Motions

Motion on Elen of the Roads

• In light of the situation outlined at the Committee Noticeboard this morning, and pursuant to item 5, Arbitration Policy, "Scope and responsibilities", the checkuser and oversight flags are removed from Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In addition, she is unsubscribed from all arbitration mailing lists, functionaries-en, checkuser-l, and oversight-l, and her access rights to the Arbwiki and Checkuser wiki are revoked. These actions will remain in effect until 1 January 2013. If she is re-elected in the coming elections, access will be restored to her when the newly elected arbitrators are seated. If she is not, the removals will be permanent, and she may only regain the checkuser and oversight flags through the usual processes for gaining such access.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. There is no way in good conscience I can put up with someone who is an admitted leaker continuing to have access to the place she has already leaked from. This plugs the hole, while allowing folks to decide if they want to trust her again after this. Note that this can pass on usual "majority of active, non-recused" arbs, whereas a motion to actually remove her would take ten votes. Courcelles 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Access to these mailing lists and tools is based primarily on the trust that their contents, whatever they are, will be kept confidential. I can sympathize with Elen's viewpoint, but there were far better ways to deal with this. In the first instance, providing a verbatim copy of an email sent in confidence is not acceptable. While the content of the leaked email (and others) was (were) considered inappropriate by many, it is the expectation of everyone on the Committee that things said on the list stay on the list. This confidentiality is important; for private data primarily, but also to allow arbitrators the opportunity to speak candidly and honestly to one another. I can understand using someone not on the Committee as a sounding board, but it should not be necessary to quote from an email to express your concerns. With as much stress as this responsibility creates, with as much grief that we receive from the community for whatever we do, we need some sort of venue where we can commiserate with each other, where we can support one another, where we can vent to one another because we have nobody else to vent to who understands what we're talking about (I've tried explaining some of our cases to my non-Wikipedian fiancee, but it doesn't really work; all the weird usernames and policies and shortcut abbreviations begin to get in the way before long). When quotes from the list begin leaking out, we begin to lose that last sanctuary, and that will create a barrier to coming to common understandings, a barrier to teamwork (something this year's committee has desperately needed), a barrier to maintaining our own sanity. In the second instance, and perhaps even more seriously than the leak itself, Elen was not straightforward when the Committee as a whole was asked who leaked content. Even after Coren approached us, Elen continued to deny sending a full email to anyone. Had she done so immediately, this whole debacle could have been resolved much more quickly, and possibly with less severe consequences. In the simplest terms, she lied to us. I cannot trust anyone who would lie to their colleages in this manner, particularly about so serious an issue. I do not believe that she is going to begin leaking private information; user identities, IP addresses, whatnot. That's not consistent with her actions nor motives so far. However, my trust in her is shattered, and so I believe that her access rights that are based on a foundation of trust need to be removed. With the way the relevant arbitration policies are worded, we are unable to remove her from the Committee entirely in the current circumstances, but this motion does the next best thing. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Advanced permissions, such as CheckUser, and Oversight require trust that the holder of these permission will handle private, sensitive, and/or confidential information properly with regards to all policies. Elen's disclosure of this information was a breach of this trust, and as such, makes this action regrettably necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is a one month suspension (give or take a few days) which I think is a proportionate response under the circumstances. I agree to a large extent with SilkTork's comment, and I'm not suggesting that she is entirely untrustworthy, however I consider that her actions were sufficiently serious to warrant a 1-month suspension. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Elen made a serious mistake, and compounded that by concealing it from the Committee. She has explained some of the rationale for her actions (though much was not rationale but emotional reaction, or perhaps both together), and I can see the grey area - she felt she was discussing in confidence some material that would later become public anyway, as that was Jclemens's stated intention. I can see the grey area, but she still crossed a line and made a clear mistake. An important note to add is that even though Elen is the source of the leak, as far as we know, she did not deliberately send it out to other candidates via an anonymous Gmail account. A twist is that a line in the email sent out asks recipients to verify it. It is possible this was done as part of the concealment of it being sent by a Committee member, and we are familiar in the Committee with how people can be quite scheming in their attempts to deceive us. But sometimes you have to make a judgement of a person's character. I have never found Elen to be devious. Blunt, direct, outspoken, emotional, driven, sometimes, yes, a little out of control, but not devious. This is a motion about trusting someone. And I trust Elen. I think what she did was very wrong. I have listened to her explanations on the Committee list and by personal email, and on her talkpage, and I understand where she is coming from, but she did wrong. However, for the stuff that really matters, do I still trust her not to reveal genuinely confidential material? Yes, I do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   For purpose of clarity, when I mention judging her character - I mean her moral character, not if I like her as a person. My assessment of her moral character is that she can be trusted with the tools. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

1. As a candidate in the current Arbitration Committee election, I have (quite properly) not been privy to the Committee's recent discussions of the issue underying this motion. I am thus recused from this vote at this time, both because of the perceivable conflict of interest if I were to vote on the Committee membership of another candidate, and also because without the benefit of the "c-list" discussion, I could not cast a fully informed vote. For the benefit of my colleagues who are voting and the community, I note that Elen has just posted a statement on her talkpage, whose contents should be carefully reviewed and thought through before any action is taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Recusing as the leak tangentially involves the present elections and due to that I have been out of the loop on the recent discussions happening on-list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Reconfirming my recusal. Like there was really any question... Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

• I reworded the sentence regarding mailing list access a bit to include the mailing lists dependent on access to advanced permissions; one cannot be subscribed to checkuser-l, for example, if one does not have access to the checkuser flag on at least one wiki or the steward tools. I am withholding voting on this for now, as Elen has indicated that she intends to make a statement soon. However, given the evidence at hand and her comments so far, both public and private, I expect to support this motion. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am awaiting further comments regarding the point of order raised by KTC below before voting; at present, I am not certain that we're using the correct threshold of support for this motion. Kirill ^[talk] 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments

What about access to the checkuser wiki? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That and checkuser-l access are automatically turned on and off with the actual CU flag. (I.e. the Stewards always set up and ensure access is removed as needed when mashing the buttons) Courcelles 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the checkuser wiki to the list to be clear, but Courcelles is right. Since Elen isn't a checkuser elsewhere, her access would be removed anyway. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this to be hasty, sad, and frankly frightening. Before she even speaks Elen has been tarred and feathered. In case Elen runs amok in the next few hours before she speaks we have to make sure that she doesn't do, what? I don't condone this kind of hasty action nor do I think this kind of example set by the arbs will serve editors who may or may not be in wiki-trouble. This is not good for Wikipedia, not at all.(olive (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Elen of the Roads has now released her statement: User talk:Elen of the Roads#View from this bridge. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly this will include formal banning from Wikipedia for at least a year, yes? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop salivating all over the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Silktork: what about what the community thinks? --Rschen7754 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • As I see it, this is a motion about do the Committee still have trust in Elen to handle CU/OS - something that is the Committee's responsibility to oversee. The community will (appropriately, as they should) show what they think in the election, and I will do as well. I won't be voting to support Elen. I think she has handled this badly. But I still trust her not to mess up CU/OS. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay sure, but if she was standing at CUOS appointments, would she pass? What would the comments be? --Rschen7754 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about it? Arbitrators should vote on the basis of what they think, not attempt to divine the community's opinion (if any such singular thing existed, which it obviously does not). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's one thing to oppose the motion because he thinks Elen didn't leak or something. It's another to say that he totally agrees that she leaked, but he's ok with that because he personally likes/trusts her. From the community point of view, the question should be whether she's trustworthy with the community's private information/communication, not whether despite her leaking, SilkTork likes/trusts her anyway. That is to say, if she leaked Arbcom emails, it shouldn't matter if SilkTork thinks that's ok, if the community isn't ok with potentially having their communications with arbcom leaked. Arbcom has a responsibility to protect the privacy of its mailing lists and wikis, because in not doing so they jeopardize the communications/data of many more people than just them. That duty remains, even if one or more arbs may not like carrying it out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears to me that this issue comes down to a classic conflict between a deliberative body's necessary ability to be able to discuss matters fully and privately, and the need to allow misbehavior within the body to be brought to light by a whistle-blower. The decision to become a whistle-blower is always a difficult one, not the least because it almost always entails the loss of confidence and some sort of punishment. That Elen felt her actions were necessary speaks to how serious she perceived the misbehavior to be, and it would behoove the committee to look more fully at her point of view before responding with motions stripping her of power. Taking action at this juncture, when emotions are still running high, is almost a guarantee that the response is not well considered. I would advise the committee to table this motion (in the American sense) and take some time to consider whether Elen's actions were justified, a different issue than whether they were permitted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in my vote, there were better ways this could have been handled. The main point of her concerns probably could have been summed up with "An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case." It doesn't involve quoting anything, nor even identifying who said it (although if raised in public I'm sure the drama would have dragged out the identity eventually). Whether this is still an advisable course is for others to decide on their own, but it's an option that doesn't involve crossing the bright line. Also remember that we've been aware of the leaks for some time now, and everyone involved has made clear their motivations for doing whatever it is they did. We have had time to consider this, and (unfortunately) what's news to the community is becoming a bit stale for us at this point. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hersfold, that breaches the 'seal of the confessional' rule just as badly as using the verbatim text. Under that, nothing posted to the list can be discussed off list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't identify who said what, or specifically what was said. The policy says arbitrators must "Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence [... blah blah]" (emphasis mine), which implies that where necessary, paraphrasing is acceptable. Legitimate examples may include mission-critical things such as "Arb X will be inactive for a while" or "We'll be posting a statement once we finish arguing over the wording" or even whistle-blower situations such as this. Excessive detail, such as "Arb X will be inactive for a while because he's having his appendix out" or "We'll be posting a statement once Arb Y gets off his soapbox about [insert specific detail here]" is, yes, probably unacceptable as it provides too much detail. You keep mentioning the "'seal of the confessional' rule" but nothing in policy makes it quite that strict. What policy does say, unequivocally, is that direct quoting is a no-no. I agree it could be clearer, and that's definitely something to work on with the Committee next year, and I hope you participate in those discussions whatever the outcome of this motion or the election. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the place to discuss trivia, but where does it say that direct quoting is out (given that contents =/= text, contents = what it is about). If we were only going by policy, what does JC's comments fall under? "Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations." What was 'appropriate confidence' for that statement? The policy says nothing like the actual way the list is managed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see link to policy prohibiting direct quoting all or portions of arbcom-l list. NE Ent 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just quoted part of it above, but there's also "The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties." I know you disagree with Jclemens's email falling under that latter bit, but certainly it falls under the first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the email in question was sent by Jclemens? NE Ent 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... it was still sent to the Committee. The latter part of that clause seems to be there mainly to protect outgoing communications as well. An email sent by the arbitrator to the list would fall under both criteria in most cases. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I will be actively campaigning against those members of the committee seeking reelection...." Personally, I don't see that as qualifying as performance of their duties. NE Ent 22:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably not, but (again), it was sent to the Committee. Under the bit of policy I quoted, it doesn't matter if it was in the performance of his duties as long as it is sent to a Committee mailing list. It's ((sent to the committee) OR (in the line of duty)), not ((sent to the committee) AND (in the line of duty)). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the community is faced with attempting to enforce/sanction an editor for some vaguely defined concept. Like all words, the meaning of "private" depends on context; a reasonable interpretation is that discussion of motions and cases related to committee work arbcom-l is expected to be confidential, especially private information about individuals. Using the list for political campaigning seems contrary to the purpose of the list and whether such use (abuse?) should remain private is debatable. If it's really true any content of arbcom-l is a serious infraction, does not Risker's revealing on-wiki the existence of a jclemens proposal not fall into that overly strict interpretation? This idea that Elen's access must be removed because she is going to go nuts and start publishing email addresses and private information is simply ridiculous. NE Ent 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case is no big deal. Arbs are politicians; they run for office against each other, we expect them to argue. Leaking confidential emails is completely, utterly and totally unacceptable behaviour that cannot be justified under any circumstances. (And "to score political points in an election" doesn't even come close.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold, if "providing a verbatim copy of an email sent in confidence is not acceptable," will you be addressing jclemen's recent postings of emails [1]? NE Ent 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All these were emailed to me privately." - I don't recognize any of those emails off the top of my head, and that comment implies that they were sent directly to Jclemens rather than to the mailing list. That's comparing apples and oranges, and if it is an issue it'd be between Jclemens and whoever sent the email. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is idiotic and punitive. Forwarding an e-mail message that is basically just vindictive intimidation to people outside your group doesn't warrant removing all user rights and mailing list access. Honestly, most of us wouldn't know about this if you guys weren't raising holy hell over it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I am afraid some people here are a bit overheated now. There are a number of facts everybody in principle agrees on, as I see it. (i) There was a factual disclosure of info from the list, and this info in the end was used by unknown parties, which is unfortunate. (ii) Nothing really serious happened so far, since the piece which was disclosed was subsequently published anyway, and the parties seem to agree that it would be published even without disclosure; (iii) Really private information was not leaked, and suggestions that Elen would start immediately leak the private info out are essentially bad faith assumptions; (iv) a sitting arb can technically not be removed, and the elections are underway with Elen running. In this situation, one needs to seriously evaluate the chances that the private info is really going to leak out, and to minimize the drama. Elen could help by resigning as an arb and withdrawing from the elections, but if she is not willing to do it, this is where we are now.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be very interested in hearing from both Jclemens and Elen your individual answers to the following. Hersfold has said this about comments by Jclemens that appear not to have been made public, but which appear to have played a role in Elen's reactions to the situation. What do each of you think of Hersfold's characterization? What, if any of it, do you find to be accurate or inaccurate? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This diff [2] gives a prior description by Hersfold. Although this has not been completely clarified, the email addressed to Risker, reproduced by Jclemens on his talk page, seems to be a follow-up to a shorter email from Jclemens. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tryp, he's right. There was a long discussion, quite a bit of disagreement and other things were said. The only other thing I referred to was the question JC said he was going to ask everyone, which was pretty much why wasn't Malleus banned for [this diff]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, it went something like this:
  • Arbitrator User:Elen of the Roads passed content from arbcom-l to another user, Monsieur X, who is not an arbitrator. Monsieur X passed all or some of this content to User:NuclearWarfare and others (Messieurs Y), who then most likely passed it on to User:Coren and possibly others (Messieurs Z).
• I might be misunderstanding something, as I have been struggling to piece it all together, both the ArbCom's and Elen's statements have been fairly cryptic for understandable reasons. Now if the above chain is any indication of what happened, it seems to me to be the prima facie evidence of why stuff from confidential mailing lists shouldn't be divulged outside of it. For all of the claims of whistle blowing, I find that rather misguided, whistle blowing means taking responsibility for such an action, divulge it to the outside world or relevant authorities so that something can be done about it, not gossiping about it with a friend who then gossips about it with another friend and so on (please note I do not believe Elen has made any whistleblowing claims, this is just other people saying so). The higher the office, the higher the responsibility. Whatever the original intent of this matter, it seems to clear to me that Elen bears the ultimate responsibility as arbitrator and source of the material that was released, as well as for not stepping forward sooner. The member of the Arbitration Committee are supposed to be an example to us all in the propriety of their dealings and behavior. Elen has undoubtedly fallen short of this. Not only that, but the matter sadly seems to suggest a certain cavalier attitude towards confidentiality and a certain naïveté. Our functionaries and arbitrators have access to highly confidential data and there should be no doubt that they take all matters related extremely seriously. It is sad that an arbitrator, in a situation like this, isn't motioned by his sense of duty to resign and hence quash the need for their colleagues to attempt to deal with the fallout of the situation. Previous arbitrators have had the wisdom of leading by example, and not putting the community and the committee in such a difficult stop, thru resignation. It would then be up to the community to render the ultimate verdict on the matter thru the upcoming re-election, without any clouds lingering on the current committee's proceedings and without any need for motions such as this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur that the cavalier attitude to revealing private info is a concern regardless of what she "thought" about that info/person, but so also is the defense that "I needed someone to talk to", [3] which suggests someone unprepared for the stresses of serving on ArbCom (a concern since she hadn't served long as an admin before she was elected and hadn't performed other jobs around ArbCom that might better prepare her) and is unable to keep a sense of perspective about ordinary issues that arbs face. I've got a fairly active inbox, and know a lot of arbs, but never ever has something like this happened (discussion of arb business with friends who are arbs), nor have I seen what amounts to whining about the stresses of the job from the arbs I know best. It troubles me that many observors think this sort of thing is common: I don't believe it is. Arb business stays with the arbs, and the community elects arbs based on that premise and trust. Agree also that previous arbs have done the right thing and resigned over less, so as not to bring ill repute to the committee or cause further dissension or force the rest of the Committee into this awkward position just as an election is upon us. IMO the notion that she "thought" the info would become public anyway should be irrelevant: as an arb, she should be held to the standard of confidentiality the community expects. Disagree with statements from others that concern about what may happen next with privacy of the list has become an inflated concern: the issue is, the community RFCs and present ArbCom policies have left a hole (thru Dec 31) that needs resolution, since it doesn't appear that EotR will step down as did predecessors who found themselves in similar positions. I am also discouraged by SilkTork's stance that, well, it's OK because *I* like and trust her he still trusts her with certain tools. You didn't elect her-- the community did. The community can rightly be concerned if she will again become emotional over a matter that will correct itself and need to talk to someone, and divulge something confidential. And we didn't expect this kind of conduct from an elected arb; the rationalization put forward in her response amounts to, she was furious, she was emotional, and she needed someone to talk to ... and then because she valued protecting her confidant over doing the right thing, she lied to the Committee when first asked. It is all the more disturbing that we had the ArbCom leaks last year, so everyone on the Committee should have learned something from that, and gone the extra mile to guard confidentiality. I guess it is no secret that I felt that EotR was not ready to serve on ArbCom, had not been "in the trenches" long enough, and her defense of "I needed someone to talk to" about (seriously) a matter that will take care of itself really gives pause about whether she is up to the demands of serving on ArbCom. There is a bright line; it has been crossed; and we have no remedies because past RFCs have removed reasonable means of resolving this situation. An honorable arb would resign so as not to put fellow arbs in this position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I appreciate you taking the time to contribute here. Could you amend your "it's OK because *I* like and trust her" sentence above to reflect what I did say. I said I still trust her to handle CU/OS - I'm not talking about asking her to marry me or anything! I trust all the members of the Committee with those tools - whether I personally like them or agree with their views is not the point. I mention judging her character - that is her moral character, not if I like her as a person. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay, SilkTork-- I just saw this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny Sandy, given that you supported me]. And I know you know perfectly well that since its a mailing list, all the Arbs have your personal info on their hard drives anyway. And I'm pretty certain that you know perfectly well that I wouldn't relay personal information - the kind of thing that actually needs to be kept secure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did support you-- in a year when an unfortunate RFC forced us to move the committee size to 18 and the candidate pool was quite limited. I have since changed my voting stance wrt freshly-minted admins running for ArbCom. "All the arbs have my personal info on their hard drives anyway"? That is a very interesting statement, that doesn't reflect very well on you. The only arb who has any personal info on me, period, anywhere, anytime, any way shape or form is Risker, and I trust her. My concerns about your preparedness for ArbCom have grown as I've watched you evolve in the role in ways that were disappointing, reflected in posts like this one. Please take care not to threaten editors about their personal info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Come on Sandy, even you're not that technically illiterate. It's a mailing list. It forwards email to each arb's mail client, which downloads it to their hard drive or their Gmail storage area or wherever they keep their emails. It's a major problem with using that mailing list - never mind about leaks from archives, all ex arbs will have their own personal archives that there is no oversight of or control over. It just isn't a suitable medium for handling sensitive personal data at all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that knowing you retain access to these sensitive personal data you keep bringing up is very reassuring :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... EotR does demonstrate a most cavalier attitude about a number of things. At any rate, I repeat ... no arb other than Risker has anything about me, so just what EotR is on about is a mystery to me. But it's not becoming. Perhaps it's a distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to work to very high standards for protection of personal data, but in an environment where nothing that does not contain personally identifying information can be considered private, as it is all disclosable upon request by law. I don't actually have any information about Sandy (too long ago) but would have copies of any emails she might have sent to the committee in the past two years if she sent any. Which I wouldn't confirm, because that would be personal data. I actually intend to clear that part of my Gmail archive when I go, which I expect will be shortly at this rate, because I would have no authorisation to have them, which would be an offense in the UK if Wikipedia were a UK business. But there's no requirement anywhere for arbitrators to dispose of their copies of emails when they leave. Not that there would be any way of enforcing it, but there's no requirement either. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the statement on her talk page clearly shows that Elen knows the difference between private and non-private information; unless someone believes that there is actually a risk of disclosing CU or OS info, I don't think this motion solves any imminent crises. The question of whether disclosing non-private information is something an Arb should do can be handled in an unrushed way, through the ballot box, and through discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has all been interesting reading. At the risk of pointing out what should be so obvious that it shouldn't need to be pointed out, the community elects arbitrators to put an end to dramas, not to create new ones. Maybe Jclemens hasn't seen my question to him, but I choose to construe the absence of an answer from him as tacit acceptance of the descriptions given by Hersfold and Elen. Whatever else was going on, Jclemens appears to have used the mailing list, and its policy of confidentiality, to send messages that go beyond what I saw posted on his talk page. It appears to me that he used the mailing list to say political things about the election, in a manner that appeared confrontational to other members of the Committee. I do not regard that as really being part of the normal duties for which arbitrators are elected, but the fact that there is a confidentiality policy means that the community had no opportunity to scrutinize it. I do not think that's a proper use of the mailing list confidentiality policy. The policy is intended to protect user privacy, not to hide arbitrator conduct from the community. Elen should have answered fully and accurately when first asked by the rest of the Committee about the leaks. It appears that she didn't, and the other members are right to be dissatisfied about that, whatever the issues may or may not be about the leaks themselves (the cover-up may well be worse than the "crime"). But what I'm really seeing is dysfunction in the mailing list itself. It's a confidential list for ArbCom business. It shouldn't be for politicking. And, sorry, but it shouldn't be for the kind of venting and commiserating described by Hersfold in his vote on the motion. I'm sorry and perplexed that arbitrators end up feeling that way, but they have no right to equate their personal desires to unload and perhaps gossip in privacy with what the community wants them to do, which is to conduct arbitration while preserving the privacy of users who have confidential issues. That distinction seems to be getting lost, and I think it is the root cause of the drama here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Elen's actions were bad, although the theoretically possible damage is much worse than the actual damage. Meanwhile, Jclemen's "bullying" of the Arbitrators (their word, not mine) is going unnoticed by the community. There are two wrong here, but one is being overly-prosecuted while the other is being overlooked. In the interest of equity, I don't have a choice but to point out the lopsided nature of what I am seeing. And as Monty has pointed out, there is some question as to the method being used. No one is saying Elen's actions were appropriate, but we have to use a little judgement here based on what was released. I understand the other Arbitrators are having great difficulty in being objective, after all, this isn't about my home address or phone number, this is about their concerns over their own words might be released and used against them. This begs the question, "why was the list being used for politicking to begin with, and is the level of protection granted to politicking the same as my home address and phone number?" I would hope not. I completely understand the frustration, but the appropriateness of the content itself should be considered in the current "punishment" phase, and perhaps a less drastic motion could be offered and considered. And of course, I would ask if any motion if forthcoming regarding what some Arbs called "bullying" by Jclemens, or is that going to be completely overlooked? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is because for Elen it looks like the first-time incident, whereas for Jclemens it fits the general line of his activity. For instance, all voter guides I looked at (about a half) suggest to vote against him, and they were all published before the statement. His posting just does not add anything to the existing picture, whereas Elen's behaviour does. This is why everybody is discussing her.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct. There is no need to beat a dead horse, and there is little chance that Jclemens will be re-elected. That was clear before it was known that Elen had reacted emotionally to something that the community already understood and divulged confidential info to a non-arb, crying on the shoulder of someone that she probably now understands she shouldn't have been talking to anyway (judgment concern here), much less divulging confidential info to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dennis, there actually are people claiming her actions were appropriate, and more people (including you and SilkTork) saying that while her actions might not have been appropriate, she shouldn't be held accountable for them, and others saying that there is no current policy that prevents disclosure of private arbcom communications. There is a whole lot of vitriol against jclemens being flung around here in an effort to avoid Elen being held responsible for her behavior, because somehow if she committed the breach against someone who is unpopular and who may have also been misbehaving, that makes it more ok. People don't seem to be noticing that if we fail to handle Elen's behavior, that means the next time an arb leaks list emails - maybe that time it won't be about someone who's already unpopular, or it will be about something having to do with you, or it will be an email from you because that arb thinks you're misbehaving - there will be precedent saying that it's ok to leak (to one's personal friends, mind you, not publicly) as long as the arb dislikes the content enough. We can quite well handle Elen's behavior while also not saying Jclemens's was great. This is not a zero-sum game where only one of them can have been wrong, but nevertheless, only one of the two violated the policy prohibiting release of arbcom "internal discussions" without permission. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fluffernutter, it is inaccurate to say that I think she should not be held accountable for the mistakes. I have held that she did make a mistake. I can't speak for SilkTork, although I don't see him overlooking the problem either, just disagreeing with the proposed solution. I specifically mentioned the possibility of another motion, which would imply a different sanction. I mentioned that the punishment should fit the crime. The problem is that we are treating this as a binary problem with a binary solution, something I try to avoid in any sanction discussion. Our job as administrators is to enforce sanctions equitably and fairly, considering all the evidence. I am asking the same here. Nothing I've said can be construed to mean I think a free pass is in order, for anyone. That doesn't mean I agree that the current proposal is the best solution. As for violations, there may be more violations than meets the eye, but you and I haven't seen the email in question, only the milder reply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this isn't about whether one of them is more popular than the other. Personally, I like both Elen and Jclemens very much. What bothers me is that there is a very strong appearance that the rest of the Committee are placing a much higher priority on making sure that arbitrators have a safe place (the list) do things that the rest of us cannot see, and a lower priority on using that list the way the community wants it to be used. I don't see this as something where we have to take sides about which arb to punish, but I do see it as something where there may be the kind of rush that Dennis and others are rightly calling into question. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Process questions

