Transparency" it should be expected that too much transparency is preferred to too little - if someone wasn't sure whether the policy required them to disclose a prior account, they should do it anyway, or ask.

There has been a bit of discussion between arbitrators of what would have happened if he had revealed the "Fys" account to the other arbitrators and Jimbo prior to being appointed. I would hope that Jimbo would not have appointed him. It is very likely that Jimbo wouldn't have appointed him given that he had passed over him in the 2006 election. If he had revealed his prior account at the beginning of this year, my guess is that he would have been removed from the committee as user:FT2 was. Or he could have temporarily stood down while a Request for comment was undertaken. John Vandenberg 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Notifications

Should we notify the most affected parties as none of them seem to have commented thus far? By my figuring it would WMC, JzG/Viridae, Phil Sandifer/Everyking, Tango, and Calton. MBisanz 00:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any urgency. Let the Committee have a chance to make a statement. Jehochman 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it is a holiday weekend so I suppose things will move slower than usual. MBisanz 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I should note I am wearing my editor hat here, not my clerk hat. If there is arbitration related-work to be done, I shall be recusing as a clerk. MBisanz 01:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would have made a difference in either my or JzG's rulings from the C68-FM-SV case (he is just one arb). The name Fys didnt ring a bell until I saw the entry in his block log where I blocked him, then it all came flooding back. Viridae 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to ask this

But it may be prudent, so I can play the villain as always. Has he been Checkusered to ensure everything today is on the up-and-up? rootology/equality 01:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. If ArbCom wants to do that, that's their call. I'm steering clear. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 01:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Please hold off on this for the moment, until the committee has made a statement. As Nathan has said above, lets take this slowly. There is plenty to digest already. John Vandenberg 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No no -- I emphatically didn't want CUs to all leap at once. But I simply hope that the results (negative or positive, and if positive, which accounts beyond that certain one are disclosed--we have to treat Sam like any other user here) are either included in the statement or announced swiftly afterward. rootology/equality 01:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't checkusers done on all ArbCom members when they are newly elected? Or are they? Seriously, I don't know. --Moni3 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would they be? Checkuser is not for fishing. Majorly talk 03:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni - well, if we want to go that route, why not have all admin CU'd also? Simply put, chances are people will just game the CU system by using the various tricks to get around it. Also, CU would probably not be able to look a year back to find out. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To ensure decisions made about content and against editors aren't being made by users who have been previously blocked by subjects in ArbCom disputes. I had to get my fingerprints processed in every state I sought to teach in. I didn't see it as fishing. --Moni3 (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CU, Oversiters, and ArbCom have to identify themselves now, however, it seems that Sam came before that change was made so there is already a system in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems perfectly sensible for me, but it's against foundation policy for use of checkuser. Though of course, it is very easily gamed. Majorly talk 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Then let's ask the Foundation to authorize checkuser of every editor seeking access to a position of trust. This seems prudent. Yeah, people may try to game checkuser, but evading checkuser takes considerable effort, which will discourage some. Jehochman 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would increase that to anyone who votes at any elections (RfA, ArbCom, etc) also, to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but is checkuser anything more than an investigation into an editor's IP address? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. However, it is sometimes seems like a scary black mark that gets people who act like sockpuppets all riled up and offended when you go to request a CU on them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CUs can also see the operating system and browser details. Maybe more things too. Majorly talk 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a limited inspection of the web server logs. When you request a web page, the URL, your IP, your browser type and version are all recorded. Checkuser looks at a subset of that data, related to editing only, not viewing (I hope!). Whenever you visit any website you reveal this info to the website operator. Also,  CheckUser is not for fishing is a tradition of en-wiki. Checkusers are authorized by the Foundation to use their tools however may be prudent to protect the project. Fishing is not prohibited by the Foundation, as far as I know. However, it would not hurt to ask them for clarification before implementing wider use of CU to protect the integrity of our elections. Jehochman 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The data that CheckUser draws on is entirely separate from the web server logs. When the extension is installed, the regular recentchanges table is supplemented with a "cu_changes" table which records IP, XFF and user agent information along with the regular information about the change. Page reads are in no way recorded. --bainer (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser's code is open source; what it collects is not secret. IP, Agent (your browser, browser build, etc.). If you click on this link--I don't own this site, no idea who runs it, visit at your own risk, etc.-- http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ -- you can get an idea of the kind of data Checkuser can capture today and in the future. That is it, legally. rootology/equality 03:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, if anybody ever checkusered me they'd get a headache. I use at least four different browsers and hop around on all sorts of IP addresses. Jehochman 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I shudder to think how compromised my reputation would be if CU recording viewing information. I'd like to keep my television entertainment preferences sheltered from public view.--Tznkai (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CUing my Tivo would make people laugh. And not from the preponderance of Family Guy, The Soup, and the Daily Show... rootology/equality 03:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see thanks. In that case who does a checkuser on me will think that I have an unhealthy obsession with medieval English bishops. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We all here are knowledgeable enough to know that CU is useful in discovering things that most on Misplaced Pages would be had, but we are also all knowledgeable in our experience (long term editor, admin, Arb, et al) here to know that a requirement option is fundamentally flawed. Forget all beans, I use a Sprint aircard. I think we know how easy I could IP hop if I choose. I could be Ottava! I do, however, consider myself to be a trustworthy person and I do my best to maintain honesty and accountability. So if I ran for RfA today, and you CU'd me, I could hide another account with ease. Misplaced Pages does not need a Patriot Act to keep it safe, all things in time will sort themselves out. Remember this guy? One of the most open secrets in our political history. Haste is a devil. Keegan 05:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CU Results

