Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am clearly not an expert at the Arbitration committee, being relatively new to Wikipedia. However, I have found the case on the Tea Party Movement very interesting. From an outsider looking in, I would make the comment that you have a problem with governing efficiency. The simplest solution (I could suggest) would be to empower a few members to act on the behalf of everyone and expand the number of members. That said, I found it to be interesting. Out of that interest, I have two questions.

1. What is the history of all of this? How did this process evolve? Did the process work differently? 2. What are some of the suggested changes that have been considered? 3. What do you think is the biggest problem with the process?

Thanks in advance.

Note I did not express myself fully in the first comment. I was saying expanding the number and than allowing them to divide to handle cases. A larger number on one case seems very slow. However, if you had a larger number, you could divide into "teams" and handle each case faster. That is what I was suggesting.Casprings (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Casprings (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer point number one, here is the history of the Arbitration Committee. Enjoy. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Casprings (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

While in terms of institutional memory User:Newyorkbrad can probably speak with a bit more authority, from my experience on the Committee I would say that more members actually increased inefficiencies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To be as gentle as I can be there are a lot of us that don't think increasing the number of members would be a wise idea nor would making the or their subcommitties more powerful. Personally the biggest problem with the process is the process itself. Its long, favors the accuser over the accused and generally doesn't work. Unfortunately the only thing worse than the Arbcom process is the communities ability to change anything. As for question 2 there have been a few suggestions in the past but the Arbcom is one of those corners of Wikipedia that most folks either don't know about or don't care about. Its generally only the most experienced editors who poke around in these sacred waters. So suggestions to change it are fairly rare. Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That view is not universal though. Yes the process is long, and has gotten longer in recent years, but this is at least partly due to an increase in the complexity of cases - the DR processes below arbcom level have expanded and got much better at dealing with lesser problems. However a side-effect of that is that the cases that do end up here are more deeply entrenched than they were.

The perceived bias towards the accuser is I think mainly an artefact of the committee only accepting cases where the accuser(s) show that there is a problem that cannot be/has not been solved at a lower level. This means that in the majority of cases the accused has done something that needs sanctioning, although there are obviously exceptions. The nature of the disputes that end up here mean that very often there are multiple parties that have done wrong and so both accuser and accused receive sanctions. Almost all requests for arbitration where the accused has done nothing wrong get rejected (e.g. the recent request about GiantSnowman). It's still ongoing but in the Kiefer.Wolofowitz/Ironholds case it would not surprise me to see the accuser (KW) receiving much harsher sanctions than the accused (Ironholds) (sanctions of some sort for KW seem almost inevitable, but whether they come as a result of this case is less clear).

Fundamental change in the processes or makeup of the committee need formal policy approval (e.g. [1]) but as that page notes, the processes can evolve over time. The most obvious way this happens is with the remedies - the ones which work get passed again and the ones which don't don't. Kumioko is right though that fundamental changes to the way ArbCom works are not often proposed, and few of the proposals are made get enough support in the initial informal discussion to make it worthwhile making a formal proposal. It's probably easiest to sum this up as "ArbCom is not perfect, but nobody has come up with anything better yet". I haven't been following the Tea Party case (as a left-wing European liberal my views on the subject are far from neutral, but I don't care enough about US politics to bother attempting to write neutrally about it). Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, the idea has been suggested every so often. The Committee hasn't tried it out yet, but I think there might be cases where it would be worthwhile. Rather than having three Arbitrators hear the case once and then the rest of the Committee rely on their findings, having three administrators look at the matter with an appeal route to the Arbitration Committee might be a better choice. If the community wanted to implement such a process, I would likely support it. NW (Talk) 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That would seem logical to me. One needs to decide on the priorities of the dispute system. If the core priority is to build wikipedia, you need a system that can make decisions quickly and than adjust those decisions as needed. A group of randomly selected and non-involved(or interested in the subject matter) admins (with time to volonteer), would have been a good choice for the Tea Party Movement. I have never followed any of the cases, but the process seemed a bit convoluted in that case.Casprings (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think that it would be worth looking into something along those lines. And (just to show that I really am listening to what Arbs have been saying!) another improvement that would help the Committee with its workload would be a different way to deal with non-ArbCom ban appeals. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned has unfortunately announced that he will be taking an indefinite Wikibreak. How will his absence eventually affect the performance of Arbcom if the committee is not going to be up to full strength? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is almost never "at full strength." With 15 members (assuming no vacancies), it is inevitable that at any given time at least one arbitrator will be on a break or inactive. This is actually one of the reasons that the community decided that there should be 15 arbitrators, precisely so that there would always be enough arbitrators to do the work despite any turnover or inactive periods that might occur during the year.

That being said, Worm That Turned has been an important part of this year's Committee, and I hope he will return to service whenever he is able and ready to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Brad. I realise that Dave will be sorely missed and wish him well on his leave of absence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I can think of nothing better for Wikipedia than for its prominent volunteers to be properly prioritize real life over this strangely effective yet somewhat bizarre thing we can "the Wikipedia community." Dave's past efforts have been a great asset to Wikipedia; a break is well deserved: sharp saws cut better. NE Ent 01:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the committee will manage very well without me, they may even enjoy a little break from me! As NYB points out, there is Redundancy built into the committee to allow arbitrators to take some time off, I'm glad to say that Carcharoth has just returned from a break himself. The break is completely due to off-wiki events, I have no doubt I will return. Indefinite simply means I'm not sure when, but it shouldn't be more than a month or so. Worm^TT(talk) 07:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Good luck and best wishes. "Man's real life is happy, chiefly because he is ever expecting that it soon will be so." -- supposedly said by Edgar Allen Poe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@ArbCom: In case you missed it, I would like to draw your attention to the following post.[2] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

General comment: The only effective way to engage the committee is to file a substantive request on one of our process pages. The best you are going to get by posting here is a comment from one or two arbitrators, but more likely still is that your comment doesn't receive the attention it requires or deserves. In this case, if you think the question posed in your section header requires consideration by the committee, best would be to pose it within a new clarification request. This comment is merely for future reference (and since it relates to something not often said, is not intended to criticise you for posting here in any way!). AGK [•] 22:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC at the Village Pump proposing a change to the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted. Comments would be appreciated. Monty₈₄₅ 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In a couple of days, I'm going to start a community RfC at the Village Pump about whether to make some revisions to the Arbitration pages about the mailing list. The most recent discussion was about a month ago, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 14#You've got mail(ing list). I've listened as carefully as I can to what each of you has said in the earlier discussions. I recognize that some of you are reluctant to make such changes, in part due to concerns about instruction creep and the possible effects upon open discussion within the Committee, but I hope that seeing the proposed language will make it clearer that these problems need not be the case, and I believe that there may be enough support for something like this in the community that it is worth finding out. I believe very strongly that situations involving the list will inevitably occur again, and that I might be doing you a favor by trying to find ways to make things run more smoothly next time.

I'm not looking for anybody to !vote on anything now. That will come next, at the RfC. For now, I'd just like to get feedback on the draft language, in case it can be improved upon. My suggested additions are shown in green.

1. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency and confidentiality:

Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. The Committee normally treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. This privacy serves to preserve confidentiality and to allow the Committee to engage in open and frank conversation, but it is not intended to shield the Committee from accountability.

2. At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Incoming mail, add a new paragraph at the end of the section:

All communications on the list shall be considered strictly confidential, unless specifically determined otherwise. Communications not containing private material (as defined at Meta:Privacy policy), and with all private content redacted if necessary, may be made public only if a simple majority of active, non-recused members determines that doing so is consistent with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy, and that it is in Wikipedia's best interests to do so.

Any improvements to the wording? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

These proposed additions are fine. AGK [•] 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note, that the change to arbitration policy must follow the Amendment procedure. Arbitration Policy then delegates WP:AC/P to the committee, and provides for optional consultation with the community, but then leaves it up to the committee. Not saying a community discussion on the proposed changes is a bad idea, but going out of order may impede the attempt to make the changes. Monty₈₄₅ 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and it's a good point. I was aware that an RfC, by itself, cannot effect an amendment. Actually, AGK's response came as a pleasant surprise to me, because I was expecting ambivalent reactions (based on now-archived discussions at this talk page). In the event that other members of the Committee turn out to be reluctant to support these changes (I've been assuming that AGK was speaking for himself, individually), my intention was to have an RfC to determine how the larger community feels about it, in the expectation that the Committee will, of course, be responsive to community sentiment. Such an RfC would be advisory, by necessity, but I think that the "advice" would carry significant weight. But, at this point, I'm watching to see whether or not the Committee might already have consensus in favor of the changes, in which case I would much prefer to save everyone the time and effort of an RfC.

So, taking all of this one step at a time, I'm starting just by seeking feedback about whether there should be revisions to the language. Next, I'd like to find out whether or not the Committee as a whole might feel the way that AGK does, which would make it sensible to skip an RfC. If, on the other hand, Committee opinion is split, then community advice would seem to me to be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Some thoughts here.
  • The first point can become a procedure, referring to the policy; that gets things out of needing the full policy amendment and ratification process.
  • We know the WMF is about to release a draft revision of the privacy policy (the discussion will be at Meta, but we will probably post links on our noticeboard because it affects CheckUser and Oversight, for which Arbcom is currently responsible). I've asked if there will be specific reference to restricted-access or private mailing lists; at this point, I understand, there are sections of the draft that may apply, but nothing specific about mailing lists.
  • Ive put up something in my userspace, sort of a draft of what we do with different kinds of mail. This is informational, and it does need to be improved. Comments welcome. Risker (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker. I've put your userspace page on my watchlist, and I'll be happy to try to give input there, depending on how this discussion proceeds. It seems to me that it could potentially be a replacement for what is currently Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Incoming mail, and I like the way that it goes further than the status quo in delineating situations where entities other than ArbCom should deal with certain kinds of issues. It also seems to me that the last few lines of your draft could quite reasonably replace, completely, what I propose here. And that would be fine with me. (And, as you say, it might simplify the adoption process, by avoiding the need to amend the policy. However, I would wonder whether the policy would need to be changed anyway, along the lines of my first point, in order to avoid a contradiction between policy and procedure.) I'd like to know to what extent the Committee, as a whole, might prefer your approach over the one I suggested. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• A few observations

1. My primary concern is the enormous broadness of This privacy serves to preserve confidentiality and to allow the Committee to engage in open and frank conversation, but it is not intended to shield the Committee from accountability. The thrust here is that accountability trumps confidentiality. And, what in this context, does accountability mean? And given the capacity for both wikilawyering and creep, what needs to be added to limit it?
2. In the procedure text, the time will often come when it is impossible to release stuff with sufficient context to make it comprehensible without revealing the identity of the sender and/or the nature of the issue. In that instance, the default should be not to disclose. There's a minor typo too: "determine" (not determines).
3. There is language about confidentiality and privacy on the ArbCom main page, which these suggestions need squaring with. The operative bit is Arbitrators usually seek to treat your communications, including emails, as private when possible. That said, however, we cannot guarantee against public disclosure for a number of reasons, including potential security limitations. Accordingly, you should not disclose sensitive personal information in your communications with us. Once received, your communications may be shared with committee members and -- in some limited cases -- with third parties to assist in resolving issues or other purposes. Your communications may be kept for an undetermined period of time for archival or other reasons.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. I'll reply using the same numbering.

1. Your point here goes right to the heart of where concerns about these changes have been, right from the earliest discussions. It seems to me that accountability would never, in fact, trump meta:Privacy policy, but the balance between accountability and open and frank discussion is, indeed, an important issue to think through carefully. I remember that it is one that Kirill also brought up in earlier discussions here. It makes sense to me that members of the Committee would be attuned to this concern, but I'll also point out that this could be exactly where a community RfC might be illuminating, because my hunch is that the community will disagree with you about this point. I think that there are strong arguments that accountability matters a lot. I can also point out that nothing that I (or Risker) have proposed would give anyone other than ArbCom itself the ability to decide when accountability trumps frank discussion. I actually think that my suggested language hands ArbCom a pretty powerful ability to say "sorry, but we are not going to make that public, because we have determined that it is not in Wikipedia's best interests to do so." But – could there be alternative wording, instead of what I wrote about accountability, that would work better for you?
2. It seems to me that the situation that you describe is one where ArbCom should determine that the material should not be released. It's as simple as that. (And I'm going to argue grammar with you: the subject of the sentence is "majority", so the singular "determines" is correct as I wrote it. The words "of active, non-recused members" are a prepositional phrase.)
3. That should not be difficult, since the language of the first sentence already says "usually". I think it might be enough to modify the second-to-last sentence to say "– in some limited cases – with third parties or the public to assist...".

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

1. So, in other words, according to you, the only stuff that is to be treated as in strict confidence is material covered by the Meta:privacy policy and that everything else is potentially disclosable under the overriding (and undefined) accountability principle. Is that right?
2. Except, procedures don't carry the same weight as policy so if push comes to shove the vague and unparticularised policy wording controls.
3. You can cut concordance both ways, depending on how you decide what the subject is ("The majority of the committee is men"?); I prefer the proximate concordance as it's easier to parse and less stumble making. Roger Davies ^talk 11:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

About 3, I still think I'm right, but it's not worth arguing about, so I'll go along with you. About 1 and 2 (in much the same spirit), would it be better to simply withdraw my suggested third sentence for the policy paragraph, to leave it out entirely? Thus, the only change to the policy page would end up being insertion of the word "normally" into the existing second sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you describe further what you actually mean by "accountability"? NW (Talk) 20:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not really any different than the plain English meaning of the word, but I can see why you are asking it. After all, it's quite reasonable of you to question whether the language could end up creating a new kind of obligation on the part of arbitrators. I think that one can understand it best by considering the difference between secrecy and non-secrecy of (some) correspondence. If secrecy is absolute, it allows for arbitrators to say, without any limitation, I don't want the community to see that, because it would make me look bad. Putting some limits on secrecy, therefore, puts some amount of constraints on that capability. Therefore, the question becomes, how much "accountability" is enough, and how much is too much?

The language in the first part of the proposed sentence serves to define the boundaries of the "accountability" described in the last part. Language that says that "to allow the Committee to engage in open and frank conversation" is appropriate and within-policy sets that limit where the Committee is not expected by the community to be so "accountable" that everyone has to be looking over their shoulders for fear of an e-mail making them the subject of criticism. Open and frank discussion is expected and supported – and protected. But acting unprofessionally or disruptively or in any manner that does not advance the Committee's responsibilities can be considered to go beyond "open and frank discussion". Where that line is crossed is, under this proposal, determined by Committee consensus, not by editors outside the Committee. That's important, I think.

Please consider: surely, it is the case that those things that I just described as going beyond are things that do not normally occur on the mailing list, and, surely, all of you on the Committee would disapprove of them happening. Right? Therefore, I think that it is reasonable for the community to call upon you to explicitly assume that level of "accountability". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Per User talk:Tryptofish#ArbCom mailing lists, Roger tells me that he is going to draw up wording that I expect will take care of this subject. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal_of_decisions Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions.

This has just been brought up at Jimbo's talk page as a rationale for appealing the committee's most recent decision there. Is that really still the case, or does the policy need to be amended? I was fairly sure Jimbo had committed to a more or less "hands off" approach in which he might comment but not act directly some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree and in fact he has on multiple occassions stated outright that he wouldn't interfere. Having it there is pointless so I removed it. Jimbo is never, ever going to overturn an Arbcom ruling nor is the WMF...So I removed that from the instructions. Kumioko (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a defined method to ammend the policy. Your removal is not in line with the written policy. I'd suggest a self revert.--Cube lurker (talk)

I think we all know how incredibly improbable it is that Jimbo will ever do anything like that again, but CubeLurker is probably right, unilaterally removing it is likely to cause more trouble than it is worth, better to have a discussion to formally remove it, or even better a simple statement from Jimbo that he would doing no such thing would be sufficient cause and would not require prolonged discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the major change -- all such changes must be made by the full community per the policy itself. Therefore such out-of-process changes are invalid ab initio (fancy Latin phrase). Alternatively, Wikipedia has no actual controls over ArbCom. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Its no problem, I knew it wouldn't stay and I excuse me if I don't have faith that a community discussion woudl come to a consensus. The community is generally incapable of doing that. Aside from that, Jimbo has, on multiple occassions on his talk page, stated plainly and bluntly that he wouldn't do it. Feel free to search his talk page archive for one, there should be several there. Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Collect: Normally, yes, but if Jimbo says he's never going to do something like that again it would not be necessary for the community to weigh in. I had thought that the community had spoken rather clearly in wanting Jimbo to back off, calling him the "godking" and so forth, and he heard that and said he would back off. I had also thought [retty much everyone was happy with that, but I suppose when you are displeased with arbcom it's an "any port in a storm" situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid making disparaging comments. It is not "any port in a storm" but "this is the defined procedure" which I am following. I find your remarks to be dismissive and improper, and ask you redact them. Collect (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, pull the other one. You know as well as I do that Jimbo is not going to do what you want. Beeblebrox ([[User talk:::Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In my seven years of following the Arbitration Committee's work, I am not aware of any case in which Jimbo Wales overturned an ArbCom decision on appeal. I know of one case in which he modified a remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to have policies that cover unlikely future situations. Imagine a certain religious group that, over the course of many years, managed to get a majority sleepers into arbcom, and then started making pro-scientology decisions. Unlikely, but stranger things have happened. I suspect that if that happened all promises by Jimbo to not interfere would go out the window. Indeed, at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 140#Appeal - was formerly titled "Can an Arbitrator's Block be Overturned" Jimbo says that appealing to him is allowed. (I see no conflict; "I will not interfere" and "you are not allowed to ask me to interfere" are not the same thing.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Guy, there seems to be a case here where Jimbo has been asked to step in and, presumably with input from the other relevant Foundation staff, come up with some ideas how to resolve this. Honestly, that is completely appropriate. Considering that we are all, basically, playing in their playground, we can't object if they decide in a few cases to impose some rules where such seems called for. And, yeah, the Manchurian Candidate or Propaganda Due situation Guy refers to could theoretically happen here as well, although I think it more likely that some sort of governmental type entity would be more likely to try that than Scientology. Granted, I think we all hope that won't happen, but I think the Italians would probably have said "it couldn't happen here" just as quickly as we are about it possibly happening here. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I do believe the "final appeal to Jimbo" clause needs to stay. It might be appropriate, however, for a comment to be added to the effect that although Jimbo reserves the right to overrule ArbCom, in practice he has almost never done so. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Although I think it needs to just be removed I could agree to that but something needs to be stated clearly so the reader knows that in all likelihood they are just wasting their time with an appeal. Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That wound be the wrong thing to do for four reasons. First, we do not want to discourage the small percentage that have a legitimate case. Second, if a thousand people have the same complaint it might result in intervention where one such case wouldn't. We don't want to discourage those thousand editors. Third, even obviously bogus appeals to Jimbo have value by giving Jimbo and those who read his talk page feedback on potential trouble spots. Fourth, it sometimes happens that a disruptive editor self-identifies by appealing to Jimbo, only to get boomeranged. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

All very good points there for not adding such basically inherently prejudicial language. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As Jimbo has indicated he is taking the current appeal seriously and is undertaking a full review, removal of the appeal process seems to be unwarranted here. Collect (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps but there is Zero chance he is going to openly do anything to change the Arbcom decision. He might discuss it with them behind the scenes but nothing is going to change in this case. Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I can think of one case where Jimbo added an unblock condition to a block the Committee had placed in tangent to an ongoing request at that time, so I think that it's good to leave it there, but note that Jimbo would not take action except in extreme conditions. SirFozzie (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko If you're so passionate about this aspect of policy, wouldn't it be a better use of your time to follow the procedures to get the policy ammended, rather debating those who are following existing policy?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes if I thought that would do any good, which I don't for 2 reasons. First, the Arbcom process is largely set forth by the WMF and the WMF generally doesn't care what we think. They are not required to follow our consensus and do not. Second, its almost impossible to change a policy in Wikipedia and its almost impossible to change anything requiring forming a consensus. So although I would invest the time if I thought it would lead to something, I don't think it would do anything except waste time. So the only thing left is being a vocal critic of the process, show others what a mess it is and hope that eventually enough people will listen, put the project before their personal agendas and fix it so that we can get back to what we should be here to do. Which is build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it requires so much red tape to do that these days Wikipedia has devolved to the point its uch like the American congress. All talk and no action. Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I trust Jimbo will see that process was not followed in the case at hand, that members ignored evidence and workshop phases, that people were added with no ability to respond to charges, were told they would be blocked if they "bickered". and that "findings of fact" were exceedingly weakly sourced. He might also note similar problems in the Infobox case, with similar results (including retirement of a respected editor). In which case, he might even go far beyond handling this as a "simple appeal" entirely. Collect (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold your breath buddy! Kumioko (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark Twain said:

Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.

