Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Motions

Shortcut


With respect to User:Law and User:The undertow

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[1] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee ban block.

General motion

(For the purpose of this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so the majority is 6)

The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow (talk · contribs). He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.[2]

Support
  1. Risker (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the caveat that this is not a complete response to the situation. Vassyana (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support  Roger Davies talk 05:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Coren (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cool Hand Luke 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wizardman 04:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Abstain


Recuse
on account of friendship with editor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Arbitration Committee members
Clerk notes
Recuse due to my involvement in the investigation that led to this. Daniel (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from others

Further motions

The undertow banned 6 months

1 The undertow (talk · contribs) (AKA Law) is banned from wikipedia for six months.

Support
  1. This is the amount of time remaining on his block when the Law (talk · contribs) account was created. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A block evasion and a block reset. The_undertow was blocked for 9 months and socked after 3 months. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Fayssal. If we are to have any hope of discouraging people from socking, then when discovered, the bans and blocks need to be reset. The other aspect of this is that the_undertow started using the Law account at least two weeks before he appealed the block to ArbCom (according to the records we have). However, if this motion passes, and the_undertow appeals his ban to the ban appeals subcommittee, and points to the good work done with the Law account, both as editor and admin, then I am sure an appeal (with conditions) would be looked upon favourably. The point here is that the_undertow needs to do what several other blocked and banned editors have been doing this year - appealing in the proper fashion and having their blocks or bans lifted. See also the comments by Jack Merridew at the request. This may seem harsh, but in the long run getting unblocked the right way will pay dividends later. There should also be a point in the appeal process for the community to comment on whether the_undertow should be unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth's rationale is persuasive. Vassyana (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I was planning to oppose, but Carcharoth makes a persuasive argument. The undertow should have appealed instead of evaded his block. — Coren (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 17:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Per my support of 3 months. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
# This block seems to be punitive. His original block was preventative. It doesn't make sense to have him finish a term that was somewhat arbitrary to begin with. Also note that his ban appeal was dropped by ArbCom after October 4, 2008. Yes, this was after he began socking, but it's quite possible that more expeditious handling by us would have prevented this affair. Cool Hand Luke 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Blocks and bans are suppose to prevent harm to articles or the editing Community. This one does not. Since he was already in communication with us about the situation, I see absolutely no need to do a procedural block and then refer him back to us for an appeal. (Cas's on site apology distracted us from completing our discussion with the undertow which in my opinion was heading toward something much less drastic than this measure.) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight. I don't put a lot of weight on the "failed to complete the correct forms, must start over" position. I do, however, note that there were significant irregularities in the process by which both The_undertow went about creating the new account, and the manner in which the unblock requests were handled by the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Unsure at this time. Cool Hand Luke 12:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Recuse on all undertow. Cool Hand Luke 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The undertow banned 3 months

1.1 The undertow (talk · contribs) (AKA Law) is banned from wikipedia for three months.

Support
  1. As an alternative. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A block evasion and a block reset. The_undertow was blocked for 9 months and socked after 6 months. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. Same comments as for proposal 1 apply. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Vassyana (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Switching to abstain. This is moot now the other option is passing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The undertow restricted

2 The undertow (talk · contribs) (AKA Law) is indefinitely restricted from applying for or gaining additional user rights without the permission of the Arbitration Committee. He may apply for such permission or appeal of this restriction at any time.