In response to a direct request by the Arbitration committee, I have run a checkuser on User:Sam Blacketer, and I have been asked by ArbCom to post the results.

•  Confirmed Based on currently available technical evidence, the following two accounts are related:
  • User:Sam Blacketer
  • User:DavidBoothroyd

There are no other accounts that can be linked to the above two based on the information that is currently available. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• At the request of the subject of the checkuser, I can disclose that The User:DavidBoothroyd account had only been used once in the past three months, and that was to confirm his opinion on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination), which occurred after the resignation. Outside of that, there is no currently available evidence that indicates that User:Sam Blacketer engaged in any sockpuppetry in the time for which we have checkuser records. -- Avi (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, gee I could have told you that . Good thing you're not being paid by the hour. — CharlotteWebb 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is is true that Sam Blacketer did not reveal this additional account in his recent communications with the committee? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I am not a member of ArbCom and not privy to their internal communications; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, Sam gave us enough information that we would be aware of this other account, which is openly connected to User:Dbiv and has been since August 2006. More than this, you would be better off asking Sam yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I've got this right. You're suggesting that I should ask someone who has been found to have engaged in a deception whether or not he revealed the full scale of that deception to the committee? Rather than ask the committee if they were aware of the full scale of the deception? Makes no sense to me. Why all this repeated fudging? Why not simply say "yes" or "no"? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for Arbcom, of course, but does this answer your question? --Conti|✉ 15:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, read the notice on User:DavidBoothroyd and then look at the edits of that account (including its deleted contributions - ask someone else to summarise or review them if you can't see them) and then look at WP:SOCK. If you have problems with what happened there, please decide how you want to take it further. A full account of your concerns in one place would be better than the scattergun commentary scattered over this page. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A few straight answers to a few straight questions would be better than all this blustering fudging. As you well know, I can't see deleted contributions. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I'm not giving straight answers is that there are privacy concerns here. It is not clear whether Sam Blacketer's actions mean such concerns can be waived, and there are reasons to think that at some point the privacy concerns will need to be addressed, so that's why I'm being cautious here. If you want a short answer to your original question, the answer is "no" (it's not true). And again, I would direct you to Sam's talk page. He is not some sort of pariah, and he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, as you will see there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested that Sam was a pariah. I was simply asking the committee what the extent of their knowledge was, a question that Sam cannot possibly answer and the committee seems unwilling to answer. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You got an answer in the last post: "If you want a short answer to your original question, the answer is "no" (it's not true)." I regret not just saying that straight away, rather than trying to explain things to you while balancing other concerns. It really wasn't worth the effort. Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone with a passing familiarity with Sam's old account would have already known which real-life name it was associated with, and realized the account bearing that name was also his. Let's not insult arbcom's intelligence too much now. That said I'm not sure why Sam should have felt obliged to reveal any more information to arbcom (pursuant to the committee's "group confession time" treatise) if he had already agreed to resign from it. — CharlotteWebb 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A point

I would ask that, when ArbCom prepares a response, to consider that Sam was one of the few ArbCom members not to have CU or Oversite tools (and the only not to have both) and the possible positive or negative reasons behind him not seeking the tools. In terms of the community, Sam did start off and make many, many edits at the beginning, which shows knowledge and use that makes it hard to assume that his account was new. There are many others like that who have been granted admin tools. He was also granted ArbCom status after only a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for the future

Could we make it a stipulation in future that all ArbCom candidates must publicly disclose previous accounts before the election? If there are privacy concerns, they should at least disclose publicly the number of accounts, timeframe, and number of edits with those accounts, then send the usernames to Jimbo.