I trust Jimbo will astonish ArbCom. Collect (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and I guess agree with the argument for Jimbo as "ultiate safety valve" for a committee that has gone completely rogue, so as far I am concerned the point is conceded and the initial purpose of this thread is moot. I still think there is basically no chance he will overturn this decision no matter what he may think of it, but if users wish to pursue the matter as if they actually think he will that is their prerogative. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ISTM the analogy with a “ceremonial” constitutional monarchy is pretty close: for example, you can pretty well count on the fingers of one hand the occasions in the last couple of centuries where the British crown, or the Governors-General of Canada, Australia, &c., have exercised their powers to overrule or dismiss an elected government—but their ability so to act is an important part of the system.—Odysseus1479 03:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And the times when this has happened (the 1926 King-Byng Thing in Canada, or the 1975 Whitlam-Kerr dismissal crisis in Australia) have been major events in their respective countries. It could happen, and careful-thinking people will want to keep the possibility, but no sane person should expect it to happen. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this.

I have recently filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_SonofSetanta but am becoming increasing irritated by comments made there because one or two seem determined to enforce the action rather than reading the appeal. I request that admins who are prepared to read what happened in detail take a look at the case. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

My concerns continue to the extent that I have e-mailed Roger Davies asking for his input. For the avoidance of doubt this is my major concern: not one admin has indicated that he/she has examined the original incident which led to the topic ban. It is the assessment (or lack of it) of this which led to the ban being imposed. As things stand it looks very much like the ban was imposed as an enforcement against a previous identity which was shut down 3 years ago. This cannot be correct. My current evidence appears to have been ignored, because it's isn't being discussed. What I'm seeing is a closing of ranks on a "we must support Sandstein" basis. Tell me I'm wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong, SoS; speaking for myself, when I think that an administrator has made a mistake, I do say as much (v. here, where I criticise a sanction imposed by Sandstein). In your case, your evidence has been examined and found lacking. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Salvio. If my evidence has been examined then why doesn't the assessment of it form part of the discussion? I can only respond to what is written. If there are holes in my evidence at least allow me the chance to repair them? Remember, I am not an expert in these matters as you are. I am doing my best to defend myself in a very unfamiliar area. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The list on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Affected areas doesn't include articles mentioned here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Temporary discretionary sanctions. Why is that? BartłomiejB (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Most likely, no one thought to update the page—probably because the discretionary sanctions are temporary (I don't think we've had that before). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@BartłomiejB: It was an oversight by the clerk who implemented the temporary injunction. I have now updated the relevant lists: [3], [4], and [5]. Thanks, AGK [•] 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just letting the Committee know about Talk:Alexis Reich#Requested move 16 September 2013, a move request made by one of the participants in the Manning case, which I've closed as clearly disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was about a hairsbreadth away from reverting that faux close, but on second thought I really don't want to get that directly involved in a pissing match. IMO, it is tickling the faint edges of your "Bradley Manning, broadly construed topic ban to delve into something that evolved from a Manning-related issue into another transgender subject's article name. There's also the fact that you nipped a discussion only 20 hours old, running 6-1 in support of the move. I don't see this decision of yours ending well for anyone. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Close reverted. NE Ent 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've just opened an ANI thread about this incident. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It would be useful to have {{ArbComOpenTasks}} on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. At present, anyone coming here for the first time has to spot "Current proceedings" in the mass of small blue links on the right hand side of the page, to find out where to go, to see what the current state of affairs is. Bringing that information to this page, the front of the arbitration section, would be much more new reader friendly. Thanks, — Scott • talk 13:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the page is overloaded enough already, so I've instead added a {{hatnote}} to its top. AGK [•] 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The page attached to this one says "[...] the Committee determines which editors have access to CheckUser [...]" and WP:SPI says "if you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator, or if you need to submit off-wiki evidence for some other reason, you must e-mail the CheckUser team or the Arbitration Committee [...]". Could the committee please clarify its role, if any, in sock-puppet investigations of non-administrators? I'm asking because I noticed some odd happenings in such an SPI, with one of the SPI clerks saying the committee discouraged him from investigating.

On 31 August, the Arbitration Committee decided that among the most recent applicants for check-user, Rschen7754, who had helped a great deal with the Morning277 SPI, would be the only one not granted the privilege.

On 1 September, WilliamH, who had been an administrator and SPI clerk with check-user permission, retired and gave up his privileges. During the short time I was involved in the Morning277 SPI, he had been the most active in looking at check-user information and blocking ranges of IP addresses.

On 2 September, 79 outstanding SPI reports on Morning277 (among which only one had had a check-user request, which had been completed) were closed all at once without investigation (marked as a minor edit!), and a set of highly restrictive rules against the posting of new reports, described as a "warning", [6] were put in their place.

On 4 September, Dennis Brown, an administrator and SPI clerk without the check-user privilege, commented that "Arb has privately made it very clear they don't want Morning277 sockpuppets blocked" [7] then on 18 September he made a similar remark that "a few members of Arb have made it clear they aren't interested in us stopping sock/COI editing" [8]. He had blocked hundreds of accounts and in mid-July had proposed a community ban of Morning277, which commenters were unanimous in supporting. —rybec 03:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Rybec: There is no connection between the Morning227 developments and the recent checkuser appointments. It is news to me, for instance, that most of the admins or clerks that contributed to the investigation were appointed checkusers. WilliamH's retirement was likewise a coincidence. As for the Morning227 investigation in general: the functionary team led that, not the Arbitration Committee. AGK [•] 09:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Is this response meant as a statement that the committee did not involve itself in the Morning277 SPI? Saying the investigation was led by others seems to fall short of that. Will there be any statement about Dennis Brown's remarks? While the other events might be coincidental, he explicitly said that the committee opposed enforcement of the ban. His remarks leave me with the impression that the committee stands opposed to the community ban.

Also "[...] most of the admins or clerks that contributed to the investigation were appointed checkusers" is a misunderstanding, or the word "not" was left out. My intended meaning was that among the applicants for check-user permission, the one who contributed to the investigation was the only one declined by the committee.

Does the committee routinely participate in SPIs of non-administrators? If so, some documentation may be in order. Community discussion may also be desirable. —rybec 14:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the existence of the "functionaries team"—is it the group of people described by Wikipedia:Functionaries? That page implies that all the members of the Arbitration Committee are among the functionaries. If that's correct, I have trouble making sense of the statement "the functionary team led that, not the Arbitration Committee." —rybec 17:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Most ArbCom members do very little work with CheckUser and Oversight. The ones who do contribute to the functionaries' team independently of their service on ArbCom (ArbCom does not do anything except by majority vote, whereas Functionaries works on the consensus of those who show up to discuss the issue). As far as Dennis Brown's statement, I have no idea what it is based on. I certainly haven't seen any discussion about it, either on the ArbCom lists or functionaries-en, in the last month (though granted, I often archive-without-reading functionaries-en threads). As far as the Rschen7754 not being a CheckUser—it really was just a coincidence, as was WilliamH's retirement. NW (Talk) 00:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not sure how this will go down, or if this is the right place to propose it - if I'm stuffing up on either just let me know. :) But I'd like to propose that ArbCom commission an independent post mortem of the TPM case. I'm not asking for an appeal, (that's not even remotely my intent), but that we consider running the sort of post-decision review that is common in many institutions, where we formally look back on the process of the case to ask what went well, what didn't, and what should be changed or emphasised for future situations. Sort of a reflective learning scenario. I'd normally be recommending it for any large and complex case that ArbCom runs, but this one stood out a bit because of some unusual aspects. Is there a process by which such a thing can be proposed?

And just to be clear, asking this probably makes it look like I'm disagreeing with the decision or the process. That's not my intent. It is simply that these sorts of no-blame reviews are valuable for committees and organisations to evaluate how to improve their own processes, and are just as likely to emerge with positives as negatives. But I think that this case, in particular, had a few aspects which should be considered in regard to future cases that may come before ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilby, for your thoughtful comments. I don't know that we need to "commission" a post-mortem on the Tea Party movement case, but I am sure we would welcome any thoughts that editors may have (and that such thoughts will be expressed, including on the noticeboard talkpage, in any event). The arbitrators are aware that this case was not a model of case handling, including with respect to the length of time that it took, among other things. (Some of the fault there is mine.) Some experiments during the case, such as suspending the case for purposes of moderated discussion led by an arbitrator, were well-intentioned but probably are unlikely to be repeated.

For my part, I think it is may be a bit too soon to "post-mortem" a case that just closed, but something I would welcome is if someone wanted to review a cross-section of arbitration decisions from the past and evaluate whether the arbitration process and the decisions in those cases were useful in resolving the disputes that led to the arbitrations. It would be of great interest for me and presumably others to know, other than anecdotally (such as in the course of hearing from clarification/amendment requests), what approaches to dispute-resolution have worked well and helped solved problems, and which have proved ineffectual. This could provide useful input both for arbitrators and for participants in community sanctions discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The root cause of why the TPM article (and EVERY article representing a real wold contest or clash) is in bad shape is in weaknesses in policies and guidelines. So nobody should fault arbcom for not being to "fix" these situations; such is impossible for them to do. But I and many DO fault arbcom on this for smacking people in ways that was clearly overkill (at best), harmful and unwarranted. If there is any soul searching for arbcom required, it should be on having a proper process in place which is based on evidence, finding of facts solidly based on that evidence, and any actions taken being solidly based and warranted upon the findings of fact. This due and intelligent process (rather than working miracles on articles) is what IS expected of arbcom, and IMHO completely lacking from this case. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully in the spirit of what Brad said, I'd like to offer a comment as someone who did not follow the case when it was in progress, but read the decision after the case was concluded. When I read the findings of fact (and it's important to note that I never read the evidence or workshop pages!), I found repeatedly that my gut reaction was to agree with Brad's dissenting comments that the diffs and links did not seem to me to really support the conclusions drawn by the majority. That doesn't mean that the majority was wrong. It just means that the writing, on its face, wasn't convincing to me. I'm saying that at least partly to make a broader point, which is that it can be tricky to present diffs and similar evidence in a decision. Normally, I'm all in favor of backing up anything on-Wiki with a citation, but this may be a special case, where it may make sense to consider the evidence page of a case to be "incorporated by reference" into the decision page. Usually, any evidence that justifies a finding of fact ought to be on the evidence page. If it isn't, as when arbs discover evidence on their own while examining a case, it seems to me to be best practice that anything that might end up in the proposed decision should, first, be displayed at the workshop. Knowing that this isn't a court, I'm not saying that in the spirit of admission of evidence. Rather, I'm saying it in the spirit of the Wiki style of editing, in this case because it gives the Committee a chance to get their gut feelings reviewed by editors outside the Committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is the first time I have ever paid attention to the process and from an outsider, the process is terrible. My hats off to the committee for volunteering to do this thankless job, because you could not pay me to do it. However, the volunteer nature of being on the committee seems to be at the heart of why the process is awful. While commendable, one professional researcher that had a day job of researching and presenting diffs would have quickly resolved the case. Wikipedia is a complex animal, I am learning. At some point, it should move away from an all-volunteer method for resolving these conduct issues and start to professionalize the research that goes into these cases. Casprings (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As one of the more senior arbitrators, I can attest (speaking generally, not specifically about this case), that finding the diffs is often the easy part. Evaluating them, especially in the context of everything else going on at the time, is the tougher part of the job. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • That is interesting. Well, if that is the case, less cooks in the kitchen would be the easiest solution. Each case is decided by three members, with a possible appeal to a larger group. I know I am taking my opinion from one case that isn't representative of the whole process, but that was painful.Casprings (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It's typical. And ever more typical. And you're right, the process is awful and the volunteers are overworked. It's just one more symptom of the completely dysfunctional anarchy that wiki has become. Arbcom has lost its compass. Arbcom should be abolished. It no exists in my world and I no longer recognize its vaildity. PumpkinSky talk 17:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
      • As Casprings touches on, professionalism in ArbCom would go a long way. However, prior suggestions (and not just from me) for movement in that direction has been met with stiff resistance. The reality is that ArbCom is an assemblage of people with, in almost all cases, no experience in dispute resolution or indeed any experience in conducting investigations. Through the years, a few have had some actual experience in these realms. However by and large the members of ArbCom have no more experience in these areas than the average person on the street. As a result, the output of ArbCom is entirely predictable. Thankfully, there are fewer and fewer cases taken by ArbCom. Only 7 cases have been closed this year, which is by far the lowest on record since ArbCom formed in 2004. Of note; in 2006, they closed 116 cases. If the pattern of decline of ArbCom's involvement in the project continues, within a couple of years there won't be any work for them to do anymore. Thank God. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
        • • HA. There's PLENTY of work for them to do. They just find excuses not to take the cases. They're not doing their jobs; and what they do is atrocious. Now if they did their job and did it well, wiki might not be the complete dysfunctional anarchy it has become. The community knows they'll likely not take a case and if they did they'd screw it up, so they don't file them. We're at the point we'd be better off without them. But I doubt that'll happen. After 7+ years of bickering we can't even change RFA. PumpkinSky talk 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Yeah, I'm going to have to speak up here. PS, you've been there, you know why the Committee is hesitant to take cases, because even a quick arbitration case can be lengthy and involved, so if it can be resolved short of that. "We" (meaning the Committee) can't change RfA, because THAT'S NOT IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION. You wanted the Committee to constantly expand their roles on everything to be the #1 voice on everything. That's not what it's supposed to be. The AC take less cases, because there are more robust procedures that handle things short of the Committee. That means what makes it up there is more involved, more nasty, and requiring more work to fix. I'm not going to speak to the decisions made by the Committee, I have not spent the hours and hours to review this case that it requires to form a coherent opinion.. but I'm sorry to say, this seems more like someone whose vision for the Committee was soundly defeated criticizing their successors. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
              • It's because I've been there that I know just how f*d up wiki and AC have truly become. And I'm not talking about the TPM case, but multiple instances of truly atrocious decisions. I know you can't change RFA, that's just ONE example of dysfunctional wiki is. More robust procedures? ARE YOU JOKING? I can't believe you said. One example--Try get anything done with abusive admins---you can't. "The community" can't because they can't control admins and AC is too chicken shit to do their jobs. Get real. PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
                • • Jesus Christ man. They are just volenteers doing the best they can, in their own judgement. They are people with various things going on and this isn't a job. It's an Internet cite with a noble goal, but it's still just a site trying to build an encyclopedia. Don't be suck a dick to people.Casprings (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • • You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Until you've walked in my shoes, don't pretend to understand this. As for the arb, they volunteered to do a job and they need to do it properly. Since they can't, they need to step down. Yes, I've been there. I used to be an arb. I know exactly what I'm talking about and I will say what I want. When you've had the 99.9% of the community shit all over you for three years and turn their back on you, then you can come talk to me. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                        • That is great. You can still be civil. Have a good day. It remains and still is a website. No one dies here.Casprings (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom needs fixing as the ultimate venue for a smaller number of cases. Admin is supposedly "no big deal" and (roughly speaking given that the new admin process is broken) is mostly people from back when when anybody could get it. There needs to be a cadre of people (who can act alone or maybe in duos or trios) who have been proven to have wisdom, diplomacy, a thorough, careful and impartial process for reviewing situations and arriving at conclusions and measures, and a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policies, guidelines and how Wikipedia works. And they need to handle many of the tough situations. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • The community gets back what it dishes out to people. There are multitudes way more uncivil than me. Go have a chat with them. @North, that's a wiki pipe dream and you know it. PumpkinSky talk 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Needing to handle many of the tough situations is precisely the reason why so many admins are reluctant to do it - all they get is abuse for trying and all tarred with the same brush. A cadre of people ... who have been proven to have wisdom, diplomacy, a thorough, careful and impartial process for reviewing situations and arriving at conclusions and measures, and a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policies, guidelines and how Wikipedia works - isn't this what Arbcom is supposed to be? If the wrong people get elected as admins and/or Arbcom members, it's the voters' fault. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Supposed is the key word there. It's only partly the voters fault. Elected people (wiki arbs, parliament, whatever) are still responsible for their decisions this crowd is not worthy of any further consideration. I stand by what I said, AC needs to be abolished. PumpkinSky talk 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This has gone in different directions to what I intended, but that happens. To reply to NYB, there are a couple of reasons why I would look to a formal review rather than comments from editors. The first is that it is just a standard part of project management - the post-mortem review is a normal step in evaluating how a project went in order to learn from it. Its aim is to encourage organisational learning and facilitate constant improvement of processes. The second is that a formal process would remove feelings about the correctness of the decision from the equation. The decision has been reached, and there are avenues for questioning that, but my concern is that there doesn't seem to be defined path through which ArbCom can look at its own processes and improve on them, without also being caught up in the issues surrounding the final decisions.