• So, with the candidates auto-recused and Xeno still on his long vacation, there are ten active arbitrators, right? Jeff Kilmar 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making 6 a majority, yes. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While motion to remove access to CU & oversight can be a simple motion, removal of access to arbitration mailing lists and Arbwiki is a suspension from the arbitration committee by any other name, which per policy requires two-thirds of all arbitrators. -- KTC (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, she has the right to vote still. --Rschen7754 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an interesting point, actually. When the requirement for arbitrators to identify to the WMF was first formalized, the prevailing opinion of the Committee was that access to arbcom-l was, indeed, required in order to fulfill one's responsibilities as an arbitrator; when we considered the hypothetical case of an arbitrator-elect who refused to identify—and who, therefore, could not be subscribed to the list—the general sense was that this would not be a viable situation in practice.

      Having said that, there is currently no provision in the arbitration policy mandating that arbitrators have access to the arbitration mailing lists (or, indeed, mandating that such lists be used at all), so it's not clear to me whether simply unsubscribing someone from the list would in fact qualify as removing them from the Committee. On the one hand, an arbitrator not subscribed to the list would still be able to carry out the public portions of their role (e.g. voting on cases, etc.). On the other hand, certain elements of the Committee's work (and particularly #2, #4, and #5 in the Committee's list of responsibilities) are always conducted off-wiki; an arbitrator without access to the arbitration mailing lists and/or arbitration wiki would be unable to carry out those duties.