Support
  1. That seems well tailored. — Coren (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gaining the tools deceptively cements this for me. With all due respect to those insisting that he passed RfA on good contributions, I instead see him passing RfA with a paint-by-numbers approach to building an account for an easy RfA pass. Those characteristics were pointed out by some editors during the RfA and it's something we've known for some time that people do to collect the flags and/or push sock accounts through. Our safeguards are atrocious, simultaneously making it the process more difficult for many editors while leaving huge openings for gaming the system. Vassyana (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The_undertow is free to apply for adminship after his block reset. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. We shouldn't be deciding this here. This is the sort of thing that the ban appeals subcommittee can deliberate on and decide if the_undertow submits an appeal. Alternatively, if the_undertow wants to return without restrictions, then he can wait out the ban. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 03:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is no reason to stop the undertow from seeking admin through the usual method, RFA. This type of restriction is primarily needed when we need to discuss the situation with the person prior to them going for a RFA. I don't think that is needed or helpful in this situation. The back channel discussions with the undertow have caused misunderstandings between him and the Committee, and likely will in the future, too. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This should be left to the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Rlevse. Risker (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The undertow

Save for the fact that any editor besides me got hurt, I am completely unapologetic and unrepentant for taking on a second account when the ArbCom allowed no less than 5 libelous slurs, 3 at my original Rfar, to go unadmonished. Is it a wonder I would want to disassociate from my original account? In addition, you allowed Raul, who brought me to Rfar, to play judge, jury, and executioner, as he was the one who blocked me for the nine month rip. You think six months is time for me to reflect and do things correctly? Not if it was done incorrectly in the first place. This current AC is really no different from the rest. Too busy to fulfill a request, but quick to make deals that would not be upheld.

The motion drafted by Risker was my idea - thought that's never been mentioned. You act as if it was your idea to restrict me to my original account. I asked to go back. You had no checkuser run on either account, had nothing but an IRC log, and I was told that if I admitted that I was indeed the_undertow, no other editors would be sanctioned, and I could continue editing. Obviously I was mistaken in going 'quietly.' I suppose that I was inspired by that one guy, Sam something? I think he used to be an Arb. I think he did much worse than I did. I think he was never blocked. In fact, I think he wasn't even asked to resign his tools.

I don't want to hear empathetic tales of Merridew and Rootology and how they reformed. I didn't need to reform. I just needed to chill out. I don't have a history of socking, vandalism, nor keeping a website with personal information about Wikipedia administrators. I didn't votestack, nor created accounts to further a political agenda. No offense to these other editors, but my actions and edits as Law resulted in a single controversial unblock. One I don't regret.

The idea of a three month or six month ban is ridiculous. The three months term is arbitrary. I know that my Master's in Taxation may give me an upper hand on the mathematical skills, but I don't think it was really required to figure out that if I was banned for six months, that has a high percentage that the six months includes three months. In fact, it's twice that. No wonder the Arbitrary Committee is labeled as such. Just give me the six months, not the arbitrary idea of three, and call it a great accomplishment. Obviously if I was letting people know left and right, putting my name on my userpage, along with a picture of myself, I'm not exactly regretting that I was caught. I regret the fallout. I regret that my outing was a result of an editor who didn't get his 'page move' from me, and went straight to AC with my identity. But I don't regret being Law, creating the account, or becoming an admin. I regret making a deal with this committee and ever thinking that anything would change around here. I regret the time spent on Wikipedia - time I can never get back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The undertow (talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the whole focus needs to actually be on me. Risker promised me that the ArbCom was not looking to punish anyone but me. I fucked up, but only by putting others in an impossible, and unethical position. So let's bring the focus back to me. I evaded my block. I alone created The Law. This has spiraled into uncharted territory. You are legislating from the bench. The AC has the duty to enforce existing rules. If you don't like the rules, you need to get them via communal consensus. There is no rule about omission. There is no rule about disclosing accounts. None of these admins abused their tools to get me to admin. There are no teeth to sink in when it comes to uncharted waters. Your job is to enforce. Your job is not to make policy - that is something the community holds sacred. While there are ethical concerns, there are no rules broken by Jay or Lara or Glass that are on the books. Please leave them be. Make your motion for new legislature, but don't legislate from the bench. While tensions run high, look at it from the letter of the law - there is nothing here that dictates you should or may strip any admin of tools. If you want to use this foray to set precedent, please reconsider. You enforce - not legislate. I am the focus, the Signpost subject, the scapegoat, but until rules are clear about behavior, there should be no right for you to strip others of their tools based on admitted behavior, nor sentiment, nor inference, that should allow you to act as if those rules exist. Life-ban me. That's a precedent. Or leave me alone (Sam Blacketer), as that is precedent as well. But not them. Me. You keep re-routing this to others when you forget that I alone created this mess and there is no formal rule in place that allows you to fulfill these arbitrary motions. There are no friendship first rules, no sanctions that can be carried about that have to do with opinions of involved parties. Everyone knew. I made sure of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The undertow (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arbitration Committee members