But my other concern with volunteering opinions is more basic - no-one from the outside is in a position to evaluate the processes, as we don't have knowledge of the internal decision making. For example, three things stood out for me in this case. The first was the time it took. Without knowing why it took so long, I can't comment on if this was an issue that should or should not be fixed. Was it slow because of the amount of information? Was the speed a natural consequence of considering a difficult issue? Or was it due to other factors that are more internal and could be addressed? Similarly, introducing new parties after the completion of the evidence collection phase seemed to be an issue, but was it? Did the committee members have the opportunity to properly consider the issues around the new parties without needing them to be included when evidence was collected? Or did those parties not get the same level of consideration? And was introducing them a necessary result of the time the case took to be completed? Finally, for me, the question as to the effectiveness of the delay in proceedings for an arbitrator to take part in moderated discussion. Did it work? If not, could it still be a useful technique with some refinement? I have no idea what the answers to any of these are, and can;t figure out most of them, but they seem potentially useful questions to have answers to. :)

The thing is, I know a lot of editors will already have opinions on all of this, which is important. But the questions of process - not the rightness or wrongness of them, but simply what worked, what didn't, and how to improve them - is something that might best be examined formally for all complex cases to try and bring about internal reflection and, where warranted, improvements. - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I can save you the time on why it was slow.....because it was misdirected/derailed from the start onto a hopeless tangent in two respects and (for a multitude of reasons) arbcom did not recognize that and recover from it, making their whole effort off track and hopeless. But you are right.....it needs a review process to make a methodical determination. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Easy: ArbCom must establish and abide by clear procedures. Among this would be:

No "Finding" or sanction should be considered without allowing presentation of timely evidence thereon. Period.

Second, any arbitrator who arrives at a case with any conceivable bias as to eventual resolution of the case should automatically recuse themselves. In any legal system known on this planet, this is pretty much accepted procedure. Period.

Thirdly, no one should ever be added at the last minute (actually a month past the last minute) - such an act effectively estops them from presenting evidence of any sort.

It is up to the parties involved to present evidence, not up to those judging the "evidence" to present it to themselves. If there is an actual cause why a new person should be sanctioned, an additional case ought to be brought, lest miscarriages of equity occur.

Lastly, quoting Teddy Roosevelt that a hypothetical example presented was "Bosh and twaddle[9]" is not sanctionable in any reasonable proceeding. Collect (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (on Wikistrike)

Collect, I respectfully but emphatically disagree. You're mad at your situation, but I think the lesson is different. I think we need to all do a better job of talking about "remedies" instead of "sanctions", an important distinction given we expect Arbcom to somehow miraculously solve problems we somehow otherwise can't solve. It would sometimes -- as in this situation -- be so much easier if Arbcom could say -- and be perceived as saying -- "X, your conduct wasn't super helpful here, and in order for this diseased area of WP to heal, we want you to stay away for 6 mos", instead of "X, you've been bad, we sanction you by banning you for 6 mos". Which actually isn't too far from what the letter of the decision (FoF / remedy) says, if it weren't for the unfortunate context of it coming after trying but not passing a "let's have a bunch of people sit out without trying to figure out exactly which ones were really dastardly" resolution. That (with a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect) is where Arbcom you screwed up. You were about to try a somewhat novel approach of "no fault" or "not very much fault" remedies, but caved in to brouhaha motivated by an unfortunate through widely held misperception that any remedy restricting individuals' editing must be a sanction/punishment. By caving in, you implicitly accepted this unfortunate simplification, which then put you in a bind in crafting the ultimate final decision. And will constrain your ability to resolve similar situations going forward. Martinp (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that if things are going to be fixed, there needs to be more attention paid to the global POV of an article. As it stands, NPOV is a dead letter.William Jockusch (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a "global POV" policy, as an evaluation of a so-called "global POV" by Wikipedia editors would amount to original research, and therefore contradict and violate the WP:OR policy.

The suggestion of "global POV" sounds like a back door argument against content sourcing per WP:RS, which is basically a policy that has to be enforced in order for WP:NPOV to have a chance of being maintained. All three of those policies--if enforced--serve to prevent editing behavior associated with WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The three types of vote in last year's AC elections were "Support", "No vote", and "Oppose". I would like to propose a rewording: change "No vote" either to "Abstain", or else to "No opinion". I am concerned that some voters may be confused by the current headings and could accidentally misread "No vote" as meaning a "No" vote — i.e., some people might vote to abstain on a given candidate, when in fact they meant to oppose that candidate. The nature of the problem is that we can never know how many (or how few) people actually made this mistake; the best approach, IMO, is to make the voting procedure as unambiguous as possible, so as to minimize any erroneous votes. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be a topic for the annual RFC -- suggest you repost at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013 NE Ent 10:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we actually having that RFC this year? Wasn't there a discussion at some point about just using the 2012 voting rules? NW (Talk) 14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is about using the 2012 rules as default so the RfC only dealt with things that people wanted to change, rather than needing to reconfirm everything. Only if nobody proposes any changes will there be no RfC (assuming there is consensus at the RfC about RfCs). The RfC about the RfCs is at WP:VPP#Proposal to change the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted, it is currently still open but appears to have attracted no new comments since the 16th. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one issue I can think of that wasn't covered by the close last year, and that we will need to at least clarify in the RFC, that being the term length for the 8th open seat from the other tranche. Also, the specifics of the schedule, do we use the same dates or same days of the week on slightly different dates. I'm sure there are some others as well. Monty₈₄₅ 14:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added my proposal regarding the labelling of the "no vote" option to the newly created RFC page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Although it is not my intention to be a pest about insisting on this, I want to check back, and push things along if need be, about revising the procedures for the mailing list. The last I heard about it, Roger told me at User talk:Tryptofish#ArbCom mailing lists that he was planning to put forth specific wording around the middle of September. I left a follow-up message at his talk a few days ago, and it got archived before there was a reply. Please let me know if I can assist in any way. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the feeling that I could just go ahead and edit the procedures page (not the policy page) per the last discussion here, and no one would object. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I said that last thing not particularly seriously, curious what the response would be. Now it looks like the response is no response. I'm starting to think seriously about actually doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Tryptofish. I guess at the end of the day, those of us regularly working with the mailing lists have had extremely restricted wiki-time in the past month or two, and what we have has been devoted to working on cases rather than procedures. I understand your commitment to trying to get something moving here; I've had a similar commitment to trying to make some other changes along the same lines. With only 12 of us now, and two open cases, we're getting increasingly pressed for time. We will do our best, but I hope you understand that cases need to come first. Risker (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. I do understand, and I had a feeling that that was the case. But seriously, then, wouldn't it be helpful if I just go ahead and make the edit? It's not like there would be anything preventing any of you from revising or reverting it. (After all, I started asking about this just after the last election, and we are now just before the next one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry I didn't get back to you @Tryptofish:. I have been stacked out with off-wiki work and real-life deadlines for the last few weeks and it is only now that I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel. I have however given the issue considerable thought and what follows is where I have currently got to with it. No email should be published on-wiki without the explicit affirmative consent of the author and, where it refers to others, those that it refers to. That said, subject to the usual caveats about exercising considerable discretion ("appropriate confidence" in the policy) about legal or privacy issues, arbitrators may refer to, or summarise parts of, an email on-wiki but not quote directly from it unless it has already been published by the author on-wiki. The author, of course, may publish at will but is bound by the usual policy restrictions on personal attacks, copyright, outing etc (and, if the author is an arbitrator, additional restrictions of privacy and legal content). While this wouldn't satisfy everybody (there are as many who believe that private communications are sacrosanct as those that believe everything should be published), it does seem to me to be a reasonably good balance and, after reflection, I am having difficulty seeing how it could be easily improved.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Roger, I intended what I said below to be a reply to you, along with everyone else, but AGK asked me to reply specifically, so here it is. Myself, I see communications on this particular mailing list as neither sacrosanct nor as always, or even frequently, needing to be published, but I think that it will be helpful to the Committee to find out where the community, not just me, stands on this. I think that a future Committee will inevitably come up against something very much like what happened between JClemens and Elen, and I think that your analysis does not sufficiently deal with that eventuality. That was a situation that simply does not fit into your description of "No email should be published on-wiki without the explicit affirmative consent of the author and, where it refers to others, those that it refers to." I proposed a majority vote of the Committee to deal with that. There is no reason to expect that a majority of the Committee would be unable to assert "appropriate confidence". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: There's no getting around the fact that publishing emails verbatim over the opposition of the author puts the committee in a very difficult legal and policy position. There's no getting round that. The JClemens/Elen of the Roads situation was such a strange intersection of unusual events that it is unlikely to happen again. The real problem had nothing whatsoever to do with the release of the text of emails but the fact that the committee had so many members recused (because of upcoming elections) that it was unable to reach the required supermajority to suspend/remove an arbitrator.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The "no getting around the fact that publishing emails verbatim over the opposition of the author puts the committee in a very difficult legal and policy position" bit isn't necessarily or absolutely correct. If the Committee wished (or if the Foundation so decided) they could quite easily impose terms and conditions on the use of the ArbCom mailing list, going forward, that included provisions for the release of messages verbatim under appropriate circumstances. Arbs would be required to consent to those terms, much as they are required to identify themselves to the Foundation, as a condition of using the list and/or holding a seat on the Committee. The community, the Arbs, or the Foundation may not desire to impose such a requirement, but there is nothing in extant law or policy that would absolutely forbid it.

That said, involuntarily releasing entire emails verbatim is something of a red herring. What has been more problematic is the perception that it is not permitted or permissible to discuss or allude to the contents – or even acknowledge the existence of – email messages on the mailing list. In the case of Jclemens' misuse of the mailing list last year, it seemed – from the outside, looking in – that one of the major stumbling blocks the ArbCom encountered in dealing appropriately with the situation was a concern that so much as revealing or describing even abusive use of the list might constitute an unconscionable breach of the list's confidentiality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the bigger stumbling block was that this was the first time that anyone on the committee can recall an arbitrator misusing the mailing list in this way, and hence we had no precedent on how to respond; further, the fact that both arbitrators involved in the situation were current candidates, and the fact that some of our colleagues who were candidates decided they should recuse rather than participate, hamstrung the committee in taking the most logical actions. This didn't actually have that much to do with the mailing list, and much more to do with human behaviour. Risker (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the biggest stumbling blocks appears not to have been that the ArbCom was unsure of how to respond, but rather that no one on the ArbCom thought than any official response or statement – public or private – was necessary, nor even that one could or should be discussed. From Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l and the ensuing discussion, after Jclemens used the mailing list to (attempt to) discourage other candidates from nominating themselves, he got a don't do that message from one or two Arbitrators speaking in their individual capacities, followed by at least five days of silence on the mailing list. It wasn't that the ArbCom considered and rejected a response. It wasn't even that the ArbCom was in the process of considering a formal response, or brainstorming different responses, but took too much time. As far as the community is aware, the ArbCom was content to bury the point completely. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the committee's hand was forced only when they discovered Jclemens' message(s) had been leaked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you may think of JClemens conduct, TenOfAllTradesit pales into complete insignificance compaed to some of the stuff that arbitrators have to put up with.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People Stephen Covey breaks tasks into 4 sectors based on urgency and importance, and notes the important-not-urgent tasks are often neglected. The problem with the mailing list issue is that it will never be urgent to address until it is, but when it is, it will be too late (again). NE Ent 23:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well said. I wish I had thought of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, then, please someone on the Committee tell me this. Is the situation simply one of low priority, or is there also an issue of some members of the Committee being strongly opposed? Part of the reason I ask is that Roger's message at my talk page led me to believe that the Committee was receptive to adding language to the procedures page (but not amending the policy page). Maybe I was incorrect about that? If it's just low priority, then I think I can help you by making the edit. If there is disagreement, then I think the best way I can help you is by starting a community RfC, because it is obvious that your discussions must be stalled and community advice ought to be helpful. What I don't want to do is just keep waiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

From a Wikibureaucracy view, any edit to the procedures page would be null and void. Only changes to the procedures that have been supported by a majority of the committee (in a binding vote) are valid, so please don't edit the page. On the question of whether this change has been ignored because it is considered unimportant or considered wrong, I would defer to Roger Davies who – so it seems from your talk page – intends to propose some sort of substantive resolution. My own feeling is that the arbitration policy's provision for "appropriate confidence" is adequate, and therefore the procedure you propose is unnecessary and unacceptable. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but would echo Risker's comment that we are focussing, this month, on the two open cases above all else. Regards, AGK [•] 09:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If past years are anything to go by, nominations for the next ArbCom election will probably start in less than six weeks. If ArbCom's position is that they cannot address these issues right now because they are "focussing, this month, on the two open cases above all else", their effective position is "We are not going to deal with this problem this year"—and I see no reason not to expect the same thing to happen next year, and the year after. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, then, at least I agree with NE Ent and TenOfAllTrades. I realize that everyone has every right to change their minds, but I will note that, about a month ago, AGK said on this talk page that the language that I had proposed then was fine with him, and Roger asked me at my talk to give him a chance to draw up his own language. I'm very sympathetic to how heavy and thankless the workload is for every Committee member, perhaps more sympathetic than many other editors. But I've been trying on this talk page, for almost a year, to help generate an improvement to procedures that would allow the Committee to do a better job of dealing with what happened between JClemens and Elen, when something like it happens again. Not if. When. In my opinion, the comments here about "appropriate confidence" rest on the assumption that "when" cannot possibly ever happen again, and I disagree.

So here we stand. I am told that the Committee is still "open to being persuaded otherwise", but that you will not really engage with it any time soon, because you are too busy with cases. As to when you will have enough time, I cannot improve on what TenOfAllTrades said.

Here is what I am going to do now. From now until after the election, I'm going to sit back and do nothing (well, maybe, ask some questions to candidates). Then, after it looks to me like the new membership have had a chance to settle in, I'm going to start an RfC at the Village Pump, widely publicized at CENT and so forth. I'll propose a change to the procedures page, along the lines of what I proposed here most recently. Nothing about the policy page, just procedure. We'll see what the community's advice is. I recognize that such an RfC is not binding on ArbCom, but rather, is advisory. That's fine. The Committee will get whatever advice it gets, and look rather bad if they say that they are too busy to implement something if the community's advice is that they should do so.

But I'm not going to waste any more time asking on this talk page, having already wasted almost a year. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested to read your response to Roger Davies' comment, above, from earlier today. Regards, AGK [•] 22:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I intended what I said here to include that, but, since you ask, I'll spell it out more specifically. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the comments from Roger:

The JClemens/Elen of the Roads situation was such a strange intersection of unusual events that it is unlikely to happen again.

That specific intersection may not happen again, but the issue of inappropriate use of the list or a dispute over disclosure is highly likely to recur at some point, humans being capable of poor judgement and mistakes.

The real problem had nothing whatsoever to do with the release of the text of emails but the fact that the committee had so many members recused (because of upcoming elections) that it was unable to reach the required supermajority to suspend/remove an arbitrator.

Actually, the much bigger problem is that some members of ArbCom still appear to believe that maintaining list confidentiality is more important than protecting the integrity of ArbCom. A relate problem is the difference in perspectives, where JClemens attempts to intimidate Arbitrators and unprofessional / unethical behaviour was viewed as much less serious than Elen's disclosure about these actions. From my perspective, the big problem is that ArbCom collectively failed to deal with JClemens, not its lacking a supermajority needed to expell Elen for revealling JClemens' misbeahviour.

There is another problem here: every time an issue comes up that has led to damage to ArbCom reputation and / or Arbitrator departure, if community members try to act to improve procedures the response is that the specific circumstance is unlikely to recur. Attempts to add specific codes of conduct to the policies were opposed as too restrictive and so we get a repeating cycle of issue followed by inaction. This needs to change. EdChem (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's an idea, @EdChem: and @Tryptofish:: Put your money where your mouth is. Five weeks from now, *you* step up to the plate, run for Arbcom, and take on the whole enchilada. The mailing list is such a small piece of the pie that it is naturally not at the top of the Committee's list of things to do: if you want it to be at the top, then you have to be on the Committee to make it so. There will be at least 9 open seats, and I don't think any of the incumbents are planning to run again, so both of you have a decent chance of success. But please, look at what you're doing here: complaining about the bad behaviour of two people who were not re-elected to the committee, one of whom has not participated in the project at all for months, and blaming a mailing list for their behaviour. Risker (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit disappointing, Risker. Roger Davies has been trying to engage constructively here; if you aren't prepared to support him in that, please at least try not to derail the discussion with rhetorical posturing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Risker:, if only there was some sort of name for arguments that play the man rather than the ball... maybe something that could be the title for an ArbCom principle relating to arguments to avoid... what might that be?