As things stand, some candidates are asked if they've had previous accounts, and some aren't. Some give clear answers, some give ambiguous ones. SlimVirgin 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The names should be sent to the AC, not Jimmy. One point of failure is unacceptable, and the trend is to move away from the old model. If people don't trust to disclose to the AC itself, why are they even running? rootology/equality 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They may well be asked to disclose, but people lie. Majorly talk 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The names of accounts can't be sent to the ArbCom if there are privacy concerns, because we don't know who all members of the ArbCom are, as this case shows clearly. We can't ask people to send names of previous accounts that might identify them into a void. If not Jimbo, then Cary, but it has to be a known, named, responsible person. SlimVirgin 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The simple solution for this is the ensure that the current committee is trusted by the community. This is needed for other reasons, and is part of why this why this is happening right now. John Vandenberg 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason it's not fair to ask people to trust it is that we don't know who everyone is (or used to be), so we can't just say "the solution is for the Committtee to be trusted." It's a vicious circle. Best thing is if ArbCom candidates are formally asked to disclose upfront. If they can be trusted, they won't mind doing it, surely. SlimVirgin 03:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it was a standard question for all candidates in the last election, but I havent checked closely. It was part of MBisanz's questions. John Vandenberg 03:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

... and it looks like not all candidates filled out a guide: Special:PrefixIndex/User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/. If an arbitrator hasn't been asked, it should be done. And I am sure the community will be very keen to ask this in the future. John Vandenberg 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

John pointed to this earlier, which already stipulates the above and has been in place since 2004. Although the second point may allow for some privacy, the third should have been enough to expect information of previous accounts to come out to the committee then. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There is something different about being formally asked to disclose as part of the election criteria, and being asked more casually by another editor during the election. The former would concentrate the mind more, and would make the candidate realize they were about to commit a fraud. SlimVirgin 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of when and how it is asked, arbitrators and candidates are expected to answer questions of this sort honestly. If they dodge the question it should be explicit that they are refusing to answer. John Vandenberg 03:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point, really? Are you suggesting "Sam" did not realize what he was doing? Do you think that the next "sam", whomever he used to be, will read that question and think, "gosh, I never thought it might be a problem that I was banned last year?" What would we be doing differently now if we had a diff of a formal questiona dn answer to point to? Thatcher 04:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) John, if you look at the number of candidates and number of questions, we can't assume that a queerly-worded response to, "Have you had previous accounts?" will be spotted. What is wrong with making disclosure one of the nomination criteria? SlimVirgin 04:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in full agreement that these questions need to be integrated into election process for the future. Ideally it should happen prior nomination, but that isnt as important as it being done prior to appointment. We often have late entrants, so we dont want to add a hurdle. Arbitratators should also be identified prior to appointment - arbcom-l has sensitive info flow across it all the time, from checkusers or oversight situations that are difficult. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency needs to be updated to reflect the shift in the expectations of the community.