I will respond to The_undertow's statement with a comment at the end of the entire package of motions relating to this matter. Risker (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Implementation notes

Status - These results are final.

Passed
  • General motion
  • 1 The undertow banned 6 months
Not passed
  • 1.1 The undertow banned 3 months (as consequence of 1 passing)
  • 2 The undertow restricted (not enough support)


Last updated by: Manning (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of known alternate accounts

For there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4
List of active/inactive/recused Arbitrators
Active arbitrators
  1. Carcharoth (talk · contribs · email)
  2. Coren (talk · contribs · email)
  3. FayssalF (talk · contribs · email)
  4. FloNight (talk · contribs · email)
  5. Risker (talk · contribs · email)
  6. Rlevse (talk · contribs · email)
  7. Roger Davies (talk · contribs · email)
  8. Stephen Bain (talk · contribs · email)
  9. Vassyana (talk · contribs · email)
  10. Wizardman (talk · contribs · email)
Inactive arbitrators

None

Recused arbitrators
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · email)
  2. John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · email)
  3. Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · email)

GlassCobra

1. GlassCobra (talk · contribs) nominated Law (talk · contribs) for adminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously 9-month blocked and desysopped editor The undertow (talk · contribs), and GlassCobra made his nomination while aware of that fact and without disclosing it. GlassCobra has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position of an ArbCom clerk and has resigned from that post at the Committee's request. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged not to repeat such an error, and is willing to accept a sanction.

Support
  1. Noting for the record. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support with addition. Vassyana (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changed "banned" to "9-month blocked", as statements made at the time about this said this was a block, not a ban. Also noting that at least one other editor had also asked GlassCobra to resign as a Arbitration Committee clerk, and this was before any arbitrator officially contacted GlassCobra, so the resignation may have been in response to both. Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Risker (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Incomplete without mention of GlassCobra's apology and pledge to not repeat such an error, which preceded his resignation as a clerk. Also, GC further emphasized his apology when resigning by stating that he was open to and would accept a sanction for his part in this. Vassyana (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this. If any sitting arb objects, revert. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra admonished

2. GlassCobra (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

Support
  1. First choice. In my opinion, this was very poor judgment that skirts — but not quite crosses — the fuzzy gray line between a stern "don't do that ever again" and a desysop. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference to desysop. Lack of good judgment by concealing the information from the Community. But since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support both options equally. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Share Vassyana's concerns about the wording, but I am supporting both the admonishment and desysopping. Will explain further in my support in the desysopping proposal. Providing an admonishment accompanies the desysopping proposal, this option (admonishment only) is my second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Indenting this vote per my comment here. Am not entering a formal oppose, but cannot support this lesser sanction while supporting the stronger one. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  4. This is about right.  Roger Davies talk 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong admonishment. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Striking this to hopefully make the result clearer. --bainer (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wizardman 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the closing phrasing choice. I am concerned it may be used to foster a culture of forced disclosure or at the least may be misinterpreted as ArbCom encouraging such. The problem is the active deception, not a passive failure to disclose. Abstaining because this is a matter of wording, rather than substance. Vassyana (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well really, this was an active failure to disclose. The deception was achieved by making the nomination but selectively not disclosing the material information. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree that what GlassCobra did in this case was inappropriate, because I believe he was aware that the User:Law account was created in breach of an Arbitration Committee block/ban. It is clear, however, from discussions at various times on Talk:Requests for adminship that there does not seem to be a community consensus that all apparently undisclosed accounts must be disclosed at RFA. I believe that admonishment is appropriate for the nature of the failure to disclose. Risker (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the general case of undisclosed accounts. This is a specific case of an account that has been sanctioned by ArbCom. Are you really saying that discussions at Talk:Requests for adminship have said that previous ArbCom sanctions on undisclosed alternate accounts are not relevant when people assess a candidate at requests for adminship? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying that the motion itself does not differentiate between an alternate account used to evade a specific sanction and an alternate account used in a legitimate way, and thus must be read as applying to any form of alternate account. I do not believe that what GlassCobra did is acceptable, and am not standing in the way of this motion passing. I do not believe, however, that this motion should be interpreted as applying to all situations where an editor being nominated for adminship has an alternate account or had previously edited under another account, disclosed or not. Risker (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra desysopped