On the issues... I can't run for ArbCom, I don't have the required "no big deal" mop. I am pointing out that the mailing list / JClemens / Elen issue is just an example of a bigger (and long-evident) problem; I don't want to berate JClemens or Elen, each has departed as you note, but I do want ArbCom to actually try fixing some of the problems that have been exposed. I have no doubt that ArbCom is a difficult and largely thankless job and I realise mistakes will be made and there will be cases where reasonable people can disagree. I like to think that I'm a fair critic of ArbCom. Maybe you can consider how things look from outside the Committee and fight the tendency to go defensive, and consider what points made by reasonable critics might be worth engaging with. EdChem (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

EdChem, I'm speaking from experience here. Five years ago, Arbcom was in far worse shape than it is now, had far less structure, and there were such intense internal splits that the committee that resulted in errors that had longterm effects. At that point, a whole bunch of us put ourselves forward and got elected to more than half the seats on a newly expanded committee, and a renewal process began that made major changes in that gave structure to the ban appeals process, created the AUSC, made a major update of the Arbitration Policy, experimented with different ways to manage cases, established standards for CheckUsers and Oversighters and actively engaged the community in their selection. It's time now to do the same thing: seek out candidates who will re-imagine the role of the committee, who will move the committee in new directions and re-evaluate some of its tasks and priorities, and devote the time needed to implement those changes. In two years, a lot can be done if the new committee can come to some shared objectives and be flexible enough to support each other through the change processes. But it needs fresh thinking, new people with new energy and a willingness to make Arbcom their primary volunteer focus. It takes candidates who don't see Arbcom's raison d'être as just adjudicating cases: they have to be actively interested in dealing with the other matters, too. So even if you don't run, go out and find candidates who can do this. There will not be a lot of continuity following this election; it gives the Committee and the Community a chance to renew and reorient. Risker (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But ArbCom is a closed shop of administrators, a rule imposed by the WMF, so there's clearly no will to change anything. Eric Corbett 23:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not correct, Eric, although I understand why you'd think that. This comes from the WMF restriction on handing out Oversight and CheckUser permissions to only those who have passed a rigorous community evaluation process, such as RFA. It also includes being elected to the Arbitration Committee. Fact is that the tools aren't really all that effective without the admin bit, but the lack of an RFA does not, from the WMF perspective, prevent anyone from running for Arbcom. To be honest, some of the best potential candidates within the community are not administrators. Risker (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say not being an admin prevented anyone from standing for ArbCom, I said that non-admins can't be appointed to ArbCom. Eric Corbett 00:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no barrier to them being appointed, other than getting enough votes. I think there are some non-admins who could pull it off, and who would do a fine job. We've had some non-admins working on Arbcom-related RFCs this past year who were very good. Risker (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to check with the WMF. I recall a posting earlier this year from one of their spokesmen stating categorically that non-admins could never be appointed to ArbCom. Eric Corbett 19:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That strikes me as being an ideal case of WP:IAR then. Specifically, if a non-admin earns enough trust to sit on ArbCom, it could also count as being equivalent to a successful RFA and the tools given. Resolute 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish is not complaining about the behavior of the departed; they are, in the best tradition of Wikipedia sofixit, identifying a specific problem and attempting to address it. The truth that each individual is responsible for their behavior does not alter the fact that structure affects behavior. Just as a straight intersection where poor driver behavior repeatedly results in accidents may be replaced with the improved structure of a roundabout, fixing the mailing list rules is a good idea. NE Ent 15:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to reply in one place here, but please understand that I am replying to everything that has been said since I last commented here. I'm just putting my replies in one place, rather than intersperse them through the comments above.
• It's stands out to me, remarkably, on the one hand, how much I agree, very strongly, with what TenOfAllTrades, EdChem, and NE Ent have said, and, on the other hand, how much I feel that all of the members of the Committee who have commented here are failing to see the forest for the trees. I think the three non-Arbs are entirely correct in their replies, and I thank each of them for it. And I think that each of the Arbs are very smart, perceptive people, whom I hold in high regard, so I ask myself why you all seem to be missing something. I think there must be something about being too close to what happened, and taking personally a proposal that has never been meant personally, but rather, is meant to make things run more smoothly in the future.
• Risker, thank you very much for your endorsement. I'm accepting campaign contributions now, preferably in small, unmarked bills. But I do not at this time even want to be an administrator, so I definitely have no intention of running for ArbCom, despite how much fun and how easy all of you make it sound like. (End of comic interlude.) Instead, as NE Ent correctly said, I'm trying to so-fix-it. Too bad the people who would most benefit from the fix have been so determined to stonewall, delay, and obstruct. But I'm pretty sure that I will ask a question of the candidates in the upcoming election about the issue here.
• TenOfAllTrades and EdChem have already done an excellent job of replying to the procedural specifics, so I'll say this in something like summary style. What happened with JClemens and Elen was an unusual situation, but situations in which the Committee, as a whole, will have to deal with something problematic on the mailing list caused by one Arbitrator, as an individual, will inevitably happen again, sometime. It's human nature. I'm not trying to prevent messages of the general sort of those that JClemens wrote, because I can't. I'm interested, instead, in two things. The first is providing a future Elen with an option that would deal with the situation without being a violation of anything; the second is providing a mechanism for everyone else on the future Committee to handle the situation without looking bad. And hear me on this: all the rest of you looked bad as the situation became apparent to the community. You don't seem to want to hear that, which is why these discussions have been so unproductive, but it's true. I think it would be a good thing for the project if, in the future, future Committees would have a better way to deal with this kind of stuff when it comes up.
• I'm happy to continue discussing any of this if you want, now that some of you have, ahem, found the time. But as I said, I'm going to wait until after the election, and then I'm going to start an advisory RfC of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what? I was literally one "save" away from submitting my resignation as an arbitrator this time last year (for completely unrelated reasons) when this mess blew up, and the only reason I remained on the committee was that if I'd left at that point, I would have been tarred with the same gruesome brush that Elen and Jclemens were, whether or not I deserved it. So please don't tell me I look bad over the way we dealt with those two. I would have looked a darn sight worse if I'd put my personal self-interest ahead of trying to straighten things out there. And I'm pretty darn certain not a single person who's complaining here would have done a better job. Risker (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I said all of you looked bad, not you individually. And it had nothing to do with resigning. It had everything to do with how the information came out to the community, and how it became painfully apparent to everyone paying attention that Elen didn't have access to a good procedure to deal with it, and the rest of the Committee didn't have access to a good procedure to deal with what Elen did. No, no one else could have done better, you are correct. That's because there was no procedure in place to allow a graceful handling of the problem. And there is no procedure in place now, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to speak ill of someone who is not here to defend herself. However, Elen did indeed have a process to deal with things (even if she didn't like the process, which started with talking to one or more colleagues), and she chose to do things the way she did knowing full well that it would not meet with the approval of the committee as a whole. This was a conscious decision on her part, and she has paid the price for making it. This was not the first time that the issue of mailing list confidentiality arose during her term, and she already knew the answer. She also, if she had taken five minutes to think about it, should have realised that a threat from an arbitrator seeking re-election who was held in such low esteem by the community even before his intemperate remarks on the mailing list was about as empty a threat as could be, particularly as he had already been soundly criticized for his comments by just about everyone else on the mailing list. In many cases, the best response to a situation is based on the situation itself; that is why black and white solutions often make things worse rather than better. (Ever heard of three-strikes-and-life?) Risker (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's one version. Another is that there was no process for dealing with any of it, except under lock and key. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And let me please add: I'm not "complaining" that the Committee did a bad job in that incident. I know you hear all the time from people saying that you did a bad job with this or that. My purpose here is different. What I'm doing is noting that you could not really have done things differently under your existing procedures, but, with revised procedures, things like this can be handled more smoothly in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This is supposed to be grownups we're talking about here. Step one doesn't ever involve breaking a rule one knows is fully in effect in the absence of investigating other options. We had two very badly behaved arbitrators at the end of last year, one of whom had already advised us would not be running again (so the email in question shouldn't have had any effect at all), and the other of whom had no chance of successful re-election. Throwing either of them off the committee (which is really what this comes down to) would have seen the committee ripped apart for daring to challenge the community's decision on who to elect, or for deliberately trying to scuttle the election prospects of one or both candidates. There's a reason why it's really hard to remove arbitrators: the community sticks the lot of us together and expects us to work it out, despite different backgrounds and opinions, because that very diversity is what the committee is intended to reflect. Think about it: even if your proposed procedure had been in place, how would that not have had an even more negative impact on the committee? Who in their right mind is going to email a committee that can vote to publicly publish their emails? I would never participate in a private mailing list that permitted such things, nor do I think anyone else should. Risker (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• More pertinently, why is the current expectation set down in policy that arbitrators keep mailing list communications in "appropriate confidence" not adequate? AGK [•] 23:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker, when you ask who would e-mail a committee that can publish their e-mails, I suppose the answer is anyone who would e-mail a committee that has had their e-mails hacked or leaked. There is nothing in what I proposed that would (or indeed could) modify anything in meta:Privacy, so the idea that this proposal would set off a cavalcade of Arbitrators publishing the private information of everyone who contacts the Committee is simply untrue. And there is nothing in what I have proposed that would have anything to do with throwing anyone off the Committee. Yes, grownups do not casually break rules. I agree. Why not have rules that would have worked better? You ask me how things would have gone better if the proposed procedure had been in place. That's an excellent question. Elen would have had an option other than what she ended up doing. She could have requested that the rest of the Committee agree to make public some of what was of concern to her. I assume that the rest of you would have discussed her request like grownups. JClemens could not have unilaterally vetoed anything, because any decision would have been by majority vote. The Committee would not have been mandated to make anything public, but there would have been a choice that doesn't exist now. Maybe the Committee majority would have voted to make something public that would have prevented or made irrelevant the subsequent leaking of information. If so, that would have been a better outcome. Maybe not, in which case the leaking would have been the same as what happened. But then, instead of the very clumsy and protracted response that the Committee gave in public, there could have been a clearer and more graceful response. And that gets to AGK's question to me. The current wording about "appropriate confidence" was understood in that incident to mean that everything needed to be kept confidential, full stop. We need to improve upon that. Maybe, as TenOfAllTrades said earlier in this discussion, there should be some sort of agreement to terms of use required as part of membership on the mailing list. And I'm proposing that the Committee, by majority vote, can determine what is "appropriate" in a specific incidence. There's a difference between "appropriate confidence" that means, in effect, "strict confidence", and appropriateness that can be determined intelligently in a given circumstance, by a majority of the grownups. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish Who is interpreting "appropriate confidence" as "strict confidence"? Certainly not me. I put that phrase into the policy in order to provide some wiggle room is situations like the JClemens/Elen one. I'm also puzzled why you wish to complicate matters so. In my 5 Oct post, I summarised the basis for a procedural amendment that would sidestep the need for committee votes, publication of emails, etc. I'll repeat the relevant bit here: No email should be published on-wiki without the explicit affirmative consent of the author and, where it refers to others, those that it refers to. That said, subject to the usual caveats about exercising considerable discretion ("appropriate confidence" in the policy) about legal or privacy issues, arbitrators may refer to, or summarise parts of, an email on-wiki but not quote directly from it unless it has already been published by the author on-wiki. The author, of course, may publish at will but is bound by the usual policy restrictions on personal attacks, copyright, outing etc (and, if the author is an arbitrator, additional restrictions of privacy and legal content). It also gives arbitrators guidance on how far they can go. In fact, in its quiet gentle way it goes much further than anything you are seeking by making it clear than disclosures are an individual choice. By taking formal votes and determinations out of the loop, it streamlines and debureaucratises things considerably.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Roger, there are things that you assume as fact here that I would like to examine closely. You said that I "wish to complicate matters so" (and Risker said at my user talk that I want to "micro-manage" the Committee). It saddens me that either of you would think those things, and I want to explain why they are not true. After the incident last year, I thought of something that I believed then, and still believe now, would have made a messy situation run more smoothly. I proposed it here in this talk, and the responses were quite favorable, other than a request to wait with the proposal while new members were being shown the ropes. Since then, I've periodically brought it up again, and I think we all know how it has gotten bounced from one month to the next. I'm not being pushy or intrusive. I'm trying to help. You yourself discussed with me a month ago a series of minor revisions to the procedures text changes, and indicated that you were working on a final version that you wanted to propose, minus any change in the policy page, where you believed that no change was needed. I began this present talk section by asking how things stood and if I could help. Since then, I've responded to what has been said to me.
• What I suggest would not complicate how the Committee would operate. It would change a situation of "we have to argue amongst ourselves and not let a hint of it be dropped to the outside community" to "we are empowered to decide how much we want to make public, subject to meta:Privacy." There shouldn't be anything messy about a majority vote. No one outside the Committee would have the ability to trigger such a vote if the Committee does not want to. I can appreciate, up to a point, where you say that it would bureaucratize things, but I believe that it would, on balance, be a net positive.
• And here, once again, is why. You said that you do not interpret "appropriate confidence" as meaning "strict confidence". Let's examine that assertion critically. I promise you that I read the passage that you repeated, when you first wrote it, and I read it again now, and I have understood it as best as I can. What you repeated means that JClemens could send the kind of messages that he sent, and then unilaterally veto any request by anyone else on the mailing list to tell the community about what he said. That's what "No email should be published on-wiki without the explicit affirmative consent of the author" means. Insofar as any content covered by meta:Privacy goes, I agree, of course, that it should not be published, and no one is proposing otherwise. But it sounds to me like a lot of what JClemens said was not a matter of the meta policy. The next time someone on the Committee does something like that, what good comes of keeping it secret? The answer, I think, is what Kirill said in an earlier discussion, the issue of free and open discussion on the mailing list. I contend that (1) we can expect, human nature being what it is, that in the future there will be individual members of the Committee who will do something roughly like what JClemens did, and (2) nonetheless, we can be reasonably confident that a majority of whoever will get elected in the future will be sufficiently responsible to know the difference between making something public for the good of Wikipedia and making something public for some bad reason that would undermine free and open debate. And that goes right to the heart of the difference between "appropriate confidence" and "strict confidence".
• So, you say that you understood things at the time as being "appropriate" and not "strict". And yet, the Committee of which you were a member were unable to do anything other than to issue to the community a then-puzzling scolding of Elen, followed by an awkwardly slow response to the discovery by the larger community of the leaked information. So please let me ask, very seriously, two questions:

1. What, exactly, are the differences between "appropriate confidence" and "strict confidence"?
2. In what ways, during the JClemens/Elen incident, did the Committee employ the features of "appropriate confidence" that differ from "strict confidence" in ways that helped resolve the situation?

• I'm very seriously interested in the answers to those two questions. Personally, I think the answer to the first question is that there is no clear difference, and consequently the answer to the second question is that the language now in use did nothing to help. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, and I'd be happy to use the answers to help future Committees learn from the experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In Star Trek II we learned that Kirk was the only cadet who ever beat the Kobayashi Maru "no-win" scenario; he did so by "cheating" and changing the rules. No one is asserting we could have done a better job in the situation ya'll found yourself in; we're asking ya'll to change the rules so your successors won't have to be in that situation. NE Ent 00:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, define "winning" in this situation. That's actually the problem: all of the supposed "winning" scenarios being presented by people not on the committee are worse outcomes than what we had. Risker (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll define "winning" as what is good for Wikipedia. I think NE Ent meant by "no-win" that it was a situation where the Committee was in a bind, and we can fix that bind for the future. I also think that everyone now on the Committee also wants what is good for Wikipedia, so let's please get away from any conception of winning and losing that pits members of the Committee against those of us who are proposing improvements. The IP just below me is taking a cheap shot at the Committee. Those of us who are sincerely trying to make things better are not doing that. I didn't say that you all looked bad in that incident in order to heckle you from the peanut gallery. I did it to try to make you see that you have a fixable problem, and that you should be receptive to fixing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In this situation winning is providing an avenue for an arbitrator to bring to deal with abuse of the privacy restrictions of the mailing list, which were intended to allow submission and discussion of evidence not appropriate for public revelation, not campaign tactics (or any other non-committee business purpose). NE Ent 23:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one am glad there is going to be some new blood in the new Arbcom coming in November. This one has been struggling all year and is arguably the least effective Arbcom we have ever had. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Trypto, et al, I don't think Risker and co.'s comments are supposed to be dismissive. You describe your actions as a WP:SOFIXIT approach, which I understand; running for ArbCom to be the change you wish to see in the committee is another equally valid expression of SOFIXIT. At this stage in the game it seems unlikely that there will be support for the changes you describe on the current committee, so I would suggest tabling it for now and seeing if the new tranche will be inclined to revisit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they were supposed to be dismissive either, but clearly there is a problem where we are each seeing things differently. I think the word "dismissive" was used by someone else somewhere, but not by me. I've already said, quite a few pixels ago, that I had decided to table the issue until I open a community RfC after the election, and that's still what I plan. The reason that I'm still discussing here is not about un-tabling, but about responding to questions directed at me, which of course I remain happy to do. Until now, it seemed like you all were too overburdened with other work to discuss the issue, but now that some of you have chosen to discuss it, I'm happy to engage in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Within a possibly TL;DR reply that I gave yesterday, I posed two questions. No one on the Committee has to answer them here if you don't feel like it (and, contrary to what was implied in some earlier comments here, I really just want to be helpful to you). But, at least, I urge you to ponder them. I believe that the thought exercise is well worth it for you.

1. What, exactly, are the differences between "appropriate confidence" and "strict confidence"?
2. In what ways, during the JClemens/Elen incident, did the Committee employ the features of "appropriate confidence" that differ from "strict confidence" in ways that helped resolve the situation?

(In my previous comment, I gave my own take on the answers.) Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Tryptofish. "Appropriate confidence" would include things like summarizing a discussion, sharing private evidence per policy, forwarding mail to another private mailing list specifically tasked to handle the request, etc. That allows "three arbitrators supported your unblock but five opposed" and similar responses, some of which are more detailed than others depending on the subject and the recipient. For example, we may decline to act on something, but also provide information on how to bring the request to another venue, including what key points to focus on.