We also need these same questions put to sitting arbitrators so there is no grandfathering going on. John Vandenberg 05:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be cynical again but I think anybody put on the spot like that would pattern their denials after those of the next candidate whether they're guilty or not. So if the first response looks queer they probably all will. This is a natural consequence of holding all the interrogations in the same week. — CharlotteWebb 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the only way to actually stop this--and that's doubtful, if enough time has elapsed--is compulsory Checkuser on everyone the day they announce their candidacy. And if they're smart, they let their Old Bad History lay dormant long enough. If someone did it for malicious reasons, and had half a brain, they can get away with it. User:EditWarrior2004, real identity unknown, blocked in Jan 2009, could be admin User:John Smith III by the end of 2009, known by real name, and running for the AC in December 2010, giving his drivers license to Cary in January 2011. How would you tie them together, if he didn't tell you? rootology/equality 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that most people who do this don't fully understand how fraudulent it is. I think that especially applies to older users like Dbiv, who was here when Misplaced Pages was a much more casual affair. It would concentrate the mind wonderfully if they were expected formally to declare that they had never operated previous accounts, before being allowed to stand. Of course, the very dishonest ones will lie. But a formal declaration would weed out the mostly-honest-but-not-taking-this-deception-very-seriously brigade, which I suspect covers most Wikipedians. No one has said why requesting prior disclosure would be problematic. SlimVirgin 04:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IT's not unreasonable, I just think it won't yield useful results. (Checkuser won't help if the candidate has a lick of sense in his head.) Thatcher 04:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be useful - I believe some folk take advantage of some of the gaps in these areas, so in fact, 'sam' can genuinely say that he told no direct lie, and many out there in the 'real world' will struggle to see that he did anything wrong at all. Forcing an arbcom candidate to tell a direct lie might give some pause for thought - particularly if folk have real world status to think of (it seems sam is a local politician, for example). Privatemusings (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking for disclosures forces people to go on the record with a statement that can be judged true or false. Lying by omission is much easier for most people than saying something that is outright false. Thatcher,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, but if people have to actively dodge, it makes deception harder and some will screw up and get caught. Jehochman 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked each nominee in the last election if they'd used any other accounts within the last year. I suggest that it be asked of every candidate in future elections. I can't recall now why I limited it to one year, but most respondents replied that they'd never used any other accounts.   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will, you and Matt had the right idea. I had thought that it was a question to all candidates (see above). We need to go back and check all answers by the successful candidates. I think the community was aware of this potential problem at the end of 2008. The problem was that during prior elections we had lower standards. A lot changes in a year around here, and we should be avoiding grandfathering people in implicitly - grandfathering in should be explicit and discussed. I am also beating myself up about this a bit, as I asked about Sam Blacketer back in December, but I accepted the answers I was given. John Vandenberg 05:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to require identification to be a candidate, to weed out all but the most determined folks? rootology/equality 05:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, from my online experience, it wouldn't do any help at all. Intent to deceive or mislead, whether for malevolent or benevolent intent, cannot be stopped if the agent of action is determined in their goals. As I said in my post above, Misplaced Pages does not need a Patriot Act as a result of this. Privacy on the internet is of utmost importance for achieving our goals here and elsewhere. Just my personal philosophy. By the way, my name is Keegan. Keegan 06:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Privacy is good, but to be on the AC you have to surrender your privacy to the WMF. That's just how it works. rootology/equality 06:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A corollary to my post: What Jayvb stated above, not before candidacy, but before the appointment, in regard to my statement. Keegan 06:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That way everyone's dog-tags can be leaked to SATX whether they win the election or not? That's unreasonable. — CharlotteWebb 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to remember the Chinese proverb: "The fish rots from the head". What's required now to restore faith in a system that looks increasingly creaky day by day is for every one of the present ArbCom to agree to be checkusered. Otherwise how can anyone know who is to be trusted? What happens after that is for the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're saying CU every single sitting Arb, and then force disclosure of the results to the AC as a whole? rootology/equality 06:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And before anyone asks the obvious question I would have no objection at all to being checkusered myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure would be a good way to restore trust. Have a really good CU like Dom run down every IP and name by every Arb, do NOT pass the results to the AC directly. Dom hands it off to the Audit Committee, who vets Dom's work, and then the Audit Committee hands it off to the AC. If the AC tries to 'cover up' or 'munge' anything (I doubt anyone on there would be even that stupid), the Audit Committee could simply call bullshit and Game Over them. rootology/equality 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reform and real accountability has to start somewhere. Where better than at the top? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How to restore trust in the current AC

Thanks to Malleus for this idea. Here's how you restore trust in the AC in the wake of this.

1. Dom and another CU run full checksuser checks, down to the IP level, and across all associated usernames vs. all active Arbs, independent of each other. Run down the connections until all searches are exhausted.
2. The results of this (who has what usernames, if any extra), go to the Audit Committee.
3. The Audit Committee vets their work, to make sure all connections were checked and nothing is omitted.
4. The Audit Committee hands it over to the AC.
5. The AC must disclose all accounts held by the Arbs, unless there is a factor like a username's edits or name itself 'outing' an Arb. If that happens, that Arb must justify that exclusion (which will be noted as an exclusion in the final public report) to the rest of the Committee.
6. The AC publishes a report of who is who. If the AC munges, distorts, or alters the intent of this to protect anyone contrary to the spirit of the exercise, the Audit Committee in public will correct the error. The AC will have to deal with the total failure of trust in them that this would likely cause.
7. Any Arb who chooses to not participate will surrender access to any sensitive information such as Checkuser, Functionaries-L, the Arb Wiki, the Arb mail list, or Oversight, if they decline.
8. Trust is restored, as much as is possible.