2.1 GlassCobra (talk · contribs) is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Support
  1. Second choice, per above.This is just too severe in my opinion, but acceptable if regrettable. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference to admonishment. Since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. But I do understand that this misrepresentation of facts has called their judgment into question, so a desysop until a RFA happens to reconfirm their trust is not unreasonable. I'm not going to stand in the way if other arbs feel that it is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. This is a clear breach of the judgment expected of administrators. Nominating someone for adminship when you know this history exists, is not acceptable. GlassCobra's apology and willingness to accept sanctions is commendable, but does not yet go far enough. I would support alternatives of GlassCobra starting a recall/reconfirmation process (and would urge GlassCobra to do this even if this part of the motion fails), as well as the option of GlassCobra standing for adminship if he is desysopped and wants to gauge community opinion on the matter. I would also support the option of an admin/conduct RfC. I may propose these alternatives if the desysop motion looks like it is not passing. In GlassCobra's case, an admonishment alone is not enough. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Initial choice (if this fails, then I support an admonishment, but I think this should be voted on first, as a simple majority decision, not as an alternative). Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  4. First choice. An administrator who prefers their own judgment over that of the community cannot be trusted by the community to implement its policies. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. You can't breach the trust of the community like that, plain and simple. Wizardman 17:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Bainer and Wizardman, also noting that at Law's RFA GC states in the nomination statement that Law had only joined in Sep and "This is a highly trustworthy user", when he full well knew otherwise. Furthermore, Law stated in his RFA statement: "I also want to make it completely transparent that I took over this username. I was XF Law before I was just Law."--completely omitting any mention of The undertow account and creating a block-evading sock before the appeal was filed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
This needs to be split. There are differing levels of involvement and different responses to the community and ArbCom regarding the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged to avoid such conduct in the future, resigned as a clerk, and indicated an openness to correction and sanctions. If an admin was taken to RfC with that as the result and someone still pushed for arbitration to desysop the admin, such a request would almost certainly be rejected in the face of a successful admin/conduct RfC. Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that you trust the community to start an admin/conduct RfC if ArbCom only issues an admonishment? I would agree with that if that is what you are saying. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The result expected of an RfC has already occured, as I note above. I am saying that if someone asked for a desysop case in the face of those actions, we would almost assuredly decline the request quickly (most likely with voting comments that admonish the filing party to respect the results of successful dispute resolution). An RfC at this point would only serve as the public stocks. Vassyana (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I stated while commenting on the request, I can't sanction for something without a precedent unless it is a serious violation or a blatant trend. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Vassyana, and per my comments above about the lack of community consensus with respect to disclosure of apparently undisclosed alternate accounts. This was, however, extraordinarily poor judgment. Risker (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Vassyana,  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Jayron32 admonished

3. Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

Support
  1. First choice. In my opinion, this was very poor judgment that skirts — but not quite crosses — the fuzzy gray line between a stern "don't do that ever again" and a desysop. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. In my view, Jayron32's culpability here does not rise to that of GlassCobra (the RFA nominator). Jayron32's statement at the request that he knew that Law was the_undertow is commendable and honest, but I have been unable to locate any apology on this matter. Finally, on the tall page of the_undertow, I found this exchange welcoming him back after his 9-month block expired. The Law account had been operating for several months by that point. The wordplay by Jayron32, the_undertow, and GlassCobra around the word "law" is painfully obvious in retrospect. Jayron32 even said "You could reapply for adminship. I'd support ya!". In light of all this, I support a strong admonishment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I opposed the desysop, and that is clearly failing, so per my decision to consider lesser sanctions only if voting on the stronger sanctions has failed, I am confirming my support of an admonishment here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong admonishment. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. bainer (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Penalising one person amongst many who knew this information before or during the RFA, and who was forthright enough to admit it at the request for arbitration, has a chilling effect on honest admissions of poor judgment. Risker (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Giving a honest answer when people are asking tough questions should not cause an user to be admonished unless they have done something that needs to be addressed to prevent it from happening again. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the closing phrasing choice. I am concerned it may be used to foster a culture of forced disclosure or at the least may be misinterpreted as ArbCom encouraging such. The problem is the active deception, not a passive failure to disclose. Abstaining because this is a matter of wording, rather than substance. Vassyana (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 desysopped

3.1 Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Support
Second choice, per above. This is just too severe in my opinion, but acceptable if regrettable. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
This needs to be split. There are differing levels of involvement and different responses to the community and ArbCom regarding the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As explained in my support of the strong admonishment, I don't think Jayron32's culpability rises to the level of that of GlassCobra. Jayron32 did support the RFA of Law, and did suggest to the_undertow that he should reapply for adminship, so there is a level of culpability there over and above that of someone who knew who merely supported, but for now, largely due to the commendable honesty in admitting at the arbitration request that he knew who Law was, I am opposing desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I stated while commenting on the request, I can't sanction for something without a precedent unless it is a serious violation or a blatant trend. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carcharoth. Jayron32 may be distinguished in this way from Glass Cobra and Jennavecia. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Never thought I'd be opposing a desysop, but no tool abuse, and not as severe a breach of trust. Wizardman 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too harsh for the particulars here. Just for the record, I think this is the first time I've opposed a desysop. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This case probably does not warrant a desysop. — Coren (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. The lack of recognition regarding the impropriety of his actions leaves me unable to oppose. Vassyana (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia admonished

4. Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with her support.

Support
  1. First choice. In my opinion, this was very poor judgment that skirts — but not quite crosses — the fuzzy gray line between a stern "don't do that ever again" and a desysop. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference to desysop. Lack of good judgment by concealing the information from the Community. But since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My view here is that Jennavecia's level of culpability, similarly to that of Jayron32, is less than that of GlassCobra. She supported the RFA of Law and commented in it, but did not nominate. Her statement on the public request does not go as far as GlassCobra did in apologising, but it did go further than Jayron32 did. Jennavecia's statement did, however, continue to show that her judgment may not be objective when her friends are involved. I would urge her to take a step back in future when "looking out for her friends". Similar misjudgments would show a pattern that would end in desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Indenting this vote per my comment here. Am not entering a formal oppose, but cannot support this lesser sanction while supporting the stronger one. Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  3. Strong admonishment. While I appreciate Jennavecia's stance toward friendship I cannot accept it as a principle for Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Striking this to hopefully make the result clearer. --bainer (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wizardman 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support both options equally. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the closing phrasing choice. I am concerned it may be used to foster a culture of forced disclosure or at the least may be misinterpreted as ArbCom encouraging such. The problem is the active deception, not a passive failure to disclose. Abstaining because this is a matter of wording, rather than substance. Vassyana (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my abstention in the similar motion regarding GlassCobra. Risker (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia desysopped