  As to the Elen/JClemens situation, I just went back to review the history of the situation. From the best I can reconstruct, Elen shared the full content of Jclemens' email in toto approximately 25 minutes after it was received by the mailing list, and before any other arbitrator had responded on-list. Our internal polling at the time indicated that Elen did not approach any other arbitrator before sharing the email contents. The Committee became aware of the events a week after it occurred, and it took us some time to ensure that there was only one leak, because we were receiving conflicting information from people who had received all or part of the text. Based on the fact that I can confidently say that Elen was fully and acutely aware of the restriction on posting (she had been involved in a face-to-face discussion of this very subject early in her term), and based on the reason she ultimately gave to the committee for her actions, there is absolutely nothing that anyone could have done in any circumstance, including every single proposal I've seen on this subject, that would have been likely to change the outcome here. Jclemens' email was inappropriate, and the next two arbitrators who posted to the mailing list made this crystal clear. But by then Elen had already shared the contents with at least one other person, for reasons that simply never stood up to scrutiny. We had two arbitrators behave very badly. We even made a statement about it, which did seem to take a lot of people by surprise because it came out in the middle of an election where both parties were candidates. Frankly, short of having thrown both of them off the committee right at the moment of their indiscretion (or their indiscretion coming to light), which would not have been my first step in either case, I'm not sure what more you want. "Being a jerk" has never been a reason for removing an arbitrator; if it was, I think nobody would make it through the first two months, since just about everyone does or says something off the rails during that period. Publishing evidence of someone being a jerk would be a highly political thing to do, and provides no reassurance to anyone that the committee is actually a dispute resolution body and not a bunch of drama queens out to score points. Risker (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, I want to say a big thank-you to Risker, AGK, and Roger Davies, for replying thoughtfully to my questions. I recognize that you are all busy, and you didn't have to go to the trouble of writing detailed replies. Now, I'll reply specifically to what Risker said. First, let me go one-by-one through the things that you mention, that I do not want. Like you, I don't want the Committee expelling a member for being a jerk, and obviously, I never proposed that. I certainly accept as factually true everything that you say about the timeline of what happened, and I accept that the Committee acted carefully to make sure that there were no other leak sources, but I'm more concerned about confidentiality procedures that about the possibility that Elen may have behaved precipitously.
• So, you say, reasonably I believe, that "appropriate confidence" includes some sort of "summarizing a discussion". You also believe that the material that Elen leaked was inappropriate. How do we draw the line between those two things? Is it purely a difference between "summarizing" and publishing verbatim? I don't think so, because it seems that you, collectively, would have felt the same way about Elen unilaterally publishing a summary of what she leaked.
• Let's imagine that some future Arb with similar concerns does not release material in 25 minutes, but instead, asks the rest of the list subscribers to, collectively, take some action to address those concerns. It seems to me that a future member who asks the rest of the Committee to do this would be following a better solution to the problem than the approach that Elen took, and I suspect that you would agree with me at least as far as that goes. Thus, I argue that the very existence of the possibility of a collective decision to release information will make it less likely that future Elens will choose to release e-mails unilaterally after 25 minutes, and more likely to take it up confidentially with the rest of the Committee. That's an improvement, right there.
• You raise the issue that any public discussion would make the Committee look like "a bunch of drama queens". Indeed, I keep getting a sense from the discussions about the mailing list that the members are very sensitive about looking bad if the rest of us could see what I'll call the sausage-making. A few months ago, Kirill made a related point, that releasing material could end up stifling free and open debate on the Committee, by making members worry that release of their thoughts-in-progress could make them look bad, and thus, politicize the Committee. Therefore, I'm trying to work out a form of "summarizing a discussion" that would not be problematic in those ways.
• First, situations like this have nothing to do with free and open debate about legitimate Committee business, so if the possibility of discovery would inhibit some future JClemens from using the list that way, I think that's OK. There's another improvement.
• And I don't think that it means that everyone else on the Committee has to be scared of someone else on the Committee revealing, for example, that they said in the course of legitimate business that "so-and-so is starting to look to me like they should be banned", when "so-and-so" has an on-Wiki fan club. That's because a majority of the Committee would have to agree to make things public. A small faction could not do it, contrary to majority consent.
• I think that if a future Elen brings a release request to the rest of a future Committee, there are, broadly, two possible outcomes. One is a majority vote to publish, either verbatim or in a summary, the communications that were inappropriate. It sounds to me like none of you felt that you had that option available under existing procedures. But it might have been a better outcome. You would have made JClemens look bad, to the extent that he made himself look bad. But you need not make the rest of you look like "drama queens". Truly, you would have looked businesslike, the rest of you, and intolerant of monkey business. That could have been an improvement.
• Of course, there is a second possible outcome. The majority could just as easily decide that you did not want to release anything publicly, out of concern for looking like "drama queens". That's just as much of an option. Then, Elen or her future reincarnation might well have subsequently leaked something unilaterally. Faced with that, the majority would have been empowered to make something public that set the record straight, as the majority sees it. That's an improvement over what actually happened. Even if I allow that, in part, the Committee was looking carefully to make sure that there were no other leak sources, it appeared from the outside that the Committee felt inhibited by the perceived need to respect JClemens' confidentiality that you could not make a statement in the face of the leaks, and that played a negative role in how the community viewed the way things played out.
• So, first, Elen, acting unilaterally, did not have access to a course of action using "appropriate confidence", but an improved procedure would have given her access, had she chosen to make use of it, to a more constructive conversation with the rest of you.
• And second, the Committee did not see any way that making anything public would be within "appropriate confidence", and so you were forced by the leaks to respond under circumstances where you were not in control. An improved procedure would have put the majority of the Committee back in control. You would have had control that could have prevented the leaks, as one option available to you. Or you could have responded promptly and clearly after the leaks occurred, as another option. Those options are not available to you now, based upon how you, collectively, interpreted "appropriate confidence" in the incident, because you seem to have felt bound to extend that confidence to JClemens. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you have started this entire chain of reasoning from a faulty premise. Elen always had options, she simply decided to take matters into her own hands. She admitted herself that a more reasonable first step would have been to talk to another arbitrator when she found the post distressed her so intently. Secondly, the Committee has always made use of "appropriate confidence" to summarize significant information, since long before I was on the Committee. It has been a standard practice for years. Thirdly, nobody on the Committee had any reason to believe that Jclemens' comment was anything more than politicking without purpose, because it designated a very specific set of criteria for targetting a fellow arbitrator standing for re-election; the only person who met those criteria was someone who had repeatedly and categorically denied any intention or desire to run again; in other words, it was a completely empty threat on the part of Jclemens. Finally, anyone who paid any attention to Arbcom at all in 2012 knew that the "civility" non-case was going to be a topic to be discussed during the forthcoming election, and the editor at the centre of that was going to be named either directly or indirectly. To this day I cannot understand how someone who was on the whole a pretty astute arbitrator would not understand that. One cannot help wondering how much of the behaviour we saw was related to something other than the specific message that supposedly caused so much distress. The comments she made on her talk page between early November and the close of the election seems to bear this out. Risker (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you dismiss what I said too easily. Yes, of course, Elen had other, better, options. Yes, I know that "appropriate" has been used, in effect, for a long time. Neither of those things has anything to do, really, with what I just wrote. Whatever other things were or were not going on in JClemens' and Elen's minds at the time, the Committee was left doing what you can see in the third of Roger's diffs, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're dismissing what I said too easily, though. Jclemens shouldn't have written what he did. Elen shouldn't have copy-pasted it to someone else, while completely failing to voice an opinion what she saw as being inappropriate to her colleagues. Frankly, on re-reading her talk page today, I see much more clearly how likely this was a deliberate abrogation of the existing protocols, and that there is absolutely not one single thing that Arbcom could have done to prevent this, aside from possibly having kicked her off the committee when she first threatened to release emails, about 2 months into her tenure. But you know what? There has not been a single arbitrator during my entire tenure on the committee (and having read the archives, even further back) who has not made a misstep at some point on the mailing list, and either been corrected by colleagues or talked down from his or her high horse. The ability to vent a little, or to float a trial balloon with colleagues to see if there is an appetite to go a certain way, is an important aspect of the mailing list: look what happens whenever an arbitrator says something publicly that isn't absolutely picture perfect, we spend days and days setting things straight, or we wind up with half a dozen competing motions, or otherwise coming across as clowns. I'm glad you appreciate the time we've invested in talking to you, but I'm sorry to advise you I'm out of time for this issue. I am, at this point, thinking that it was 10-12 hours invested in having the same debate we've had several times instead of actually having that time to try moving forward on improvements with the mailing list. Risker (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Added: On reviewing some other aspects of my email records, I note that this all took place just days after we had had a very productive session with the WMF, testing and analysing proposed software changes for the mailing list, and discussing how this could be a jumping off point for changes in the way the committee communicated, both internally and externally. Elen was very involved in the discussion. This whole pile of nonsense essentially derailed any changes to the email system. Risker (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm very sympathetic that you have a lot of other demands on you, but I figure that I ought to reply to comments to me, if only for other users reading these discussions. And I'm really trying to engage with you non-dismissively. I accept, and accepted a while back, that I'm not going to change your mind about this. But I do not believe that "Elen had better options" leads logically to "we cannot improve our procedures". (Those are not quotations of what you said.) There's a recurring theme in your comments of your time having been wasted, and I think that concern is getting in the way of Arbs seeing what the community is telling you that we see. Yes, I know that the list serves a valid purpose in terms of venting and in terms of exploring preliminary ideas, but that has never been what these proposals have been about. I still maintain that a future member in a position like Elen's would not be any more confident that the Committee would feel able to exercise the kind of "appropriate confidence" that he or she would be seeking, under your existing procedures. But knowing that the Committee could vote to reveal more than what the Committee actually did this past time would, I am certain, would make that future member more likely to explore that option instead of taking it on themselves to leak. Whatever you might believe Elen thought doesn't change that fact. However frustrated you may be with Elen, or JClemens, or with the discussion here, the fact remains that the Committee would benefit from having more options about how to deal with such a situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, it's not just this discussion, it's the constant return to the same topic over the course of the year that have added up to well over 150 hours of my time, and over 1000 hours of the time of various committee members. Seriously, was what Jclemens said worth 1000 hours of volunteer time, when there were so many options available to Elen? She could have easily said "Hey folks, I think Jclemens' post is so over the top that we need to make a public comment about it." She would have been heard out; I have no idea what the result would have been. It is the path not taken. The options you are talking about, absent the unauthorized publishing of someone's emails, were already all there. It doesn't require a procedure. It doesn't require a change to the Arbitration Committee policy. It requires arbitrators who put the effectiveness of the committee above their own personal preferences in policy. Every other arbitrator has to bend sometimes for something or other; it's actually a fundamental value of this project. All of us have to put up with whomever the community elects; sometimes it's harder than others, and sometimes arbitrators find it impossible and resign. (And yes, that is an entirely appropriate response. Stepping away from a situation one cannot tolerate is far, far better than sabotage). Risker (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that must feel downright exasperating. To some extent, you are combining what JClemens and Elen did, with the discussions that I've been trying to have, in the wake of what they did. I started one discussion shortly after the last election, and it was entirely in good faith, and it was you who asked me to wait and bring it up again later, because you were training the new members. And something similar has happened ever since, which is how we have come to this October. I'm not trying to re-litigate what JClemens and Elen did (but probably failing, though). I'm trying to make things better for future Committees. I'm going to go off-topic now, but I'm going to point to something that NE Ent said somewhere above the section break. Sometime down the road, I highly recommend reading the chapter ("habit" number three) of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, where Stephen Covey explains the difference between "urgent" and "important". It's counter-intuitive, and incredibly useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail here, I spend every working day juggling "urgent" and "important", with at least twice-daily reassessments of priorities. It's not actually counter-intuitive, but it means having some shared values. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, Arbcom a huge chunk of any arbitrator's volunteer commitment. You feel strongly that this should be an important part of the committee. Please volunteer to make it so, by running for the committee. I'm not being facetious, I'm very serious. If you want it to be a priority of the committee, you have to be on the inside. I speak from five years of experience: it's why we have BASC, AUSC, an Oversighter manual, Checkuser wiki, no archiving of checkuser-L or oversight-L, oversight requests sent to the easily trackable OTRS system, a community approved Arbcom policy, minimum activity standards for checkusers and oversighters, and a pile of cases concluded. Most of those were on my priority list. I've even created information on how mailing list emails are handled, which we will probably include in our procedures some time in the next two months; it even addresses some of your points. The only priority I had that will not have been completed when I leave in 12 weeks will be new mailing list software, and I can still work on that in the background as a functionary. Risker (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. I'm very serious when I say that I'm flattered. I'm not going to do that at this time. Who knows what will happen in the future. What I do have planned is an RfC after the election, that may give those on the inside a better understanding of the shared values of those on the outside. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Then don't wait, post your RFC today. I think it's a little absurd for the whole community to go through the process of selecting candidates who supposedly reflect the values of said community only to have an RFC immediately thereafter where some new "value" that wasn't on anyone's radar during the election comes along and sucks up the time of the committee again. Do it now so that candidates know, possibly even before they decide to be candidates. Of course, they'll be working from a disadvantage since they're not on the mailing lists (although I venture to guess that at least a few people on other private mailing lists might be considering a candidacy), but it won't come as one more thing they have to deal with. Risker (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that this issue has suddenly, after a year, become urgent! I promise you that I will ask questions of the candidates about this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strict confidence means nothing can ever be released. Appropriate confidence means each message should be kept confident to the degree required by its contents and context. The meaning of the phrases is quite obvious.

  The committee employed nothing in that situation. Elen of the Roads decided, off her own back, to go away and talk about Jclemens' comments to a non-arbitrator. The robustness of the policy was not tested in that situation. Therefore, why propose these new procedures, if they are intended to fix something that wasn't broken? AGK [•] 08:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, those are clearly common sense definitions of the two kinds of confidence. But how does one parse "to the degree required by its contents and context"? It appears Elen parsed it one way, and the rest of you another. That most certainly was broken. You would be better off having the parsing determined by a majority of the Committee, not in a haphazard way. Per my more lengthy reply to Risker, the absence of these proposed procedures left the rest of you on the Committee at that time in a position where it was difficult for you to deal with what Elen did, because you clearly were unsure about how much the Committee could say publicly. Where I would argue that "the degree required by its contents and context" could easily have allowed the rest of you to speak promptly and confidently in the face of the leaks, what actually happened was that the Committee felt that JClemens was entitled to some amount of "confidentiality" that fell between "strict" and "appropriate", but closer to "strict". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Tryptofish As AGK says, the degree of confidentiality is based on content and context, with "strict confidence" at one end of the scale and "not really confidential at all" at the other. If the committee saw Jclemens' post and Elen's subsequent leaking as being in "strict confidence", it would not have issued any sort of statement. The degree of confidence appropriate to this situation was to not treat it as very confidential at all and, in addition to issuing a statement, rebutting inaccuracies publicly.[10], [11], [12]  Roger Davies ^talk 12:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Roger, I'm actually quite glad to see that third diff, the one with your own comment, because it reminds me of something very relevant now. In it, you pointed out that JClemens' summary was misleading in your view. The rest of us, at the time, were not sure what to believe. Really, at the time, it was very unclear what you and Hersfold and JClemens were really talking about, and that made the Committee look unsure to the rest of us. Something held you back from making what you said more clear. And I'm now quite sure that I know what that "something" was: "appropriate confidence". You settled on a place between "strict" and "not really at all" that muddied the situation instead of clarifying it. I can be quite sympathetic that you, individually, would not have wanted to say: "here is the full text of what JClemens actually said, so we can all see that his summary was misleading." But if the Committee could have made a majority decision to do that, believe me, the whole situation would have resolved a lot quicker. That's an exact place where "appropriate confidence" was too difficult for any single Arbitrator to apply in a way that was good for the Wikipedia community, but where a majority decision could have allowed the Committee to do what we all want you to do: decrease drama instead of increasing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

!? How would the situation have resolved a whole lot quicker when, entirely predictably, he released his email himself on his talk page 90 minutes later?  Roger Davies ^talk 00:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

When you wrote what you said in that diff, you had no guarantee of what would happen 90 minutes later. As a matter of future procedures, you have no guarantee that future persons doing something like what he did would release it. It sure looks to me like you were trying to be careful about respecting his confidentiality when you wrote that. And I'm saying that you did the right thing at the time! But I'm also saying that, as a matter of future procedures, the Committee should not be held dependent upon that one person releasing the e-mails. All I'm trying to do is to provide the Committee with a few more options. You might have benefited from a few more options at the time of that diff. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I had no guarantee. But as people were already imagining the worst, it was in his best interests to reveal its relatively anodyne content. Disclosure was his best and most logical choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And you're right too, that it was his best option at that time. But once you come to the point of agreeing with me that you had no guarantee, and that future Committees likewise will not have that guarantee, then you are at the point of asking whether the Committee should have had more options if, for example, he had instead taken the position that what he said on the list was strictly confidential and that everyone else was just mistreating him. Under the existing procedures (WP:BEANS alert!), some future malefactor might conclude from this discussion that the best ploy would be to abuse the list, and then respond to the rest of the Committee that everything must be held under a level of "appropriate confidence" that veers too close to "strict". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that, by that time, if he hadn't have disclosed he'd blow himself out of the water as a candidate. And that is an equally good outcome.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I do understand that, actually. However, as an operational matter, one cannot assume that there will always be an outcome based upon the person's candidacy at that time. My "beans" example is something that really could happen. Every election since I've been around, there have always been one or two candidates who were, well, scary in my opinion. None has been elected yet, but it could happen at some point. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, the committee couldn't have decided by majority vote to publish what Jclemens said, because publishing e-mails on the internet is legally problematic. We therefore settled on revealing that Jclemens had attempted to intimidate arbitrators and Elen had leaked the e-mails. The forthcomingness of our response at the time was not constrained or reduced by the current policy's provisions for e-mail confidentiality, so I remain confused as to why those events are being used to modify that policy. Everything would have happened as it did even if the policy at the time was worded in the way you wish. AGK [•] 21:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

About the legality issue, which is a good one, I think that the suggestion made by TenOfAllTrades, somewhere above the section break, about requiring agreement to terms of use, would probably take care of that. So if that aspect of the procedures were to be improved, then is it really true that everything would necessarily have happened the same way? Let me, again, draw attention to this diff, first pointed out by Roger: [13]. I maintain that the way that Roger construed "appropriate confidence" in that diff was entirely correct, as things stand now, and that there was no other approach that he could responsibly have taken. And yet, what he said was too vague to accomplish what the community wants of ArbCom: to decrease drama, rather than increase it. That was a constraint, an unnecessary one. My proposal would improve that. Really, I invite everyone to examine that diff, and consider whether procedures could be improved in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think that us publishing the email would have decreased drama? Firstly, it would have offended those who believe that emails sent with the expectation of privacy (whatever the small print may say) should remain private. Secondly, it would have put an arbitrator into a prosecutorial role in the middle of an election. Thirdly, it would have placed undo and unfair weight on JClemens by not balancing the disclosure with possibly incriminating emails from others.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Using what you said in that diff as an example, the Committee could have chosen to disclose, either verbatim or in summary form, more specific information about why, as you described it, his statement on-Wiki was misleading. Based on your diff, it sounds like you were disinclined to say more than what you said. And that was a reasonable interpretation of "appropriate confidence", so I'm not finding fault with you for that. But, please believe me, it only confused the wider community. Even allowing that he chose to publish it himself 90 minutes later, the community would actually have been less confused if he had published it, but you and Hersfold had said nothing 90 minutes earlier. Your diff was so vague that it added to the drama, instead of decreasing it. And that wasn't your fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I was disinclined to say more but not because of "appropriate confidence" but because it would have been highly inappropriate for an arbitrator to take a prosecutorial role with one of the candidates during the course of an election. Had he argued, I would have gone into greater detail but still kept my response concise.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and I think that you handled it well. Again, I'm not criticizing how it was handled. But I am saying that the way you expressed yourself at the time played badly with the community. You didn't really have an alternative, but it did. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The point that keeps getting lost or glossed over is that the Committee had been treating the matter – a sitting Arbitrator attempting to intimidate potential candidates who would compete for his seat in the upcoming election – as a "strict confidence" issue until they were informed the cat had been let out of the bag. Risker and Roger Davies have both pointed to the ArbCom's subsequent public statement, but seem to be deliberately ignoring any questions about whether the ArbCom discussed or considered any formal public (or private) response before the community became aware of Jclemens' misconduct.