Thoughts? rootology/equality 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary: one somewhat bad egg (there's been no suggestion that Sam did anything wrong in his ArbCom role) doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the other ArbCom members who, let's remember, had to go through a fairly tough public election process to get the job and are constantly under scrutiny. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire threads above is littered with evidence of Sam doing things he shouldn't of done, based on his history as Fys and Dbiv, and he also went through that grueling process. rootology/equality 06:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to prejudge, let me remind you (Nick-D) that it's only one bad egg to date, and one that decided for whatever reason to give itself up. The selection process clearly isn't "tough" in any real meaning of that word at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an OK starting point. Hopefully the arbs are pressing each other more firmly as we speak to clear up any identification issues and running checkusers probably isn't a terrible idea, although I doubt they would turn up anything of interest. I suggest that we wait a day or two and then draft things like this as part of a policy proposal, maybe something Arbcom can incorporate into its new policy. This is one way to address the problem; I am sure we can think of other ways as good or as supplements to it. We just need more debate, ideas, etc. MBisanz 07:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the response to every proposal to wait? Nothing will ever get done here if we're all just waiting. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we checkuser them all at 9am tomorrow, either. We keep CU records a couple months, waiting x days or a week or two isn't going to kill anything, so long as something like this happens. rootology/equality 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Waiting isn't a terrible thing. It allows time for more facts to be uncovered, new ideas to arise, etc. I thought it was crystal clear October 20th, 2008 that Hemanshu should be desysopped . Others disagreed and said we needed more discussion. On January 3rd, 2009, after Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hemanshu, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Hemanshu, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hemanshu, enough people agreed on the issue that he was desysopped rather uncontroversially. Discussion took a little over two months there, but didn't hurt anything and did achieve an acceptable result. MBisanz 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rootology's suggestion strikes me as a good idea. If any arbitrators have any more surprises, this would be a convenient time to make them known. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And my rationale for supporting Malleus's idea is very simple. Sam's actions will now make many of us now look twice at and question twice every action by all the Arbs. Is this legit? Undeclared COI? Why is he voting for/against that guy? Its like the current British MP finance mess--a handful did Very Bad Things, and now all of them are under the gun. Or in an even simple analogy, if the neighbor kid accidentally defecates in your swimming pool, you don't throw out the pool, but you have to quickly chlorine bomb it to clean up, before the water is wholly trusted again. That's all this proposal is, to me, so that no one reasonable will doubt the current Arbs in the wake of and due to Sam's actions. rootology/equality 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why CU every Arb? Why not CU every CU and Oversiter too? How about all Crats? How about all Admin also? If you are going to hunt down one group, why not be fair and have everyone lay all of their cards on the table. There are less than 2,000 admin, so it shouldn't take that much time. And no, I don't believe this should be done and I think it is ridiculous. Any results would be skewed by the fact that it is very easy to game the CU process, so this will just give a false sense of security. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's ridiculous at all, a good idea in fact, but one has to start at the top, else nobody else can be trusted. The "false sense of security" is the one we have now, with these anodyne reference to "trust". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Malleus, I dealt with people who are quite capable of using over 10 different IP ranges that aren't detectable as related. Chances are, CU has become basically obsolete when it comes to the difficult people. Mandate identification with high standards and you might have a chance, but that would only help prevent multiple admin (or whatever else) accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Anonymizing IP addresses is hardly a difficult trick, but if CU is so useless then why do so many object to the current members of ArbCom being subjected to it? After all, it won't reveal anything, will it? Would it have revealed anything if it had been done three months ago, do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
        • It's thought that this might create a precedent for more casual use of CU. For example, it wouldn't have helped uncover Sam since he's been on ArbCom, but it might have if he was checked during RFA. Do we want to go down a slippery slope to CUing all candidates for any position? I don't think it would be terrible, but some would strongly disagree. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Before we invade the privacy of all those other people who just happen to wind up on the same dynamic IPs as us (or the same iPhone network or Blackberry network or stay in the same hotel, or fly through the same airport, etc.), I'm curious to know something. If nothing is found, will those posting on this page believe it? Or will they just say that the checkusers are hiding something, or that they didn't do it right? I understand the frustration that is being expressed here, but I'm not persuaded that establishing such a privacy-violating precedent is the best way to do this. At a time when there's been broad support for tightening up the use of privacy-related tools, this is out of step with the comments of the community on the issue of privacy in the bigger picture. This discussion needs to involve more than the couple of dozen people on this page before we completely rewrite our checkuser policy in a way that may not be in accordance with WMF policy. Taking some time to talk about this with the rest of the community is not going to have a significant impact on the results of any of these checks, should they proceed, but this kind of change in practice, that has the potential to affect almost all editors in some way, should not be done as a knee-jerk reaction to quell discontent after what we all agree is a very concerning situation. It isn't "doing nothing", it's making sure that we hear what other people think. Risker (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why stop at arbcom? If you want to restore trust in wikipedia, why not CU all bit holders--admins, crats, CUs, OSs, all of them? There have sure been plenty bad apples over the years to justify that using the rationale being used here. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Who's talking about trust in wikipedia? The subject is trust in ArbCom, and no amount of wriggling will somehow magically alter that fact. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about the trust in wiki, let's not do this piecemeal, let's do the whole shebang, clean up the whole house, not just one room. Are all the people clamoring for this willing to be CU'd themselves? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is exactly the problem we have when people don't give things time and instead try to jump around screaming with "answers." Controversy, conflict, and drama beget irrational ideas. (Probably the reason they steal my toothpaste every time I try to board an airplane. Damn you, Crest!) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Deja Vu. :) Now, I bet someone will use it as evidence to request a CU on us. :) Uh oh, Rlevse! Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