4.1 Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with her support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Clerk note - Motion 8 below (currently passing) replaces this motion, regardless of voting tally. Manning (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Equal preference to admonishment. Since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. But I do understand that this misrepresentation of facts has called their judgment into question, so a desysop until a RFA happens to reconfirm their trust is not unreasonable. I'm not going to stand in the way if other arbs feel that it is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moot with resignation of tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First choice. Jennavecia was less involved with the request for adminship than Glass Cobra was, but she has displayed the same problematic attitude in considering her own judgment to be superior to that of the community, and as a result she can no longer be trusted. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Bainer. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do not believe that she fully understands and accepts why this is such a big deal. Knowingly granting rollback to a block-evading sock account, regardless of noble intentions, is a blatant abuse of the admin tools. Her failure to accept that and continued lack of recognition about the fundamental problems with the whole affair unfortunately leads me to support to this measure. Vassyana (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC) The matter is not clear and there have been conflicting statements, thus I am striking the flat assertion. She has provided an explanation for the statement that motivated the comment here. Vassyana (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Was teetering, but Vassyana's note puts me over. Wizardman 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, seeing as how my note above is actually incorrect evidence, I'll rephrase. In short, a very reluctant support per the unwillingness noted by bainer et al. Wizardman 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. After a couple of days observing Jennavecia's actions and thoughts I believe she still couldn't get it. Continuing to believe in something problematic as if it were something for the benefit of the encyclopedia is not a positive trait and that doesn't need a precedent. Per Vassyana. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. On reconsideration, supporting this per bainer. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Initial choice (if this fails, then I support an admonishment, but I think this should be voted on first, as a simple majority decision, not as an alternative). Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  7. Jennavecia's unwillingness to admit the error compounds the original incident. — Coren (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now moot given her resignation and should not be passed but the admonishment could still pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
This needs to be split. There are differing levels of involvement and different responses to the community and ArbCom regarding the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in my comments on the admonishment proposal, I don't think Jennavecia's level of culpability rises to the level of desysopping. As I said, though, any repeat of similar behaviour, and I would likely support desysopping in the future. For now, though, an admonishment is enough, so opposing this desysop proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated while commenting on the request, I can't sanction for something without a precedent unless it is a serious violation or a blatant trend. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be able to rely on the information that admins say to be accurate. Dishonesty could be a reason for separation from a job in every workplace, so I think that there was a reason for a desysop. The admin policy speaks to trust. People refer to special access positions as "positions of trust" But in this particular case, I don't think that more than an admonishment is needed to remedy the situation, so I don't think an desysop is needed. But I would not hesitate to desysop for dishonesty if I felt the situation could repeat itself. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Jennavecia showed very poor judgment in this situation, of that there is no doubt. I don't believe, however, that removal of administrator permissions is required. I also agree with Fayssal that this case is without a precedent; given the mixed messages the community has given with respect to alternate accounts and editors changing to new accounts, there's never been a clearcut line for administrators to toe, more of a series of dropped breadcrumbs. I think we all have a better sense of where that line is now. Risker (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Risker,  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moot with resignation of tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
I'm not really comfortable with the statement she made at RFAR and distinctly uncomfortable with comments made in other places. While I am appreciative of her reasonable comments and explanation, I am left unconvinced that she fully understands and accepts why this is such a big deal to some members of the community. This has left me with some nagging doubts. I may change my vote after further consideration, but I am abstaining for now as I am unable to fully support or opppose a desysop. Vassyana (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory reporting

5. The community is encouraged to develop guidelines on mandatory reporting of users seeking positions of trust when issues affecting that trust are not known to the community at large.