Actually, the problem isn't necessarily one of 'strict' versus 'appropriate' confidence, as it appears that the ArbCom's internal discussions never got that far. The bigger problem was a failure to recognize that a matter was serious enough to require formal attention in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Although "attempting to intimidate potential candidates" is certainly one reading of the posting, it may not be the right one. JClemens has a long history of shooting from the hip and his post is consistent with that. Nevertheless, on the substantive point, he was rebuked within an hour of posting and feedback continued throughout the day (6 Nov). This was a week before we first heard about a possible leak.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

From the outside, all the community has been told is that Hersfold and one other Arb replied to Jclemens' repeated emails to the list with a don't do that-type message, then the matter was dropped entirely by the Committee. Is that inaccurate? Did more than two of the thirteen other sitting Arbs (not counting Jclemens or Elen) see fit to dispute Jclemens' misuse of the mailing list? Did anyone on the list suggest a formal motion or statement – internal or external, public or private – or other response, prior to becoming aware of the leak? It is very frustrating that I can't get a straightforward answer to those three questions though I've been trying for the better part of a year. Jclemens' own perspective (which I certainly take with a grain of salt) is that he could chalk it up to usual internal bickering and file those two lonely commenters' emails in the well, that's your opinion bin, because the Committee didn't follow through with a clear statement of its expectation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The number of arbitrators who expressed disapproval was much greater than you suggest and their comments were a proportionate response to an isolated incident.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow. The answers aren't going to change, and they haven't for a year. You've been answered, repeatedly. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if you're just pushing buttons here to see which ones will make some arbitrator spit. Please read what has been written, on the multiple occasions that this matter has been discussed over the past year. There was no mass uprising to - I'm not sure what you wanted us to have done, tried to remove Jclemens from the committee 8 weeks before the end of term when he was about to be soundly defeated in the community election? moved that he be banned from the mailing list, which is essentially the same thing? forced to apologize to...whom? And even if we had considered it, the outcome would have been exactly the same. Elen had *already* decided to send full copy-pastes of Jclemens' message before anyone else had even had a chance to see it. We have every reason to believe that she would have done so no matter what hypothetical rules applied to mailing lists. Would it have been different if it occured in, say, February? Probably. But it didn't, and the community was informed of the totality of the situation immediately before the start of voting (which was about as fast we we could draft and work), and the community decided how to deal with people they'd elected who had behaved badly. Risker (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to be gained by re-litigating this situation. The timing was key, as Risker mentions—there was an election happening. In that context, the Committee's decision to make a public statement about the issue and then turn it over to the voters seems reasonable. Any more formal action against Jclemens and/or Elen in the middle of an election where both were candidates would have gone over quite poorly, no doubt. ArbCom would have been viewed as usurping the community's prerogative in judging Jclemens and Elen. If something like this happened away from an election, then one hopes that a more formal action would have been forthcoming from the Committee, but that's a hypothetical.

And frankly, Risker's underlying point is the key: we need better ArbCom candidates. Jclemens squeaked by in the 2010 election and was re-elected by an even narrower margin in the 2011 election. It's reasonable to think that if even one more marginally qualified candidate had run, he'd never have been on the Committee in the first place.

The more general, abstract issue of mailing-list confidentiality is a good one to discuss here, but going back over the details of the specific Jclemens/Elen case is yielding diminshing returns at this point. I can sympathize with TenOfAllTrades' frustration, because I've been there—I felt like I was talking to a brick wall when I tried to get a simple answer from the Committee about WillBeback's ban appeal. But sometimes the answer you get is the answer you get. This just isn't going anywhere, and it's obscuring discussion of the underlying general issue of mailing-list confidentiality. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

My asking of "question 2" was intended to examine that underlying issue using specifics, rather than generalities, and I agree with MastCell that it would be best not to try to re-litigate the incident, outside of the issue of mailing list confidentiality. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• My impression is that most of us non-admin contributors have pretty much given up on ArbCom. Certainly I have, after last year seeing a request for clarification turned into an "at last we've got our chance to ban that bastard". Eric Corbett 19:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just for balance... Though I don't agree with every decision they've made, I respect the people who have stepped up to do the job. I'm frankly appalled at the way we as a community have, on many occasions, rushed forward to disrespect, condemn and malign ArbCom both as a individuals and as a group. No wonder no one wants this time consuming, thankless, volunteer position.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(multiple ec, pardon the TL;DR.) The problem I'm having is that I genuinely still can't see where those three questions have received a clear answer from any member of ArbCom. I'm not poking you just for the fun of it, and I don't know where the communications breakdown is occurring here, but I'm just as frustrated by it as you are.

Can you humor me now, as a gesture of extraordinary benefit-of-the-doubt patience and good will? As near as I can infer from the extant onwiki discussions, the answers to the three questions I posed above are respectively 1) No, that summary is accurate; 2) No, just two sitting Arbs disputed the appropriateness of Jclemens' mailing list messages; 3) No, aside from those immediate responses, there was no further discussion or consideration by ArbCom of any collective action (either a public acknowledgement that the misuse of the list for electioneering had taken place, or a private endorsement or clarification of the mailing list policy to confirm that Jclemens' actions were inappropriate) until after the Committee became aware that list emails had been leaked.

I'm guessing that those answers are correct, but I don't know, because I recognize that an absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, and Arbitrators are generally reluctant to release any information about what has or has not been discussed on the mailing list. If you can point me at the diffs where I did get direct answers to those questions already – and just plain missed them through my own damn-fool I-can't-find-my-sunglasses-because-they're-on-my-head ineptitude – I am fully prepared to deliver a heartfelt, sincere, unreserved apology for being such an obnoxious pain in the ass.

In the interest of readibility, I'm going to break this message into two chunks; this first part is the questions that I'm asking; and the part that follows is the why I am asking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

On the "what should have been done" front, it doesn't always have to be about punishment, or ejections from the committee, or sanctions, or mass uprisings, or bolting the barn door after the email horse has leaked. Privately and internally, it looks like Jclemens walked away from the situation with the feeling that a couple of his fellow Arbs got touchy about his pointed comments, but that by his lights he hadn't really done anything wrong or stepped over an important line. Sure, we can chalk some of that up to plain stubbornness on his part, but I also get the impression that no one on the Committee was able, subsequently, point to a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the Committee as a whole advising Jclemens of how problematic his actions were. I'm not privy to whatever internal policy and procedure documents may govern the ArbCom mailing list, but the outward facing pages at WP:ARBPOL and WP:AC offer only very limited guidance on what sort of discussions and posts shouldn't talk place on the list, nor do they spell out appropriate processes for concerned Arbs to follow if there are breaches. Near as I can tell, those gaps still exist.

As well, Jclemens' actions had the potential to affect the candidate pool for the ArbCom election; in the absence of public declarations from ArbCom, he had the ability to do so without the wider Wikipedia community ever being aware. The timing was certainly difficult for all involved, I don't quarrel with that assessment one bit. But it was a particularly sensitive time, in that his emails were sent right before nominations were opened, and the ArbCom didn't offer a statement to the public until well after nominations had closed (and just a short while before the election itself)—didn't, as far as I know, contemplate providing any information until they knew it had already been leaked. That lack of information stung the community.

Read/write access to the ArbCom mailing list is a fairly potent privilege. Sure, it doesn't carry the same sort of bit-flipping, user-blocking, lever-pulling mechanical effects as some other pieces of admin or functionary toolboxes, but its subtle nature makes it no less important to use correctly. The confidentiality that automatically or presumptively attaches to its contents (substantially moreso than to regular email messages) carries with it a concern that that secrecy could be misused to further aims that aren't directly related to the ArbCom's deliberations. From the standpoint of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? the ArbCom must necessarily watch itself, and it is desirable for the community to trust those watchers are fully cognizant of the scope of that responsibility. Members of the community would likely be uneasy, for instance, if it came out that arbitrators had used their mailing list to discuss or coordinate a response to a policy proposal (unrelated to the direct business of arbitration), or interfere with an RfA or RfB discussion...or influence the nomination or election of ArbCom canadidates. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

But we know that they do. Remember the leaks of two years ago? Eric Corbett 19:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

At the top of this sub-thread, TenOfAllTrades said something that I'd like to get back to: "the Committee had been treating the matter... as a "strict confidence" issue until they were informed the cat had been let out of the bag." Taking just the words that I just quoted, and looking at them in the context of what I have been proposing, I would argue that that is indeed what happened. There apparently was never a thoughtful discussion about anything other than a level of confidence that appears identical to "strict confidence" until after the Committee found that there was a leak. Before the leak, I don't think anyone felt empowered to do anything differently. After the leak, the Committee had lost control of the debate. Even then, the interpretation of "appropriate confidence" was what Roger said in this diff: [14]. On the scale from "strict confidence" to "not really confidential at all", that was the right thing to do under existing rules, but it wasn't optimal in terms of ArbCom operations. For the future, we can do better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah. I think everyone was treating it as an ill-considered, off-topic, irrelevant, over-the-top post. It was not, and should not have been, a bigger deal than to have to say "cut it out" - which was done. The only member of the committee who seemed to think it was a bigger deal than that was Elen, who didn't even have the courtesy (or the honesty) to let even one other arbitrator know she thought that way. Honestly, if every time an arbitrator says something dumb on the mailing list we have to have hours-long debates about whether or not to post something publicly about it, there's hardly a point in having an Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That may well be accurate as to what happened before the leak. A future "Elen", though, might want to discuss such concerns with the rest of the future Committee. And, after the leak, I don't think that your description here fits with the diffs that Roger provided, the third of which I repeated just above. That discussion had elements of "cut it out", for sure, but the community saw a lot more than that. I wish that I could somehow convince you that a better procedure could have led the Committee to handle the public disclosure in a manner that would have, in the long run, saved you most of those many hours. Indeed, the fact that your time has been taken up over so many hours is a symptom of the fact that things did not go as smoothly as they could have. And they didn't go non-smoothly simply because two members of the Committee, and all kinds of editors outside the Committee, are somehow bad. Some of it was because of how the community heard about what happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I am completely flummoxed (that's not the word I first typed, but it will do) as to how to get through to you that if Elen had discussed her concerns with the committee in this event, we wouldn't have wasted a thousand hours. We make public disclosures all the time. We have a noticeboard where we post them. (Heck, I should have included that up in my "priorities" post.) We don't usually have public disclosures when someone says something stupid or over the top or ridiculous on the mailing list. Elen had the option of discussion. That option was always there. The committee has on more than one occasion drafted public statements about situations involving past or present arbitrators that did not have to be posted because other means of de-escalation were found, to the overall benefit of the project and the community; had Elen brought her concerns to the committee, it is entirely possible that a similar solution to her concerns would have been found. Each situation is unique and one-size-fits-all procedures for non-standard, infrequent, widely variable situations is generally more of a problem than the problem they try to solve. Risker (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, I certainly don't intend to flummox anybody. You and I do not see eye-to-eye on this particular issue. Yes, I really am listening to you when you say that Elen made bad choices in your view. And I'm really saying that doesn't change the fact that the way things played out subsequently exposed an opportunity for improving how the Committee functions. Elen making mistakes doesn't change the fact that the Committee could have better ways of dealing with these things. And I'm not proposing one-size-fits-all. In fact, what I'm proposing gives ArbCom more options instead of fewer. For everyone else who may read this discussion in the future, I maintain that there should have been more options than this: [15]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tryptofish. My problem is that you keep saying she had no options, and I keep pointing out that she had all kinds of options. We have, over the course of the last 5 years, had just about every arbitrator propose solutions to things they see as problems. All kinds of problems, ranging from individual editors, through process improvements, through arbitrator behavioural issues. Some of them have received majority agreement, and those get published and posted onwiki on the noticeboard. Some of them receive no support at all, and others sit in the middle and the proposing arbitrator (or another arbitrator) will encourage everyone else to make their opinion known. Those ones don't normally get posted onwiki, although they may often be mentioned in some form. This was routine for the entire time that Elen was an arbitrator: she participated in dozens of such discussions, and probably started a few. So, I'm just not seeing how she decided her only option was to copy and paste someone else's email to a third party when she thought it was....I'm still not sure what she thought it was, since she said different things at different times in different fora. Risker (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say she had no options. I said things might have gone better if she had had one more explicit option, and if the rest of you had had more options. It's probably best to let go of aggravation about what she did, and look instead at the bigger picture of how the Committee could function more flexibly in the future. Where I am saying there was no other option is here: [16]. It was the only right thing to do under existing procedures. A small improvement to procedures would have provided a better option than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone else had thought it was anything more than just a poorly considered post, and required more than just a "cut it out" on the mailing list, I have little doubt that any arbitrator could have raised a red flag. That nobody else considered taking stronger action is more a reflection of this being an isolated incident that was, to all appearances, nipped in the bud with a few words to the wise. The response at the time was proportional to the situation. It's not as though anyone thought that an election would happen and arbitrators putting themselves forward for re-election would not be quizzed on their opinions about what was clearly the most controversial case in the previous year. Risker (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that I'm not taking the Committee to task for how it was handled. Rather, I'm offering new options to handle it better. There's a disconnect between "an isolated incident that was, to all appearances, nipped in the bud with a few words to the wise", and the way it has actually played out, the way you have just described the time drain that ensued. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand. However, I keep coming back to "all those options were already there, and many of them were routine events". What wasn't a routine event was the manner in which one specific person decided to respond to a comment from another specific person, without bothering to mention it to the rest of the committee, and that's so far outside the control of the committee that I'm just not getting what else you see as "options". I do not believe that you think that one arbitrator should have the unilateral right to hand over someone else's emails to the committee mailing list if they personally take offense to it without even bothering to consult with the rest of the committee, or that arbitrators should lie to their colleagues about any actions they have taken with respect to the committee or its mailing lists. We've always had the right to propose posting of a paraphrased message to the committee; in fact, that's pretty much what BASC does on a dialy basis. Risker (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I see Tryptofish saying If the structure / confidentiality of the email list were different, Elen may have felt she had better options than leaking the email, so we should change the rule or the wording of it to prevent future arbitrators from getting in that situation. I see Risker saying, Elen acted so rashly it didn't matter what the rules were, so there's not point in changing them. Is that correct to first order of approximation? NE Ent 02:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think that's fairly close, NE Ent, except that I've not said that there's no point in changing them. What I'm saying is that there were plenty of other options that Elen could have exercised. Having said that, we have been working on a draft to better clarify what happens with emails and how we use the mailing list in communication; right now it is in my userspace awaiting a copy-edit from Roger on a few points, and then we will probably formalize it with a public vote. Please feel free to comment if you have suggestions. The last section (the one with the bolded note) will be changed, because we're now pretty much persuaded that there are too many issues with directly publishing the emails of others. Risker (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I've come to the conclusion that the discussion here may be succumbing to WP:The Last Word – sorry for my role in that! – so I want to stipulate to the fact that I think that the sitting Arbs who have commented here sincerely think that I'm incorrect, and I likewise think that they are incorrect, and there's room on Wikipedia for differences of opinion. If anyone wants me to answer any questions, I remain happy to, but otherwise I think it's pretty clear that I'm not going to change any current-Arb minds, and they aren't going to change mine. But I'm pleased that, throughout all the discussions over the past year, I cannot recall a single non-Arb editor disagreeing with my suggestions about increasing the Committee's ability to make mailing list content more available; the only objections have come from current or former Arbs, and even those have mostly been less absolutist than the most recent comments in this talk. Risker, I wish you good progress with that userspace draft, which I have kept watchlisted since you started it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just noting: I've suggested a question to candidates about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Questions/General. If it ends up not being a "general" question, I intend to ask the candidates individually. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comments is now open. There remain some unresolved issues from last year to discuss, and editors have also expressed a desire to propose changes. All editors are invited to participate. The way the RFC is to be conducted has been modified from previous years by a recent RFC, the changes are summarized at the top of the RFC, reviewing them may be helpful. Monty₈₄₅ 00:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an AN discussion about maybe unblocking Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs); we're told they last appealed to y'all (the AC) and would appreciate knowing if there's anything we need to know before proceeding with discussion? NE Ent 23:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've left a note and hope to follow up there. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Since we're coming up on elections: as you all may recall, we had a dramatic episode earlier this year about disclosing ban votes (see the BASC discussion which eventually led to clarification request from MastCell). As I said then, I intended to do a Request for Comment if necessary. I would prefer to avoid a big RfC and come to a simple agreement. I suggested a compromise at the bottom of this BASC thread: "I don't want to require that ArbCom take a formal vote in every case, but if someone demands it, I think it should be available and made public". So you deny an appeal in a perfunctory manner in most cases, but if the person understands the process and really wants a recorded vote published for the record, they can get one. It's entirely possible that the recorded vote may disagree with the original conclusion, which is fine. And ArbCom may wish to avoid releasing the results until they're sure the person won't demand a recorded vote. I recognize that we're all volunteers and the administrative systems are clunky, so if this turns out to be too much of a burden we could try ways to raise a barrier to getting a record, such as a "second" by a member in good standing or an administrator. In the legal world, procedures are used to raise some barriers and streamline things (e.g., if you don't demand a jury trial, your constitutional right is waived). On the other hand, it may end up being easier to just take votes the first time, and if the editor has some history I think that makes more sense. Again, I would prefer that we reach some sort of amicable compromise rather than going through a Request for Comment, but that's the next step if no compromise is possible. I should perhaps ping some of the people from the last discussion but I'm going to hold off for a bit to try to avoid too much early heat. II | (t - c) 05:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think there could clearly be some changes here; formally recorded votes are a decent thing, as long as everyone knows they are going to be published before hand. I've heard the idea of requiring all BASC appeals to be published in some form with votes for allowing or declining. It is an idea that is worth fresh consideration in the new year. I doubt any major pushes towards changes are going to happen between now and the elections, though. Courcelles 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Personally, I've never seen the value of publishing a list of ban appeals and who voted how on them, except possibly to bring awareness to the community that ban appeals are a bigger part of the committee's work on a day-to-day basis than anything else; however, the community has shown absolutely zero interest in resolving that despite several pleas over the last few years. Please, please mount a community drive to remove this from our plate with the exception of AE and Arbcom blocks (which are heard by the committee as a whole rather than just the BASC). This would be an excellent plank for a run for Arbcom in a few weeks; few if any incumbents intend to run again, so this is an opportunity to reshape the committee. Risker (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just as an idea to gauge reactions, what about constituting a separate Ban Appeals Committee separate from ArbCom. It would be an elected body (at a different time of year to ArbCom) of say 18 members of whom say 6 would hear any individual case, a 7th member (who hadn't participated to that point) would have the casting vote if the 6 were deadlocked. The six would be any of the committee who was available at the time, not rigid subgroups. There would be one or two arbitrators (rotating?) as formal liaisons to the BAC advising on any issues the ArbCom is aware of as they feel necessary but wouldn't vote and would not automatically have to recuse if an issue with an appellant came to ArbCom. Appeals of BAC decisions could be to a completely different 6 members, or to the full ArbCom. A certain date would be decided on in advance after which all appeals would go to BAC not BASC. BASC would then be dissolved when it had judged all its open cases (other than as necessary to direct appellants to the new body). The BAC would have formally recorded votes from the start. BAC would take over only those cases heard by BASC, it would not replace the full committee nor the community in any way. More bureaucracy perhaps but less workload hopefully leading to a more efficient ArbCom and more efficient ban appeals. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That's probably as workable as any other idea I'm aware of, although I'm guessing that someone (not me) will complain of election overload. Ever since some of the Committee members have started pointing to this issue as being important in terms of reducing workload, I've been thinking about what I could propose to help with the issue, and what has held me back has been my uncertainty about what to propose to handle the appeals that ArbCom would no longer handle. There needs to be a concrete idea of what would replace ArbCom, for such a proposal to get off the ground. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm mainly interested in the ArbCom bans since that's what motivated this whole issue. If ArbCom is going to vote publicly to ban someone, then they should vote publicly when they follow-up on that ban. But yeah, mainly interested in more of the edge banning cases where there's someone with a lot of history. They deserve to see who is voting for or against them. II | (t - c) 04:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Why do editors with "a lot of history", more than any other editor, deserve that? This is a serious question. And on the very, very rare occasion when Arbcom has lifted an Arbcom or AE ban, the voting has almost always been done publicly, or the full voting results published. The presumption is that all blocks and bans are upheld in their current iteration *unless* there is majority arbcom (for arbcom/AE blocks) or BASC (for single-admin and community blocks) support for overturning. In other words, the only material votes are those that result in a majority support for unblock. Risker (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a general interest in Arbcom transparency, so I would ask the opposite question, what do we gain by having Arbcom not publish on wiki that an appeal occurred, and the result of the appeal? Monty₈₄₅ 14:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The general reason is that, because "banned means banned", subjecting the community to the ins-and-outs of ban appeals would circumvent the original purpose of the appeal (namely, to remove the banned user from the community). That is why we discuss ban appeals privately, and also why we do not publish the results of appeals except periodically and in anonymised form. I am sure there are other reasons (some tangible and some intangible), but this is the foremost one in my mind. Regards, AGK [•] 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• In the case of Will Beback, the problem was not that it was unclear if BASC or ArbCom was the entity deciding the appeal. The problem was rather that we did hold a formal vote, but it did not take the shape of an actual set of motions (as is our usual practice on-wiki) – which led to confusion as to the result of the appeal. Therefore, the correct remedy to apply is as follows: "When an appeal is put to a vote of the full committee, a motion shall be proposed that the appeal is successful. If an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators support the motion, the appeal shall be successful." AGK [•] 14:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't want to put this on the Arb board, as I didn't want a lot of drama. I have one question about discretionary sanctions:

Q: Are discretionary sanctions , in fact, exempted from 3RR, BLP, TPO and other standing policies, or are discretionary sanctions more like a local consensus, where is would be subject to all other standing policies ?