      I'm therefore very interested in additional feedback on this point: is removing an arbitrator from arbcom-l tantamount to removing their ability to carry out their official duties? Kirill ^[talk] 22:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • If a case were to open tomorrow, she would be able to review evidence posted on-wiki, make workshop proposals, and vote in the proposed decision. Removing her from the mailing list only prevents her from being able to deal with the "private information" part of our mandate; a large part, yes, but she would still be able to perform in the Committee's other primary role, that of being the last step in dispute resolution. In some ways it would be the same as if she were on vacation and only able to access Wikipedia through public terminals; she may not want to open up her private email and certainly not access the arbwiki, but she could still vote on matters posted on Wikipedia. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)In an extreme case, she could even participate in #2 (ban appeals) if we routed all BASC appeals through UTRS or Requests for Amendment. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone is free to send email to her at their discretion, and she can still send email to the list. Also, pulling CU and OS is explicitly allowed to pass with a simple majority. --Rschen7754 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)I think there's a distinction between not wanting to participate in a portion of our role—whether for technical reasons or simply because of lack of interest—and being forcibly restricted from doing so. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that an arbitrator can be prohibited from carrying out some of their official duties but still remain an arbitrator; it seems to me that holding the position is inextricably intertwined with having the authority to perform all of the associated responsibilities. Kirill ^[talk] 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only alternative would be to say that the Committee has no ability to remove a confirmed leaker from access to the confidential materials she previously leaked. That is hardly a sustainable position. Jeff Kilmar 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, the procedural question is merely whether this is an ordinary motion (which requires a simple majority) or a motion to suspend an arbitrator (which requires a 2/3 supermajority); in either case, the ability to remove someone still exists. Kirill ^[talk] 01:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Kirill, does the procedural question matter? Here, we have an arbitrator who has consciously violated the duty of her office, and several arbs have clearly stated that the only reason she's still on ArbCom today is because procedure prohibits her removal with the number of arbs that must recuse due to elections. This seems like a clear case of WP:IAR to me. And this isn't even IAR per se - this is perfectly within the regulations of the Committee. Anyone can send emails to Elen (heck, even cc: it to arbcom-l, but I sure hope discretion would be used here and stuff wouldn't be just forwarded from arbcom-l), and Elen will still be allowed to email into the list. She can still vote in proceedings. Sure, it's not as convenient, but are you going to let someone who has willingly deceived the Committee and who has violated the privacy policy remain on the Committee, with this access to private information? So she can still perform her duties, without viewing private evidence, which is the key issue at stake here. The BASC membership may be an issue not having CU, but she does not have to be a member of BASC to be an arbitrator and could be switched out. And ArbCom clearly has a mandate to remove any advanced permissions, including CU, OS, and admin, with a simple majority. Finally, does Elen still retain the community's trust? She was dishonest once - while I'm sure we all want to believe in her record and character and that this was the only leaked email, how do we know that other emails were not or will not be leaked? I have nothing against her personally, but this is due diligence, and we would be remiss to ignore the issue and pretend like it was no big deal by writing up a statement and hoping the community resolves the issue for 2013, while allowing the leaker to have access to private information until December 31, 2012. I've heard noises of appealing to the WMF should ArbCom fail to do anything about the situation, and I would personally find that entirely appropriate. --Rschen7754 09:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I certainly think the procedural question matters. How can we condemn Elen for violating the arbitration policy if we ourselves are willing to violate it in our haste to punish her? If IAR justifies our actions, could one not argue that it also justifies hers? Kirill ^[talk] 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Point taken, but there are concerns that this disclosure may violate the wmf:Privacy policy. (I'll be honest, this is the first time I've read it, so I couldn't tell you). I do think the trust of the community has to be considered here as well. But the policy explicitly allows for removing CU/OS rights, and "To approve and remove access to ... (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee." which arbcom-l would clearly qualify. --Rschen7754 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If what happened was a violation of wmf:Privacy policy (I'm not arguing one way or another on this), then the WMF have the power to kick her off all relevant access. As such, the argument that someone couldn't be kicked off for violation like this would is invalid. -- KTC (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being restricted from performing parts of a role is still suspension of at least that part. A suspension is a suspension whether in whole or in part. Anyway, that's my take, others may disagree. -- KTC (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • • • • • • • I'm afraid I don't accept this line of argument. The core function of the committee is on-wiki; cases, amendments, clarifications, etc. If on the off chance something comes up that needs her attention, she can be read into it, whether that be a ban appeal, an admin caught socking, or whatnot. You can do this job just fine without the lists or flags, all this motion says is she doesn't get automatic access to non-public information until the community can render its judgment on the leaks, and plugs the hole from her leaking again in the meantime. (That we can't control what she has already seen is no reason to let her see more over the next month.) Courcelles 16:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • If members of the committee can perform their function adequately without access to that private information, then access to it should be removed from all members of the committee, save two or three, who could then provide the same sort of screening for the rest of the committee that you propose for her. Any type of sane privacy practice would not share confidential information with more individuals then need access to it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Also, it is already possible to exclude members from discussion on the -b and -c lists; since it appears the archives are restricted, this would not be much further than that. --Rschen7754 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Apples and oranges. Those sublists are used for discussions where certain members are recused. Here you are arguing that an arb can function as an arb without access to all arbitration mailing lists & arbwiki. If that is truly the case, then shut down the lists & the wiki since there's clearly no use for it. -- KTC (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • You're trying to push a false dichotomy here: the lists and wiki might not be necessary for every purpose, but they are convenient. IRC isn't necessary for the functioning of Wikipedia but it is convenient, and there's still a no public logging policy for #wikipedia-en-admins. --Rschen7754 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already had expressed my concern about this motion at User_talk:Courcelles#Motion, immediately after it was first posted. I think that this should at least be two separate motions, due to Arbcom using two separate powers in this motion. And KTC's question brings up another good reason to split the motion. And as for Krill's question, that sounds a bit like Arbcom would effectively be voting for a type of censure by committee. She would keep the title, and could help with any work that didn't require that access, but effectively she would be out of cases, and anything else which required that stuff. I think it's an allowable option, per policy. But I welcome others' thoughts. - jc37 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The motion is a removal from the committee in all but name. That candidates must agree to identify to even run for a seat on Arbcom speaks to the fact that the tool and list access to which identification is a prerequisite are necessary to function as a member of the committee. To argue that the tools needed to function as a member of the committee can be removed without meeting the requirements to remove a member makes a mockery of the removal rules. Monty₈₄₅ 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Remove her or don't remove her, but pretending you can take away the functions that make her able to function as an arbitrator by something less than the vote needed to remove is mad. I would question whether the arbitrators who signed the statement are now uninvolved. Certainly, they have a vested interest in seeing that what they signed is upheld, and have clearly meddled in the election. By the same standards of conflict of interest they impose on administrators, they should not be dealing with this. I will not comment on the Elen-Sandy situation, much as I am tempted to, but note that Sandy's present view of Elen is a lesson for Timotheus Canens in two years, if he doesn't toe the party line if elected. He's the fair haired boy per the same election guide which so supported Elen two years ago, for pulling the trigger on Br'er Rabbit's wikicide, but boy he better vote to form or he'll hear about it!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that after stating you "will not comment on the Elen-Sandy situation", you went considerably off-topic on this page and did just that. My response is here (a more appropriate place to continue this discussion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, this is a situation where you should have kept quiet. You brought up "involved". A fortiori, Elen was involved when Elen voted on numerous issues involving Raul and/or Merridew. Had any of these issues developed into a case, Elen would have been named as a party. Elen "interpreted" an arbitration remedy involving one of her friends in a way that voided that remedy. The arbitration committee even took the unusual step of censuring one of its own for admin action while involved. Elen should have been removed from arbcom a good 6 months ago, if not much earlier, for abuse of position. There is more than just the present issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is proof positive that Caligula has been unjustly defamed as having made the worst appointment by any autocrat. Although your Latin is better than that of the other appointee.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A review of:
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Procedures and roles
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Forms of proceeding (summary proceedings)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Participation
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Temporary injunctions
• leads to the conclusion that the above motion requires a simple majority of non-recused, active arbitrators. Recusal could happen by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal of arbitrators. The super-majority/all-committee requirement for removal/suspension from the committee does not apply per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy# Conduct of arbitrators, as the above motion does not seek removal or suspension from the committee. So, the vote to carry, is majority of active non-recused arbitrators (who are identified as doing so voluntarily -- we need not address forced recusal, at the moment). Thus, with three voluntarily recused and one inactive: 6 out of 11 is needed to carry, where the full committee is 15. (This procedural review does not comment on the wisdom of any action). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Even PhilKnight in his support vote explicitly called it suspension. -- KTC (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is suspension of those access rights until January 1 -- not suspension from the committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk's list