".. do NOT pass the results to the AC directly. Dom hands it off to the Audit Committee, who vets Dom's work...". The place is full of holes. The audit committee is not independent of arbcom but a subset of it, so it'll never work. For example, how will anyone know if Jayvdb (talk · contribs) is not Werdna (talk · contribs) when a hypothetical CU reports to Audit sub-committee, if Flo and Roger are actually prepared to turn a blind eye either because he is a "true believer" or because he is doing such good work? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please go have a look at the membership of the Audit subcommittee. John Vandenberg 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I missed the bit about At-large_members. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How to minimize this happening again

1. You can't stop it happening again. Like a hack or security breach, it will happen.
2. You can only mitigate.
3. Mitigate by forcing all people to disclose to the WMF to be a candidate. If you win, you have to anyway with no exemptions.
4. Full CU dig upon your submitting your application.
5. Random CUs until the close of the elections, at least 1x a week, like Major League Baseball drug tests.

Thoughts? rootology/equality 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the Audit Subcommittee should pass it off after that to the Ombudsman.

Here is my point, and is the last I have to say on the matter:

We operate in part on the principle of assuming good faith of contributors. This is a remarkable departure from most internet forums and discussion channels. We, being anyone who ever does a thing to build this place, hold hands and sing kumbaya on not a daily or hourly, but a minute by minute, edit by edit basis. We maintain our community to the best of our ability, work everything out, and manage the place as best we can with a self built framework of government the likes the which the world has never seen. How we operate boggles my mind every day, but we do and we do it in an effeciant manner in context of every other system of government I've ever witnessed and/or learned about. In the past five months, including this affair, the ArbCom has taken care of as many administrator related cases as it has in the past 5 years.

Were Sam's actions in starting a new account and winding up on ArbCom offensive to the community? Yes, it looks like we all agree about that.

Has the standing committee been as shocked as us? Yes, it looks like we all agree upon that.

Has any malice occured to any editor because of this deception? Yet to be determined, and not by me.

Should we all just sit for a minute and stop posting here? Yes. I love you all for the work you have done, are doing, and continue to do. Can we puhhhleeeezzzeee just relax and wait for the Arb announcement, sit back, and stop causing each other to hit "refresh" or check our watchlists? No amount of armchair quarterbacking on the communities part will deflate the growing tensions.

Keegan 06:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't much matter what the committee decides if it doesn't also agree to something along these lines. Things are very quickly shoved under the carpet here, but not this time I hope. So no, now is not the time to sit back and wait. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