Yes, this is about my last block, no, I don't want it struck from my record, no I don't seek any action against fluffernutter, though I still disagree with her. I'm only asking a question.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Exactly what do you mean by "Are discretionary sanctions exempted from policy" – could you explain, or rephrase your question? Thanks, AGK [•] 21:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The general question, when phrased as you have above, makes little sense, but you may find your answers at WP:Discretionary sanctions, which explains about discretionary sanctions very well. Worm^TT(talk) 07:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, yes, I looked there, and what I read doesn't state that there are any exemptions for 3rr for Discretionary Sanctions.

What I'm asking is, if an article has discretionary sanctions on them, and an admin believes an editor has violated those discretionary sanctions and removes the editors posts. If that editor discusses this issue with the admin and a consensus emerges (that editor and others that have joined him) that the post should have been reverted, can the admin disregard this consensus and refuse to revert themselves ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

To challenge a discretionary sanctions admin decision: "Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations." (From the page linked above) A random group of editors showing up on someone's talk page does not get to reverse the decision. Risker (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I was in the middle of writing the same. We expect admins to go with their best judgement for discretionary sanctions and if you disagree with that judgement there is a place to do it. Effectively KoshVorlon, discretionary sanctions can be overturned, but not by reverting. Discussing the matter with the administrator may change their mind, but it is their mind to change. Consensus can override the administrator or decide that the administrator was involved, but it must happen in the right place - AE, or to Arbcom. I hope that makes sense. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker & Worm, you seem to be saying opposites. Risker appears to state that the administrator discretion cannot be reversed by consens, Worm seems to be saying that it can. Please understand, I'm not looking to overturn an admin's discretionary sanction at this point. I'm asking for the future.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  

As far as I can see, Risker and I are in agreement. Consensus can over-ride a discretionary sanction, but at a location such as AE or AN. This should therefore include uninvolved administrators who can weigh the arguments. A random group of editors who agree with each other at a talk page does not equal consensus that can reverse the decision. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand. If an admin believes an action violates a discretionary sanction, that admin can takeaction based on discretionary sanctions, and this action cannot be reversed except at AE or AN. NO problem. Thank you Worm.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As there was an ArbCom motion raised against me, and my "voluntary" vacation from my admin account was endorsed by a number of Arbs, I will bring your attention to this AN thread ES&L 11:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. Is there a reason why you have not linked your BWilkins account on the user page of the EatsShootsAndLeaves account? Risker (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's there ... always has been ES&L 16:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, in the userbox. I've not seen them customized like that before. Thanks. Risker (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason for that. Having the primary account name not displayed but hidden in mark up meets the letter but not the spirit of the alternate notification practice and most have the courtesy do both. NE Ent 00:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you making an accusation Ent? The placement has been discussed more than once, and consensus has always been that it's fine the way it is. I'm not trying to violate anything, spirit or otherwise. I have never wanted the account to be confused as a nOOb account - hence the phrasing. You're looking for some darker purpose which has never been there. Either drop the damned stick and stop with the petty insults, or file some grandiose RFC somewhere if you really find it that offensive. For <insert deity name>'s sake, I've always though such passive-aggressive bullshit was not your style. ES&L 12:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins. As a general rule, I think that the less you say, the better off you are. I don't know what's going on with your "voluntary" vacation (scare quotes in original) from your admin account, but why not clear the air by undertaking a voluntary reconfirmation RfA? I'm confident that community loves to have people with your temperament policing it and that you'd pass with flying colors, and that'd be a feather in your cap and would clarify and solidify your position. So why not do the right thing and go for it? I'd be happy to the be nominator, if you like. Herostratus (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys. Say, what's the deal with this post where User:Dennis Brown says "Arb has privately made it very clear they don't want Morning277 sockpuppets blocked"? (See [this Signpost article and this page for background info on Morning277.) Dennis Brown's a respected editor I think. Here on Jimbo's talk page he avows as how he's abandoned the Morning277 effort, so it doesn't seem that that's just throwaway line.

Is he lying? Or what? If he's telling the truth, I'm confident that there's a reasonable explanation. What is it? Herostratus (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dennis was asked to step away from the Morning277 matter by the Arbitration Committee. There was no objection at all to the continued investigation by others, however. Risker (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I get you. Thank you, that's helpful. I'm going to assume that, as happens to many us of from time time, it's an issue of a dedicated and productive editor getting too caught up in some matter and too close to it, or something like that.

Too bad, on a couple fronts. Dennis Brown is feeling dismayed. And of course we want the Morning277 investigation to go forward, and Dennis Brown has been key to that I gather. Looks like this may be just one of those things, though. Herostratus (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So, to be quite clear, it is not the case that "Arb... don't want Morning277 sockpuppets blocked"? JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion with Dennis was in September 2012, when we asked him to step back; this was very early into the investigation, which has been actively pursued by a significant number of checkusers, administrators, SPI clerks and other editors. Arbcom has not instigated or directed this investigation, because that's not what Arbcom does. Unless there is reason to believe that blocks are being instituted outside of policy, or checkusers are being carried out inappropriately (neither of which seems to be the case), a major socking investigation is much better handled amongst our front-line checkusers and knowledgeable editors and admins. Risker (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That is inaccurate Ann. Arb did not send me any official correspondence to that effect. This has been part of the problem, too many assumptions, too little communication, too much info that has to be gleaned from 2rd or 3rd parties instead of official channels. You've been quick to judge my character, yet you've never bothered to have a single conversation with me. What you believe and what the community believes are two very different things, so one of them must be mistaken. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, if you're going to abrogate standard community practices, please at least spell my name correctly. What I believe is based on the emails with you and the Arbitration Committee. It saddens me that the attempt by the Committee not to unnecessarily adversely impact your reputation within the community has resulted in this dichotomy; while we were aware that you were acting in good faith, some of your actions were clearly not appropriate. Risker (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for dropping the "e". What is most sad to me is the unwillingness for the committee to discuss the matter properly, privately, honestly. Not all the committee agreed on the appropriateness of my past boldness, but from this perspective (and based on information not found here) not everyone agrees as to faith. is most disturbing, particularly since my actions during that "misunderstanding" were nothing but compliant, open and honest, although filtered through one person. No real, direct discussion was ever had. And to be clear, I did nothing unethical, immoral or "wrong", even if some disagreed with my proposed solution. Since about a year had passed and no one was working the current case (no one wanted to), I felt like I had no choice but to do what had to be done. Surely, you understand the significance of the time period. I have no desire to make a fuss of things publicly (and haven't touched on every issue at stake...). Anyone who knows me would know that isn't my style. If you sincerely want to discuss the matter without constraints, you know how to email me. If not, so be it, but I stand by previous comments made to Jimmy and others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• What the Hell is going on here? Eric Corbett 17:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Here is my take on this. This is just my opinion. The Morning277 case is a very high-profile sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry case. Dennis Brown was encouraged -- rightly or wrongly -- to back off and let others handle it. Nobody thinks that Dennis did anything wrong, but I suspect that some felt that it might be best to avoid any hint of something that the sockpuppeters can twist into looking like a conflict of interest. There might also be the issue of using a real name; I myself have on occasion been encouraged to back off and let someone using a pseudonym work an issue that has the potential for retaliation. Dennis Brown then expressed a bit of understandable dismay but backed off anyway and everybody involved ignored his rather mild expression of frustration. Later, some other editors latched on to his comments and made a mountain out of a molehill. Again, everything I just wrote is pure speculation and opinion, but I am 100% sure that Dennis and everyone else involved are just trying to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record, but once again, I feel like what little is being said by the Committee is too cryptic. Dennis was asked by ArbCom to step away early in the investigation; that seems to be an agreed-to fact. I've never known Dennis to be untrustworthy, and it concerns me that he has just expressed disagreement in such strong terms. I cannot tell to what extent Dennis' reaction reflects a concern on his part that the subsequent investigation is not being pursued properly, and to what extent it reflects his personal feelings about being asked to step back. I'd welcome any clarification from either Dennis or from the Committee, because it seems to me that the SPI case is very important and needs to be pursued vigorously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I also would like some assurance that ArbCom understands that the SPI case is very important and needs to be pursued vigorously. I don't see how that level of detail could hurt any investigation; Surely the puppeteers know after seeing the Daily Dot article that we will no doubt have some sort of response. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

We get that this is and was an important socking case. We are talking about events from over a year ago, folks. Dennis, in his good faith desire to address an SPI, went too far, and was told so. None of that prevented others from pursuing the case in the usual manner and, indeed, the case has proceeded as best I can tell in accord with our policies and usual practices since that point. Risker (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it has not: note the header at the top of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277. During the weeks before this happened, I did have doubts that the SPI process was able to adequately handle this sort of stuff, but I would have to agree with other people's concerns that this was probably a suboptimal way of addressing the issue. --Rschen7754 20:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish: The committee has said nothing on the Morning277 matter. I struggle to see how you can find silence "cryptic", or fault us for not being forthcoming over something that has nothing to do with us.

All: Aside from chastising Dennis for his actions during the investigation (quite some time ago), the committee has had no involvement in the Morning277 investigation. It is in the hands of the checkuser team, who operate autonomously. We have not said we do not want Morning277 socks to be blocked, and if that has been said or implied, I personally would be bewildered. AGK [•] 20:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

However, that is the message that someone could easily have gotten, as Rybec posted on this page a few weeks ago. --Rschen7754 20:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AGK, while I've been logged out, numerous other editors have explained why I said that, and I hope you understand what they have said. But, to answer you specifically, it was indeed because Risker said that ArbCom had asked Dennis to step away, but Dennis seemed to dispute that statement, and nothing that was visible here at the time of my comment addressed why ArbCom asked Dennis to step away, why it was in ArbCom's remit to ask him to do that, how ArbCom came to be involved in the first place, or whether what had happened had weakened the effort to bring the very serious SPI situation under control. A lot of what has been said here subsequently has helped to clarify those issues, and I accept where people have said that certain things are best handled privately. But, as of the time I left that comment, those things were a lot less clear than they are now (relatively speaking). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder what on Earth Risker means by "asked to step away" because he "went too far". I think the community would appreciate some plain speech here, instead of more obfuscation. Has Arbcom been taking lessons from the US Congress? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I had asked the committee to "clarify its role, if any, in sock-puppet investigations of non-administrators"[17] because I didn't see how it would fall under the purview of the committee. Risker seems to be saying that the committee doesn't direct sock-puppet investigations, yet if it asked Dennis Brown to "step back" wasn't it doing just that? Dennis Brown has never held checkuser or oversight privileges [18]. Risker describes the request to "step back" as coming from the committee. When I asked last month, I was told that the committee "does not do anything except by majority vote". Was there a vote about this, or was it instead an informal request by several people who happened to be members of the committee? —rybec 23:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I accept that it is likely that one cannot fully get up to speed based upon public information only, However, it is very troubling to see two editors I highly respect at loggerheads. I'm unclear on how Arbcom has authority over an SPI investigation. Is there any thing I can look at which would help shed light on this odd situation?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  I wasn't asked to step away, although that is obviously what a few wanted. I volunteered to step away, and did for a necessary duration because I was a new admin and felt it was better to just back off and not make waves. Not all agreed I went too far either, some agreed with me and felt I was well within my authority. I was never chastised by the committee. Had I been officially "anything" by the committee, I wouldn't have made those 300 blocks a couple of months ago, and had they officially done anything, you can bet they would have instigated some proceeding against me, but not a single Arb said anything to me about it. Nary a peep. I was even "promoted" to full clerk during the case, so they HAD to know (and some objected to this promotion, I do hear...).

I did two things last year, one of them was more or less repeated by another admin in the last case without incident, and the other was to offer an idea to Arb, a proposal, without my taking action. That is all. That is part of the problem, some memories don't match the reality. And yes, I am respectfully being vague and staying away from some details because it is in the best interest of Wikipedia, not because it benefits me or Arb. I personally have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. Most of the Arbs probably don't know the whole story because they never asked for it, they just heard what came from one Arb, whom I mistakenly thought was a friend at the time. Nothing I did was in secret. My frustration is being unfairly painted with this "improper" brush when I have never done anything other than try to follow policy to the letter, and keep Arb informed all along the way. There are other details, like the silly "clerk" stuff that I never asked for, but that is just a symptom of the larger issue. And yes, I've tried to raise this issue with some Arbs privately, but there doesn't seem to be a stomach to discuss it privately. The real issue is that we are chasing away the people that know that case best, WilliamH (who handed in his CU, Bureaucrat and Admin bits) and myself, and I can't help but to wonder why. And I don't care what anyone says, this case IS why he left. He is a personal friend, we have discussed this at length. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, is Arbcom still wanting Dennis Brown to step away? Or is his stepping away-time-served over? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't violate ANY policy, so the idea of "time served" is unacceptable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, that usage was not meant to offend; "stepping away" could it seems be just a strong request not to be concerned in something temporarily (time served) for then existing prudential reasons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• To echo Risker above, checking my notes: the Committee emailed Dennis in September 2012, and Dennis acknowledged its receipt. It was sent by a single arbitrator but clearly marked as drafted by the Committee. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• I wasn't on Arbcom back in 2012, but having read over the threads I do understand why Dennis was asked to step away. I'm currently reviewing the situation to see if there is anything else I can add to help the situation move forward. Worm^TT(talk) 14:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Worm That Turned Can you point me to these threads so I can get up to speed?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to arb-en email threads, Sphilbrick. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have realized that. I'd like to know more before going off half-cocked, and should have realized that Worm was referring to non-public emails.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am. I've looked at the arbitration email thread archive to read what was said on the arbcom-l list at the time. It's unfortunately a situation where we can say very little on wiki. Worm^TT(talk) 15:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've searched and can't find any email to that effect, although I will take David's word for it. And yes, it is a situation that I have respectfully avoided sensitive details on-wiki. It doesn't change the mess, it doesn't change why WilliamH left, nor many other aspects. Some of the Arbs didn't approve of my ideas (I understand and accept that) and they might not like some of my actions or prefer other actions, but it was blown out of proportion yet there was no policy violation. Regardless, I'm done with this, nothing will change so it is serving no purpose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• The question of how we handle paid editing and conflicts of interest is an existential one for this project. Without intending to sound alarmist, I don't think Wikipedia will survive the perception that it's a virtually unregulated conduit for corporate PR. For those of us who have worked for years to build up Wikipedia's credibility, it's beyond depressing to contemplate the current situation, where we stand to take a huge credibility hit because of our unwillingness to deal with (or even have a serious discussion about) these issues.

  Since this issue directly affects all of us who volunteer here, I'd really like to see an open discussion. We all have a stake in this. And if we're losing talented and productive checkusers like WilliamH, and solid admins like Dennis, over this issue, then something needs to change. We don't have a deep bench anymore, and we can't afford to lose more good people, because they're not being replaced. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  Related: WP:PAID and its associated talk page. alanyst 18:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Wikipedia has "lost" Dennis and I'm not sure that ARBCOM's action(s) had anything to do with WilliamH's choosing to leave Wikipedia. Paid editing (which is done by regular Editors and not just "PR people") is certainly a topic worthy of conversation (which is occurring at WP:PAID) but I think it's important to ask whether the subject falls under ARBCOM's jurisdiction:

"The Arbitration Committee...has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve....In addition to its role in dispute resolution, the Committee determines which editors have access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions, and considers certain matters where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing."

Since a general discussion about how to address paid editing doesn't involve disputes between identified Editors, I'm not sure it falls into ARBCOM territory. But if you think it does, put in a request (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests) and we'll see if ARBCOM believes that it does. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I certainly hope we haven't lost Dennis, but his comments did leave open that possibility, and ideally we'd actually take proactive steps to retain good editors rather than waiting for them to leave definitively before saying anything. As for WilliamH, my sense (admittedly, based on limited information) is that he left not because of ArbCom per se, but because we (the community + ArbCom) haven't found an effective way to deal with the issue of COI/paid editing. I accept that it is not ArbCom's role to take the lead here, but I will say that I believe they set an actively counterproductive precedent in a recent case. I'm concerned that a similarly counterproductive precedent is being set here, where they've warned off Dennis (rightly or wrongly) without any clear mechanism to pick up the work he left behind. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a bit frustrated that Dennis didn't believe me, or AGK, but finally believed David Fuchs that he'd been asked in writing to step away and the precise reasons for our asking him to do so, but I am relieved to see that this seems to now be resolved. His error in judgment, which had the potential to place the Arbitration Committee and individual arbitrators in an untenable position involving non-public information, was considered to be one made in good faith and with perhaps more enthusiasm than deep understanding of what was, at that time, a new role for him. From what I can see from the 30,000-foot view, many other socks related to this web have been blocked over the course of time, although they were not labeled "Morning277" socks; many of them were blocked at a global level because their activities were not in any way restricted to enwiki. Risker (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis may have thought two arbs could easily be wrong, but it was unlikely for three to be; I don't know, but in any case I don't blame him or anybody for the faintly absurd and circular path that his conversation seems to have taken. We were simply talking completely at cross-purposes, which can happen to anybody.