Support
  1. Sitting arbs feel free to tweak wording. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is presuming the occasional exception in the case of something like real-world harassment. This should happen though. Wizardman 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am not feeling at ease with the use of mandatory. I prefer the general 'Friendship and Wikipedia' motion. The rest os covered by motion 6. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Uncomfortable with the implications. Some editors begin under a new account and fail to disclose history for quite legitimate reasons, such as real world harassment. I would be very unhappy to see this affect such an editor. Vassyana (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mandatory reporting is not the right approach to this; there should always be the option of not getting involved when one cannot be impartial. — Coren (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Carcharoth. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Coren. Risker (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Coren,  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. The community are capable of doing this without encouragement from us. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can see some benefit to spelling out expectations about revealing some types of information about some people that are being given special access permissions. Cas felt the need to apologize for not informing the Community and many users were disappointed that he did not act on the information sooner. So this shows that there is some expectation that people in some positions will disclose what they know. The process of vetting is meaningless, if people don't come forward and honestly discuss what they know. But on the other hand, we need to be a forgiving Community and respond to the information in a thoughtful and appropriate way so that people don't feel that being honest will cause too harsh penalties and not report what they know. I'm very concerned that some people felt that Law's desysop was a win. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators reminded and encouraged (1)

6. Administrators are reminded that while they have no obligation to enforce any particular rule, they do have an obligation to refrain from violating or assisting in the violation of community or ArbCom imposed sanctions, as with any other editor. Administrators are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it. It is in the best interests of the project and the user(s) involved to address these situations early.

Support
FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC) supporting 6.1[reply]
Reminding of administrators is something that is within our remit, especially as relates to enforcement of sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose and support 6.1 instead. Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Vassyana (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Struck vote per valid concerns.[reply]
  1. Definitely. — Coren (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can support this although I don't think the first clause is always accurate without qualification. --bainer (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, not necessary or useful for us to try and lay down a rigid rule in this context, per Flo. --bainer (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice over the other one. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. "Administrators are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it." ArbCom does not need to know about every ban or block evasion on site. Admins are capable of dealing with these situations alone or with the assistance of Checkusers. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight; on reflection, the majority of cases where editors return while under Arbitration Committee sanction are detected by editors or administrators and either addressed directly or reported to checkusers/SPI to be addressed. The community in general, with the assistance of administrators including checkusers, is perfectly capable of managing this. Risker (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made this change. Does that address your concerns, Risker and FloNight? Can you support this motion now? I also added (in another edit) the words "in general" to address bainer's concern, which I believe concerns certain foundational rules and policies, such as BLP and copyright and so forth. When one becomes aware of those, just ignoring them is not good practice, though passing the notification on for others to deal with is an option. Though to make it more specific, I changed the word "rule" in the first sentence to "sanction". Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been asked to reverse my changes. It would have been better for me to check before making changes on a motion so far advanced in voting, particularly as some arbitrators may have moved on from voting here and be working on other matters. My change is here (diff includes Vassyana's comment as well). I still think those changes would avoid the possible confusion pointed out by Risker and FloNight, and addresses their concerns. If Vassyana, Risker or FloNight would like to reinstate those changes, please feel free to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As others have pointed out this is problematic as worded. Carcharoth's suggested revision would be appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative 6.1 below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 6.1  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Roger. Carcharoth (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. On second thoughts, not necessary or useful for us to try and lay down a rigid rule in this context, per Flo. --bainer (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Administrators reminded and encouraged (2)

6.1 Administrators are reminded that while they have no obligation to enforce any particular rule, they do have an obligation to refrain from violating or assisting in the violation of community or ArbCom imposed sanctions, as with any other editor. Administrators who choose not to address block evasion themselves by blocking the new account, are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom or checkusers of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it. It is in the best interests of the project and the user(s) involved to address these situations early.