By sit back and wait, I mean that I do not have any presumption that this will be swept under the rug. What I mean is to accumulate all the relevant information, which I trust will be forthcoming, and then proceed with proposals. With that, I hope my point is made (it doesn't have to be accepted). Happy editing to all. Keegan 06:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What information is it necessary to have available before addressing the basic problem of lack of trust? Are you suggesting that some vital information may come to light proving that there is now complete faith in the integrity of ArbCom? If so I fear that you're going to have a long wait. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My time is yours, I do this for fun. Imagine my real life... Like I said, I'm just opining. You really don't have to respond to me just when I'm saying something. As online discussions grow longer, the point is lost by relevant interests of involved parties. Sometimes, Malleus, I'm just sayin'. I am not here to argue a point when I say that I am not. I am truly not. If you're interested in discussing points with me, click on email this user, and I am always willing to spend my free time talking politics after I have availed myself of other voluntary duties. Wikihug to you. Keegan 07:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wikihugs. Real hugs are a quite different matter though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A firm handshake then. Happy editing to you. Keegan 07:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for disclosure to WMF or CU just to be a candidate. Why not do that stuff after the election, as a requirement for being instated? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why waste voters' time? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a waste as there are usually enough acceptable candidates even if one or two choose not to disclose. Anyway, knowing the requirement to disclose a priori given one is elected should be sufficient. Why would someone who is not going to disclose ID to the foundation run for ArbCom knowing that they have to disclose now even if they choose not to recieve the CU/OS bits. Remember, anyone with those bits is already identified to the foundation as part of WNF policy that supersedes EnWiki. - Avi (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may, this would be completely pointless. Anyone with half a brain would stop sockpuppeting before the elections in order to make their sock account  Stale. I hold the arbcom to a standard high enough to think they got more than half a brain ;). To my knowledge nobody is routinely CheckUsered before being appointed to any position, not even CheckUsers. -- Luk 15:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An imperfect check does not justify having no checks at all. Because something hasn't been done before is no excuse for not doing it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking would give a false sense of security. Technical evidence is here to support behavioral suspicions, not the other way around (no fishing). -- Luk 15:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there is some kind of "rule" against fishing doesn't mean that there should be no fishing. It simply means that the rule needs to be changed. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Some good candidates may be reluctant to disclose for privacy reasons, but willing to disclose if necessary to become arbitrators. Asking them to disclose just to be a candidate is an unnecessary invasion of privacy, and may discourage some from running since they may not find it worthwhile disclosing for a mere possibility of being an arbitrator. Any candidate might waste voter's time by running and then not being willing to fulfill the various duties of the post. We can't prevent that. I also agree with Avi. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone nominate themselves for an election they didn't expect to win? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but it has happened. May I reiterate, that in order to receive the OS//CU bits one has to ID to the foundation anyway, so asking every Arb to do so, once elected, should not be a big deal in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Doing it beforehand is no big deal either. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Some people are able to plan ahead for more than one possible outcome of a situation. If only those expecting to win nominated themselves, and their expectations were always accurate, we'd save a lot of voters' time because all elections would be by acclamation. I disagree: disclosing is a big deal for some people. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Those to whom it's a big deal are quite welcome not become members of ArbCom. Your logic is of course flawed in any event; the expectations of the candidates and those of the electorate are not always going to be in harmony. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we each have our own criteria for voting for arbitrators. Personally I would tend to prefer people able to contemplate more than one possible outcome, and perhaps able to predict the probabilities with some degree of realism; and I would have no problem at all with candidates who prefer not to reveal their identities unnecessarily: I don't see why that would be anyone's criterion. I agree that expectations may not be in harmony, but see no flaw in my logic as a result (perhaps you missed where I said "...and their expectations were always accurate..."). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between being prepared to identify if it becomes necessary, and being prepared to casually throw your identity around as a gesture of good faith. It should not be necessary to do the latter on this project. Besides, IIRC at the last ArbCom elections Cary said he'd rather not be deluged with unnecessary identifications. I'll try and look that out. Happy‑melon 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you get the WMF or Cary Bass or Jimbo or whoever is snickering at your driver's license photo to unlearn your personal information when your candidacy proves to be an epic fail? Retention of this data would continue to jeopardize you for no possible benefit. I mean how does one know somebody in the office won't get drunk and start reading it off on IRC. — CharlotteWebb 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Any sort of mandatory Checkuser investigation will inevitably violate the privacy of those other than the target of the check. IP addresses are not magical barcodes imprinted onto our DNA, unique to each of us. Over time, sometimes a long time, sometimes not so long a time, different and completely unrelated users will share an IP because of the way ISPs and large networks (say, university networks) shuffle the addresses around. Its much more invasive than a background check because its not just the target that gets investigated.--Tznkai (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More or less what Tznkai said. I think this is probably not the place to be having a discussion about whether or not checkuser should be used for fishing expeditions like this. While the candidate him or herself may have no issue with being checkusered, the same cannot be said for the editors who coincidentally have also used the same dynamic or otherwise shared IP with a candidate. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust that will only show up the information for one particular editor; it's both indiscriminate and incomplete. This idea requires the input of a much, much broader segment of the community than ever reads this page, as it has the potential to impact the privacy of hundreds, if not thousands, of editors. Risker (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the usual wikisolution to every problem. "Let's do nothing." The privacy argument is in any case absurd. The web logs exist and I have no doubt can be freely examined by the system administrators and very likely the developers anyway. (I mean administrators in the conventional sense of the word, not wikipedia's.) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The developers have no access to server logs. The sysadmins do, but the actual web server logs don't include usernames, and do include all page views, so they aren't particularly useful for things other than statistical analysis and diagnosing server issues. In any case, the sysadmins are just as bound by the privacy policy and private data policy as the checkusers (probably more so since most of them are WMF employees). Though all the sysadmins WMF staff have global checkuser rights, so access to the logs isn't really relevant. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the problem is less severe, in that the non-identified Arbitrator is the exception, not the rule, since the sitting Arbs usually have CU and OS. I think now there are no non-ID'd Arbitratrators. As long as we require identification to the WMF before being appointed an Arb, what is the problem? -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So the arbitrator is ID'd, so what? What about all his/her socks? Are they ID'd as well? It appears very clear to me that there is no will to clean up this particular act though, so I see nothing to be gained by continuing to participate in this discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What particular act? Anyway, I think it is more secure to have the real ID of the person than a checkuser. CU is not magic, unfortunately, whereas having the identity of the Arb, as backed up by a government-issued ID, is more likely to ensure that we have trustworthy people. At least, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust template is not just there for show, Malleus; I'm not sure you fully understand how much (or how little) the CheckUser tool can do. The extension stores the IP, user agent (browser) and XFF headers of every edit or log action, for a period of ninety days (on WMF, see VPT). That means that the data from 23 February 2009 is being deleted as we write. We have excellent CheckUsers who can work miracles with that data, but if it happened before 23 Feb this year, it Did Not Happen as far as CU is concerned. A sitting Committee member could have been socking right through the elections, and there is absolutely no way CU could find out about it. The volume and readability of the data collected by the server logs is obscene (obviously I can't see the WMF ones, but my test wiki generates a couple of megabytes of vaguely-comprehensible babble every week and the only person who uses it is me); I don't know how long they're kept for, but I would expect much less than 90 days, or the volume would prove totally unmanageable. Besides, they're almost useless for a wiki-paper-trail, they're designed entirely around software debugging. There is no magic wand we can wave (or pixie dust we can sprinkle) and suddenly be able to say "oh look, we can comprehensively prove that our Arbs are legitimate"; that's not possible in the real world, never mind here. If anything, an inconclusive mass CheckUser would either inflame the situation, or create a false sense of security, neither of which is constructive.