  Best might be for Dennis and a few of us to talk about this directly, in order to reconcile what appear to be our divergent accounts of the situation—distracting the community with this thread doesn't seem wise. However, one thing I particularly hope is clear is that the committee has not prohibited the blocking of pseudo-Morning277 socks, or had much involvement in the matter at all. Most arbitrators' competence with CU is limited or non-existent, which is why we always defer in these matters to our accomplished community checkusers. AGK [•] 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have the time or patience to fully explore the rest of the above, but suffice it to say that I have never had a problem trusting you AGK. I did multiple, extensive searches for that email and I couldn't find it. My real concerns are things that haven't been discussed anyway. This discussion wasn't my idea to start with. And yes, a sincere and frank discussion in private would have been better and still would. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• AGK, as far as I can tell from this notice, our checkusers have pretty much washed their hands of dealing with this situation, because it involves meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry. So I'm not sure who's left to deal with this situation. Is there some action at the Foundation level? I don't see a lot of admins likely to rush in, given the problems Dennis has run into, but hopefully I'm wrong. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the CheckUsers have a valid point. While there are some sockpuppets, primarily this is a meatpuppetry case. If we were to block all the IPs/IP ranges that have been used by the editors associated with this company, we'd pretty well be shutting down editing entirely from some (Asian) countries, and that isn't appropriate either. Risker (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've been trying from a CU perspective where it makes sense (there are a few cases) but due to my slightly more than average knowledge of the Dennis Brown case I've been reluctant to aggressively pursue it. While on paper I'm sure that the statement did not mean to discourage others from taking up the case, as a result I've been reluctant to dig too aggressively. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I want to thank the Arbs who have provided further information here. Without asking anyone to go into material that should be treated privately, please let me ask if the following is basically what the community should understand about the issue. Everyone, including ArbCom, shares a serious concern about the SPI case and its implications for subverting Wikipedia's norms. The SPI case revealed a lot of accounts that violate our policies. Through the SPI page, registered accounts have been blocked where appropriate, and there are a great many of those. A question then arises of whether, in addition, to issue range blocks of IP addresses associated with those registered accounts. ArbCom became aware of some private information that justified looking into how blocks were being made. Dennis and ArbCom disagreed about some aspects about blocking IP address ranges. Dennis voluntarily agreed to back away from some types of blocks, as, apparently, did WilliamH. Dennis has some concerns about how ArbCom interacted with him, and these concerns are being discussed privately, and there is no need to discuss them publicly. The SPI process is continuing, at least in principle, and properly-identified accounts will be blocked when it is appropriate to do so, although CUs who are working on it are sensitive to issues that came up in the discussions with Dennis. There remains a problem, with which the community ought to deal, of whether there are additional accounts that are disrupting via violations of WP:MEAT, and this is a problem that needs to be figured out in order to stop the improper effects of the SPI-related editing. Outside of anything that needs to be kept private, did I get that approximately right? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid we've sort of mussed things up a bit. Dennis, acting in good faith and attempting to put himself forward as a liaison, recommended that someone who apparently had knowledge of some nonpublic and possibly private information not originating on Wikipedia, contact a specific arbitrator with that information in order for it to be provided to Arbcom. Neither the arbitrator nor the committee wanted to receive such information; we couldn't be certain of its origins or its accuracy, nor whether or not the person providing the information came to have that information legitimately. Please bear in mind that, because of previous leaks, the committee has become much more cautious about such information being posted on its mailing lists, for the protection of the entire community. This was back a year ago, and much has happened since that time, including a mass of blocking and further reviews by checkusers, administrators and others (including stewards for cross-wiki issues). From my own perspective, having looked at a pile of these articles, one has to wonder if our very low threshold for notability does not play a significant role in practically encouraging third parties to create such articles; the most problematic feature of the articles is a tendency toward promotion, because in many cases there are articles about organizations or individuals with a similar notability whose "virtue" is that they're either negatively biased or less well written. (There were also plenty of poorly written articles involved in this situation too, though.) Promotional tone shouldn't be the only reason or way to get rid of these kinds of articles. Risker (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The "mussed up" bit seems to be that Arbcom is the only place to send sensitive or non-public information that may affect the project and it would be better if your response was something like "information not actionable and we are also concerned with this or that policy implication going forward" rather than to just close your ears, and discourage good faith communication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The first part of your statement is correct (and honestly, more politely stated than anything that has been offered to me by Arb previously, or said privately). I would do things differently today, but that isn't the same as violating policy or acting in an improper fashion. And I agree with your second part, that our generosity in erring on the side of inclusionism is being used against us. The answer, of course, is not to change who we are, it is to use every tool we have to combat sock/meat puppetry, while at the same time developing a reasonable policy for COI editing that allows paid editing and COI editing as long as they follow ALL THE RULES, and I would say, with disclosure. This silliness of trying to disallow COI editing or trying to restrict it to the talk page will only insure we are buried with sock/meat puppets. Paid editing is here to stay, either we manage it reasonably, or we stay buried beneath it. And for the record, I think SPI is still the exact proper place for this scale of meatpuppetry because it is the only board with CUs when needed, and a trained staff that fully understands the difference between meat/sock and is accustomed to mass investigation of diffs. ANI can't handle these problems, trust me, only a structured and semi-formal board like SPI (or behind the scenes action) can. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This is disgusting and I truly believe Arbcom should make a public apology to Dennis. Good fucking lord, what the hell is happening to the Wikipedia I registered with 6 years ago. Was it all just a fantasy?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since WilliamH retired over this issue(and people other than Dennis have told me it was primarily over this particular issue, and not general frustration) Dennis says he has almost left over this issue, and at least one current checkuser says the way they approach the case is restricted by their impression of what happened to Dennis, I think it might be a good idea if arbcom made a statement about how/through what channel they would like to see this issue addressed.

Reading the statements above, I'm sure that arbcom doesn't view that as something within their ordinary mandate, but unless it is done, it seems likely that our approach to a 12,0000 article meat/sockfarm is going to continue to be, well, nothing. I could easily list plenty of accounts that can be confirmed via behavioral patterns and public evidence to be people working for Wiki-PR editing in problematic ways (and I'm sure CU evidence would confirm it further,) but short of either bringing each account to its own ANI section (lol) or tossing them to individual admins I know, there's no clear pathway to deal with them. Neither of those methods is a good one. Even though it's out of the believed mandate of arbcom to suggest or develop an alternative, since the actions of arbcom are in large part responsible for the current situation, I feel like it would be reasonable to step out with some suggestions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We are all human and make mistakes, good lord, I know I do and admit them when I do. What I don't like is misinformation and being vilified, and having good faith actions manipulated around, whether it is accidental or otherwise. This is vague, I know, but Arb understands it. I almost never vent like this, but the Will situation has me still upset after all this time and it isn't getting better, and frankly, I do feel like been unfairly used as a whipping boy for the last year. This has been behind the scenes, and not anything that someone would have noticed onwiki. I'm in a private discussion now with an uninvolved Arb, a friend, and hopefully some resolution or understanding can be had. Until then, it is probably better to just move on. The Arbs and I have no choice but to be very vague about the topic, and I'm afraid it will just lead to more speculation and/or misunderstanding. I want solutions, not drama. Perhaps we need to walk away for now and see if things can be hammered out in private first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. I've seen the aftermath of situations leading to the loss of an editor, and wondered if better handing at the time might have saved the editor. I felt like I was witnessing a repeat in real time, and so hoped to see if something could be done. I think a little light has been shed (thanks Risker) and while I don;t pretend to know the whole story, I'm not going to push further on this issue if you Dennis, think it can be resolved through other channels. There's plenty enough to do, I think we need to have a comprehensive community discussion about paid editing/COI, and I don't think that will be easy. To respond to Mark Miller's question, this isn't the same Wikipedia as it was six years ago. While I haven't been here that long, (my fifth anniversary was yesterday), the Wikipedia of that time was still a place where a company might notice they were in Wikipedia,a ad think "how cute". We are a victim of our own success. In today's Wikipedia, companies must have a presence, and of course their interest is in having a positive, polished presence. While their desires are antithetical to our goals, we are no longer in a position to simply say, "Go away". We have to accept that this is a different time, and find a way to maintain our goal of an NPOV encyclopedia, while recognizing that keeping everyone away who happens to have a COI is unrealistic.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps we need to walk away for now and see if things can be hammered out in private first. Dennis Brown | 2¢"

And maybe that's a good way to put this conversation on "Pause" for the moment since many of the relevant details are private. I know that there are several other places where Editors are discussing different aspects of paid editing on Wikipedia in much greater detail. It's an important topic but maybe better discussed on guidelines on COI and NPOV pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick is right. This is not the same Wikipedia of six years ago...and I am not the same editor from that time either. I have strived to grow, learn and contribute in a positive manner. But I see this happen time and again where individuals with a perception of authority/power attack people for their own perceptions and punish them in public ways that should have garnered sanctions themselves. Dennis has been very clear: "Perhaps we need to walk away for now and see if things can be hammered out in private first". So I will respect that. As for the COI issues an advocacy editing problems the project is having, I do disagree with Sphilbrick on that. I don't think the community is willing to just accept the project being used for either individual promotional and financial gain any more than we are accepting of corporations pushing a POV to polish their image. This can't be acceptable...can it? --Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has ranged fairly widely, and (after saying that I hope Dennis resolves his issues and comes back soon, as his calm voice of reason is sadly missed on the drama boards) I would like to bring it back to the starting-point: the Morning277/WikiPR situation. What with the departure of the two most involved admins, the effective close-down of the SPI with many reports archived unactioned, and persistent rumours that Arbcom did not want the case pursued, action on the Morning277 sock-farm seems effectively to have come to a halt.

Meanwhile WikiPR are still in business: "We build, manage, and translate Wikipedia pages for over 12,000 people and companies", some of the redlinks on the list of their clients in the LTA are turning blue, and since the Daily Dot article the world is watching to see what we do.

Now that Risker and AGK have unequivocally said that Arbcom are not against anti-WikiPR action, I suggest that we need WikiProject Morning277. This should not get hung up on arguments of principle about COI editing, but should concentrate on this case, maintain lists of suspected Morning277 socks and clients, provide a place for reports to replace the SPI, agree standards for what behavioural evidence is enough for blocks and G5 deletions in this rather exceptional case, and generally get the case moving again. It might be necessary to conduct some of its business by mailing-list, given that WikiPR will not doubt be watching. I would hope that a number of admins would join in, as the rate of turnover seems high.

The alternative is to give up and let WikiPR get rich while WP becomes a notice-board for companies to tell the world the story they want it to hear. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Setting up a special project for dealing with Wiki-PR.com socks seems like a splendid idea to me. Suffice to say, I don't think anybody should worry about getting into the same predicament that Dennis did in 2012. AGK [•] 22:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who has clarified things. And I wish all the best to Dennis and whatever needs to be discussed privately. But, after reading carefully everything that has been said, I'm still left with a question about going forward (whether or not through a WikiProject). As Dennis has said, we still need to deal with the problem via SPI. I agree. But there is apparently something that is making the checkusers feel constrained about what actions they can take. Why, and what can we do about it? I can understand that some of that has to do with collateral damage about IP addresses that just happen to be geographically near to PR companies. Is there a further problem with accounts that show up, look like MEAT violations, but get off the hook because the content they create is AfD-keep-able and no one feels comfortable acting on CHU data? In other words, does the community need to clarify how, in this situation, to apply behavioral evidence along with CHU in assessing MEAT violations? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

All good questions Trypto, but I fear what Dennis went through may well have gone beyond the norm and that I still can't help but fear that we will be feeling repercussions for some time. it isn't so much about Dennis himself (although I am beginning to understand more why he felt personally berated if not outright harassed. But again, not so much about an individual but how we as a community handle these situations. What are our priorities etc on the subject and how do we move forward without a full lack of confidence in those that have over site etc. Surely an old issue with a slightly new...er...twist?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think they are good questions too, if I say so myself, and I remain interested in them. I accept at face value what Dennis said about not needing to continue discussing it publicly, and I'm not here to berate ArbCom. I do want to find ways to fix the MEAT problems, and move forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have some questions about the action ny Arbcom asking Dennis Brown to step away.

Was this a formal action by the committe, or a personal caution by an arbcom member inferred to be official? I see that David Fuchs has now answered this in the thread above.

If formal, what make the actions by Dennis Brown subject to ArbCom juisdiction?

I see, per Arbitration Committee, that Arbcom:

has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors

Does that apply? If so, which editors were involved in the dispute.

I see also that ArbCom

considers certain matters where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing

Was that clause invoked?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that because this was to do with private data, it falls within the range of stuff that the community cannot handle and therefore within arbcom's purview. I could be wrong about that though. Worm^TT(talk) 15:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. However, I must note, if the committee has remit over anything that the community cannot handle, well, that's quite a broad remit. I wish I were making a joke.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree with you and if the community can come up with something better, I'd certainly be one to support it. Arbcom handles a lot of stuff that it shouldn't, in my opinion, simply because no one else can/will. Worm^TT(talk) 06:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't find a link to the requests-for-amendment-and-clarification page anywhere on this page. Could one please be added? I'm meaning either to the page itself or to the {{ArbCom navigation}} template. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn’t that just the second section of the Requests page (third link in the template), WP:A/R#Requests for clarification and amendment? There are big links at the top of the page for each of its four sections, or you can scroll down to the second pink box.—Odysseus1479 04:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a separate page that is transcluded where Odysseus found it: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. --Orlady (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There is also an ArbCom nav template on the project page that corresponds to this page if that is of any help. However, the current AC nav template is not as user friendly as it could be. If you select Arbitration Requests you are directed to a new template called Arbitration Proceedings which includes a list of, requests, open cases, recently closed cases, clarification and amendment requests and arbitration motions. That's good but you wouldn't know that from the current AC nav template. Can the ArbCom nav template be amended to say: All Arbitration Proceedings instead of Arbitration Requests? That would be a more accurate representation of what info is behind the link.

On a side note, I have a question. How does one access the archives for past Clarification and Amendment proceedings? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no central archive, unfortunately. You have to look at the talk page of the relevant case to see the discussion. However, if a motion did come out of the amendment, it may also be noted at WP:A/R/M. --Rschen7754 17:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:ARCA reaches clarifications and amendments. Another link that works is WP:A/R/CA. Not to be confused with WP:A/R/C. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I've edited the template to address the problems raised in this thread. Nyttend and everyone else: how's this (see right)? Regards, AGK [•] 22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Simpler and more intuitive; thanks. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I recall, perhaps wrongly, that arbitrators are requested to reveal some information about themselves, that for regular users is not required. For some reasons I thought that arbitrators have to make their real name and nationality public. Am I wrong? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If we are, it's the first I've heard of it! We're required to identify to the foundation and you will find us all on meta:Identification noticeboard, but there is no requirement to make this public. At least the last couple of years of arbcom elections have had questions regarding the arbitrators choice on public identification, Question 4d. You should be able to find out more about arbitrators personal opinions on the matter there. Worm^TT(talk) 13:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There's NO requirement to make it public - ever. They only have to properly identify themselves to the Foundation, and permanent record of that identification is kept by them. They used to simply have a chart that says "identified" or something like that ES&L 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

permanent record of that identification is kept by them - Currently, the Foundation keeps no identifying documents, but that will probably be changing before long. The chart you refer to is the noticeboard linked by WTT. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...we may have a difference in the use of grammar there ... I was not suggesting that the Foundation keeps a photocopy of the driver's license or passport, I was stating that the Foundation keeps a record that the individual identified themselves to the Foundation, effectively permanently ES&L 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, this is the standard identification for all holders of CU/OS on all wikis, as well as stewards and the ACC team and a few other random categories. --Rschen7754 17:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Piotrus: You may be thinking of the requirement – imposed by the arbitration policy – that arbitrators disclose "any alternate accounts [they have]" to the committee before taking their seat. AGK [•] 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I was probably thinking of the meta noticeboard linked here, and for some reason thought it was a public disclosure, instead of just for the WMF. I find it a bit controversial that the arbitrators who can make decisions about any member of the community are not disclosing this info to the community, but only WMF. That said, I am sure it was discussed previously (but if anyone could throw me a link to what they'd consider the most informative discussion where a decision was made not to require public disclosure, finding the WMF-only disclosure satisfactory, I'll just go and read it, rather than beat what is likely a mostly dead equine... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Piotrus, I rather doubt that this community will support the requirement that only users who are willing to edit using their RL names can be arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, account creators (including admins, incidentally) etc. I don't keep my RL name a secret — I think it 's a little ludicrous if one is going to show up at public wiki-events — but I don't think it necessary to post my full name on this project because it would give the lazy trolls the opportunity to be as much of a nuisance to myself and my family members as the more determined ones have been from time to time. Maybe if my surname was "Smith" or "Mohamed" or "Kaur" or some other very common name....but it isn't. Risker (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns very well. Nonetheless, I think that the standards for Arbitrators, i.e., judges, should require more transparency. With great power, yadda yadda. But if the community has decided otherwise, I don't have a major problem with it (just a minor one :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal public release of anyone's name on this site, whether Arbs or not, would be WP:OUTING. Considering the absolute illegal intrusion into some people's personal lives because of published real names, even suggesting this type of information be made public is the worst idea ever. It is legally sufficient that oversighters, arbs, other functionaries have identified themselves to the foundation - and both unsafe and counterproductive to identify to the public in this manner. Piotrus, please think about the repercussions of what you're thinking - it's been bad enough for some already that they have been forced to step down due to formal real life harassment and threats. Nobody deserves those types of fears for one's family just because they volunteered on a website ES&L 08:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I cannot figure out; Right now I can find out who anyone on the arbitration committee is. All I have to do is convince the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal it to me. (I am assuming for the sake of argument that someone at the Wikimedia Foundation knows the identities.) Having a good reason for wanting to know would be a necessary but not sufficient first step. So my question is, under what circumstances would it be desirable for me to have that information in cases where the Wikimedia Foundation has decided that I should not have it? I cannot come up with a scenario, no matter how unlikely, where this would be desirable. Even if I postulate extremely unlikely situations, the best that I can come up with is that someone has somehow impersonated or coerced everyone at the WMF so as to cause them to deny my request when otherwise it would be granted, and even then they would also ignore any policy we come up with. This leaves me with zero scenarios where the current policy is worse than a policy of revealing identities. Please note that I have no self-interest either way, because I choose to use my legal name as my username and thus cannot be outed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)