• Maybe this is a question for Courcelles: does the motion also change Elen's subscription/write-access to the clerks list? Lord Roem (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answering as a list admin. Being subscribed to the list gives you auto-accept and read rights; anyone can send things to the list, they just have to be moderated first if you're not on the auto-accept list. I can't think of any reason why we'd need to remove Elen from the auto-accept list, nor why we would discard any of her emails in moderation (something which is only done for spam). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Hersfold, that was my understanding of the motion as well. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I'd even leave her subscribed to that one, at least I didn't intend this to remove her from clerks-l. Courcelles 23:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • O_O I could have sworn that said something else earlier - Yeah, I see no reason for her to be removed from clerks-l. But she could certainly remain auto-accept for arbcom-l, which is what I think I was talking about above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (cont'd)

• I respect that a great deal of the information can't be given, but the urgency of which this motion has been drawn is worrisome, considering at least one Arb believes the likelihood of Elen disclosing other information is very low. This also distracts from the issue of a "bullying" email being sent by Jclemens to the rest of the committee, which seems to be getting overlooked in this event. We haven't seen the email, so it puts the community in the position of having to judge solely from hearsay, a less than optimal situation. I'm not sure how I feel about the disclosure by Elen, likely due in part from not having enough information to form a definitive and informed opinion. The process, however, does seem rushed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making allegedly unwise statements is not an actionable issue - willful disclosure of confidential data is. Jeff Kilmar 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to put too fine a point on this Hersfold, but had Elen taken your advice and instead said " "An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case."", everyone would have instantly known who it was, considering the recent events. This calls into question the process being a bit overkill, or even moot, since fully compliance (by your own standard) would have been essentially just as informational as the obviously improper way she chose to communicate. I'm concerned this process is too hasty and not completely thought out. I'm not saying overlook the incident, of course, but does the punishment truly fit the crime? I'm not as sure as others are, based on your own standard. This also calls into question how confidential this particular data really is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose that is a fair question. However, for many years, disclosing the text of an email without the permission of the sender has been a censurable offense. This came up in the EEML case as well as several others. Whether the rules should change is a fair argument, but the problem is that Elen just decided one day to violate the rules without telling anyone. This created an atmosphere of betrayal and mistrust, potentially making Committee business much more acrimonious and difficult. Jeff Kilmar 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Candidates (including arbs) have campaigned against each other for years (2008 was nasty); nothing new, wasn't worth all the fuss, would have taken care of itself, always does, someone got overly emotional over something that wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things (and indicates a lack of trust that the community can figure these things out for themselves). Now, divulging confidential arb e-mail, period, or because you "need someone to talk to" ... that is something new (last year's leaks notwithstanding). Perspective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not overlooking or understating the seriousness of the charge, but there is such a thing as "eventual discovery" (or whatever your state or country calls it) and this information wasn't particularly "confidential", by Hersfold's own standard. If you complied with policy (per Hersfold's actual example) then the public would have discovered the same evidence, thus the offense is not as serious as disclosing information that could not have been discovered independently. Courts even allow illegally obtained evidence under this rule. I'm not saying there is no foul here, I'm saying that the reaction might be out of proportion to the actual offense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • • And what courts do is relevant to the situation at hand... how? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You should occasionally read Lord of the Flies. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sandy, could you provide links to the campaigning that you mention occurred in 2008? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I can't-- I received inappropriate emails, and I later discussed them where appropriate, and IIRC, a lot of people came forward who got same and knew it was going on. But I don't divulge private email. Ever. Perhaps one reason I don't get that sort of thing any more is that the senders know It Won't End Well for Them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem. I was under the impression that this was on-wiki stuff, which didn't quite jive with my recollection of things. NW (Talk) 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Snowolf, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm only trying to politely express my own concerns as a fellow editor with a deep respect for process. When we do something that is at this end of the sanction spectrum, we should be confident that no other less extreme alternatives will suffice. I'm not questioning anyone's faith or authority, I'm just politely offering my perspective. This is the same as I do at ANI and other boards, seeking an equitable solution and insuring we don't rush to judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I see things very similarly to the way Dennis does, and I'll explain that more completely above. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Dennis from way above: The paraphrase I gave is but one example of how to handle this, and different people may not see that as an entirely appropriate approach either. Another approach, unquestionably within policy, would be to push for a motion publicly censuring Jclemens for his comments (idea came to me since he mentioned that he wasn't over at WT:ACN). Another would be to do nothing at the time, but run for re-election anyway and refuse to answer his questions - I don't think I'm wrong when I say that Elen's approaches to civility have more popular support than Jclemens's anyway. I think Sandy's approach may be best. The point I was trying to make is that there were other options available to her that didn't involve leaking information. Since she did leak information, regardless of what it was, we must respond with a removal from the Committee if possible, or the next best thing if circumstances prevent that; doing otherwise puts us on a slippery slope as to what leaks are and aren't acceptable, could jeopardize the ability of the Committee to function as I mentioned in my vote, and erodes the community's trust in the Committee to keep private things private. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the thoughtful response. It is a difficult situation, as I agree there was a breach, but I don't think she would have breached anything really private, and only release info that shouldn't have been there to begin with. You are saying ignoring it isn't an option, and I understand. My thinking is only that treating it the same as if she had shared my address and phone number might be unnecessarily strong as well. IE: I'm not saying you or anyone is wrong, I'm saying the solution isn't optimal as I think she can still be trusted with genuinely sensitive information. (And I would still easily trust her with my personal information, btw) As she very well be re-elected, she will be anyway, so a solution that is less drama causing and is more proportionate to the actual damage caused should at least be considered as one possible option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate and respect that others feel differently, but I don't trust her with confidential information. That she was crying on the shoulder of an imaginary internet friend about confidential arb business to someone who later betrayed her trust for me at least calls into doubt her overall judgment, maturity, all sorts of things. That she "needed someone to talk to" for me at least calls into question her emotional stability under pressure. That she has made it harder for current and future arbs to use the maillist for anything necessary is a lasting problem. And that she hasn't recognized the dangerous precedent-setting issue here of an arb revealing anything, regardless how small, outside of the arb list means to me at least something should be done. And that all of this was done over something that would have taken care of itself calls into question her perspective. But more significantly, she lied to her fellow arbs, and that alone calls for something. So pass a motion on both Jclemens and Elen of the Roads, but do something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually think this is somewhat proportionate. If we'd determined that she had leaked genuinely private data of some form, I don't think there's any question that rather than a statement and motion that specifically does not expel her a day later, we'd have gone straight to a motion to expel and it would have passed quickly despite the number of recusals. If we hadn't, it's entirely possible the Foundation could have intervened due to the breach of their Privacy Policy. As it stands, some arbitrators are closer to your line of thinking, others closer to mine, and so a compromise of sorts is being proposed with this motion, which has resulted in a more proportionate response as you're looking for (perhaps). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I feel better about the tone now than last night, it has cooled down somewhat, and regardless of outcome, the community deserves to know it was a calmly deliberated decision, even if the opinions are split. I would prefer a negotiated settlement but understand this would be very difficult to do as the nature of the offense seems personal to other members of Arb, or at least makes them feel vulnerable. I am just wired that way, to want a mediated solution instead of the public drama. That this happened at this time is most unfortunate, but I guess it couldn't have happened at any other, considering the content. This still doesn't answer "Who sent all the anonymous email?", which means either it was her, or someone else with access to the Arb list did. I can only assume this is still being investigated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "A negotiated settlement" might include both of them stepping down now and standing down from elections. Recall that both Kirill and Cas resigned in the past, and were later re-elected. The community has demonstrated its respect for arbs who stand aside when they've brought ill repute to the Committee, and its willingness to re-elect them in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Such a settlement would avoid the need to make a decision about ambiguity regarding the vote threshold for action. No mater how the committee decides, it will be bad; if the motion is rejected they will be drawing criticism for failure to do anything about the breach, or if the motion passes, there will be criticism for acting in a way that there is a real question over whether it has the authority to. Not needing to make that decision would be far superior. I see no reason why such a settlement needs to encompass the ongoing election, leave that aspect to voters. Monty₈₄₅ 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would offer to mediate a settlement if the parties were inclined. I'm not expecting all the parties to agree to such a method, but on my honor I would go and strike all my votes, electing to be neutral this election, and mediate if this is what the parties wanted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The most important thing now is the voting which will reflect community consensus on the issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • What? No. Can't see how that's true; the election voters are not required to consider the issue, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not exactly. First, voting is not about the issue, and some of the voters might have no idea that motion was passed and the issue is being debated. Second, 50+one vote is not really a consensus. If we have for example an AfD which is split 60 to 40 it normally gets closed as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm hoping cas meant the voting on this page. On the 50+1 issue, I've been moaning about the low threshold since the stupid 2009 RFC (the same one that grew the Committee size to something unmanageable that was later reduced), that forced all sorts of unforeseen issues upon us. Now problems forced upon us by RFC are coming home to roost. Really, 50% support to serve on what is supposed to our highest authority? Goofy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum threshold of support and the desired size of the committee are really two sides of the same coin; there was simply no way to fill 18 seats (as stipulated by the 2009 RFC) with a higher minimum requirement. Perhaps the threshold could be increased now that we've gone back to having 15 arbitrators; but, given the results of recent elections, I'm not sure how much; last year, for example, we would have barely filled all the seats at a 60% threshold, and would have only elected two new arbitrators at a 75% threshold.