On the other hand, I notice that the only sitting Arb who has not identified to the Foundation is Vassayana, despite having been appointed in the most recent election. Is there a story behind that omission? Happy‑melon 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't mistake me for a fool, I'm perfectly well aware of what information's available from a log. I'm looking at one right now as it happens. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Then what's the point of pursuing this agenda any further? Unless our current arbitrators are idiots, checkuser will show "no sock activity within the last 90 days," while possibly needlessly invading the privacy of users who work or go to school or who live near enough to an arbitrator to be in the same IP range. 67.240.82.249 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's just pretend that there's no problem here, and that we're all daft enough to trust the present system of governance if that makes you happy. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not what I said. The problem is your suggestion will not address the problem. Checkusering arbcom members and candidates will have the same effectiveness as taking a homeopathic remedy; you might feel like you have accomplished something, but its only the placebo effect. 67.240.82.249 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I saw a few things above and in other sections, and it made me think - right now, Arbs have to disclose, right? They should also identify themselves. Why not make this an obligation -before- elections and have the candidates checked out by WMF, AC, et al, in order to make sure that such things if problematic are revealed during the election (but not any breaches of personal identity - mostly online activity). Obviously, nothing is going to be happening to fix things retroactively, but wouldn't this satisfy most of the concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Because if Jimbo isn't choosing you for the seat, he doesn't need to know who you are, and because personal information has an awful habit of not staying in one spot. Sharing every arbcom member's data with every arbcom member would be sheer madness as you have no way to determine which one of them leaked it to a third-party web site. — CharlotteWebb 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Charlotte, but I believe having Arbcom members disclose to the foundation prior to being appointed would be a good thing even if they do not want the CU/OS tools. -- Avi (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Personally, I find that argument unconvincing. (Disclaimer: I did, in fact, speak in favor of identification of candidates before the previous election). Candidates run under the expectation — or at least the hope — of getting a seat and having to identify anyways; the requirement of doing so preemptively is not onerous, and the issue of trust is exactly the same (that is, the information is not more or less secure by having won the election; if you don't trust Cary and the foundation with the information when you lose, you don't trust it when you win either). I am dismissing here candidates who run without the intent of being appointed; I'm not in favor of "joke" or "protest" candidates in the first place since they detract from true serious examination of the real candidates— to the detriment of all the community. I would certainly not bend over backwards to allow them the luxury of abusing the election process if they have no genuine intent to serve. — Coren  02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • If they have to ID before appointment, why should they have to ID prior? Then again, I believe running for the WMF board requires IDing prior. I guess I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy; especially as the downside is not that we have a socking arb, but that we do not get an elected arb who at the last minute decides not to ID, even though they knew a priori that they would have to should they be elected. I'd rather not use divulging identification as a joke-candidate winnowing technique. But that's just my opinion, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • If there is personal information known and held, wouldn't that cause people to want to disrupt and sock less? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether MeteorMaker's application has been received

MeteorMaker made a request for a suspension of restrictions to participate in discussion of draft guidelines as specifically allowed in this remedy. I interpreted Kirill Lokshin's reply as meaning that the request had been received and would be considered without any further application needed by MeteorMaker. Now that the 14 days specified in the remedy is nearing its close, though, I'm wondering whether MeteorMaker was supposed to post an additional application somewhere, or whether the request might have been forgotten; I'm also wondering whether anyone else has applied and where I can find out the results, as I've been moving slowly on the guidelines discussions meanwhile. MeteorMaker posted an additional application, apparently in the wrong place, and it was deleted. I think it may be helpful for the parties to the case to be told where to apply properly.

I haven't gotten used to the new page layout here either. May I suggest that an edit notice (one of those messages that appears when you start editing a page) be put in for this page, telling people what types of things are or are not appropriate here and providing a few helpful links? I see that at the top of the page it says that only arbitrators and clerks can edit; I think it would help to add a couple of links there to tell people where to put in arbitration requests; e.g. a link to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration might be sufficient. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this message on MeteorMaker's talk page, which provides some answers. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are discussing it now internally regarding all users currently sanctioned actually. Casliber (talk · contribs)

Ryulong

Original announcement