Having said that, I think reducing the size of the committee even further is certainly an option to be explored in the future; we're a little short on actual work at the moment, particularly as far as full-blown cases are concerned. It's actually rather depressing to see that the only open proceeding on any the arbitration pages involves a motion to sanction a sitting arbitrator; one is reminded of the old cartoon of Robespierre executing the executioner. Kirill ^[talk] 02:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about disclosures

I have 2 questions that I haven't seen asked yet, plus a couple of comments. Question #1 Was the disclosed material Arbcom business? Or was it misplaced non-arbcom business put into a venue where someone would need to suffer in silence on a non-arbcom matter? I can see the need where it is immensely important to keep certain information highly confidential, but I don't consider it sacred to categorically consider all of those communications confidential. For example, for bodies with governmental power in the USA, with certain narrow specific exceptions, it's common for it to actually be the opposite...actually illegal to have a confidential venue / confidential discussions for the entire group. Second, did Ellen disclose it in a a manner that would try hard to limit to just the disclosed person? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm particularly interested in question #1. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would add third question and fourth questions to this list: 3) Did Elen disclose in a manner that she could reasonably have expected to fix the issue of mailing list misuse or otherwise have it dealt with by those able to do so, or did she disclose in a manner that could not have fixed the issue anyway? 4) Did Elen disclose and follow up in a manner that indicated that she believed her release of the email was appropriate/allowed under Arbcom policy, or did she behave in a manner that indicated that she knew her behavior needed to be covered up? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait

In the recent request for clarification on civility enforcement you waited and listened to community input before acting; and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same here. You've had a couple of weeks to think about this, we haven't. You may benefit from hearing the perspectives of others outside the committee. There is no need to rush. It is absurd to conclude from EotR confiding in one trusted person (information that is not personal and about to be made public anyway) that she can't be trusted with oversight or checkuser. Please pay the community enough respect to at least listen to our thoughts, and consider them, before acting. You seem to be being played by whoever sent the anonymous Gmails. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Yes, that is indeed absurd. If I had a penny for every time an arb ever shared something they weren't supposed to with me in private chat, I'd be financially independent by now. Well spoken, Anthony. Bishonen | talk 14:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I also agree with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a penny for every time an arb ever shared something they weren't supposed to with me in private chat, I'd be financially independent by now. If this is the case, then certainly Elen shouldn't be punished for behaviors that are a regular practice. Is this common for Arbs to share "something they weren't supposed to" with privileged members of the community? The general community needs to know before the election. Perhaps Elen's lying is being accepted by some Arbcom and community members because disclosing confidential info to non Arbs is a common practice, the only difference being that this particular incident, including Elen's untruthful responses, was disclosed publicly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that that claim is the most troubling thing on this page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "privileged" about me. I've been here a long time, that's all; that's why the sum of arb confidences over the years would make me so rich. People who know me well enough are sometimes prepared to trust my discretion, and I try to give them good reason to; I never pass anything on to anybody except Giano (jk). And I didn't mean I've ever been privy to anything truly confidential, like personal info about users, or anything to do with a case I was myself involved in. Of course not. The arbs I've been on chatty terms with over the years have been appropriately discreet. But then as far as I can gather (from onwiki information only; I have no other), so has Elen; her chat with a confidante didn't involve anything truly confidential, either. Man is a chatty animal, and I don't like to see the "holier than thou" attitude that comes out on this page and in other places where Elen's so-called leak is discussed. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

A very apt comment, which I agree with. Much of the response I see appears to me to be a drastic over-reaction to the actualities of the situation, including this motion, which seems to me to be punitive and not really a legitimate attempt to plug a leak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an attempt to plug a leak - it's the turkeys voting against Christmas. It's absurd that we allow this group to be the judges and jury on their own petty political squabbles. Lord of the Flies, anyone? Begoon ^talk 01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [+ oopsy - to the user above who already pointed us to Lord of the Flies, my apologies - I only just noticed that comment... I guess it IS pretty obvious...][reply]

• To be 100% honest, I have so little confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator that I'm actually inclined to exonerate Elen for her lack of discretion in this case. His recent actions are absolutely abhorrent, and I am embarassed that we have someone of his mindset on the committee. Kurtis (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There's no one to stop you from doing this, arbs, unless the stewards refuse to comply without an expulsion majority. But if you pass this motion, and then the community re-elects Elen, I think the community will have judged you, too, and a string of resignations should follow. Your continued presence, then, would inhibit the work of the committee with the community having weighed in on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair and needed

I had intentionally avoided these discussions thus far partially because my own opinions about Arbcom are pretty well known and because there seemed more than enough comments already. I do want to say though that I think this decision to at least temporarily revoke some privileges is both fair and needed as an example. Many of us have been scolded or worse for infractions lessor to or equal than the breech that occurred here recently. If Arbcom would have done nothing it would have proved that they do not hold themselves accountable to the rules they are mandated to enforce. So from someone who has been an ardent critic of Arbcom for some time, well done (and I do not mean that sarcastically). Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What an overaction to what is quite normal and frequent occurance

Firstly, I have had few dealings with Ellen; I am neither her friend, confidante or enemy. In short, I don’t know her. However, what I do know is that yet again we are seeing this hysterical overreaction from the Arbcom and certain sections of the Wikipedia community. In their usual and quite revolting lust for blood and ritual humiliation, it is overlooked that if the Arbcom behaved in a transparent and honest fashion these ‘leaks’ would not be possible, necessary and sensational. That an Arb sometimes informs others of the feelings and ridiculous, puerile and sometimes downright vicious utterances of fellow Arbs is understandable, unsurprising and frankly no big deal. I also know that there are other Arbs quietly squirming and hoping some of their own similar actions don’t come to light – they are of course, the minority - those with a sense of shame. Ellen is not a Roman Catholic priest and the Arbcom is not her confessing flock; neither, thank God, has she ever claimed to be a saint. – this is an overreaction. All her rights and privileges should be restored at once and the community permitted to speak for itself in the election. Giano (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]