Support
  1. Per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Block evasion and Carcharoth's suggestion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wizardman 02:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please indicate if this is an alternative vote? You have another support vote for 6. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Equal preference for either remedy. Wizardman 03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vassyana (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wikipedia is an effort to build an encyclopedia, not Facebook, Myspace, or a MMORPG. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I appreciate the concerns expressed by FloNight and Risker, but I trust admins and editors to have the common sense to handle routine block evasion and sockpuppetry as normal (and to not go overboard on looking for trouble where there is none), and to only come to ArbCom in situations like the one we had here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It's a valid reminder despite, like any guideline, the possibility that it could be interpreted overzealously. — Coren (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I continue to see this as a bad idea that conjures images of vigilantism and quick draws on the block buttons. Errors in judgment are easy to make; at least one very well known case has discouraged such reactions. Risker (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not necessary or useful for us to try and lay down a rigid rule in this context, per Flo. --bainer (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Move to oppose. While it is true that extremely serious policy violations by established users often need to be addressed by ArbCom or other functionaries, and addressing issues early almost always is best, this motion introduces a duty to report that is unworkable in our Community. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Better but still an overkill. I understand what you are getting at with the motion. But the requirement to notify Checkusers or ArbCom is not helpful except in situations where ArbCom or Checkusers need to get involved. We and Checkusers don't need hear about every stale sock account started to edit war on a single article that some one notices days later. Loads of these happen all the time. We only need to get notified when there is something that we need to do to address the the issue because we are in the best position to do it. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Prefer 6. Wizardman 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship and Wikipedia

7 While friendship is a noble trait and attitude engraved into the human nature, it should not be used as a motive behind Wikipedia actions, such as administrative duties or influencing a debate. Due to its subjectivity, personal friendship should not affect Wikipedia rules. The community is encouraged to develop guidelines to avoid any misconception of impartiality.

Support
  1. I believe this addresses the main debated point. It should be taken as a guidance. Please feel free to tweak. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ArbCom offers guidance when it sees risky situations, and this is most certainly one case where the community needs a little shove in the right direction to avoid increasing drama. — Coren (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Reactionary instruction creep. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aside from the instruction creep angle, even if the community came up with such guidelines, they would be unenforceable and easily gamed. At best, it is something that editors and administrators should bear in mind. Risker (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per FloNight and Risker. The community should be able to start this discussion without our prompting. Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per FloNight and Risker.  Roger Davies talk 04:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not necessary. --bainer (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Needs to be discussed and rewritten - or more likely, left to the community. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Copyedit on the closing of the first statement. I feel do not feel strongly for or against this motion. Vassyana (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia's resignation

8 Jennavecia (talk · contribs) resigned her status as an administrator on October 9, 2009, while this matter was pending. Per normal practice regarding resignation under controversial circumstances, she may apply at requests for adminship or to the Arbitration Committee for the restoration of her administrator status at any time.

Support
  1. Standard. Please note that the desysop motion is now moot. Vassyana (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Standard operating procedure. — Coren (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This renders the desyssop motion moot but the admonishment can still pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 06:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Recusals

  1. Recuse based on prior issues and interaction with The_undertow. For the record, I did not know that Law was the same individual until within the past couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Apology from John Vandenberg --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This case involves a Wikipedia Review regular, therefore I recuse, [comments elided — Coren (talk)] Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A more complete statement is: "I have significant involvement with one of the parties, who is a regular on Wikipedia Review, such that my participation could lead to the perception of prejudice." Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Arbitration Committee members

  • Some of my colleagues may want to suggest more than those three motions, but I think that 1 and one of the 2 should allow us to close this matter. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the admonishment and desysops, I prefer something along the lines of "his/her support breached the community's trust by actively sustaining the deception". I believe distinguishing between active and passive conduct is important here. Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was sort of my point, not disclosing while supporting is active conduct. — Coren (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stating here my overall views on this. My voting and comments have been largely based on what I view as the levels of culpability involved here (I've borrowed this approach from Thatcher - [3], [4]). I view the main culpability arising from the_undertow/Law for evading the block in the first place. It appears he was evading the block while appealing the block at the same time (this will explain my forthcoming voting in the motions relating to the_undertow account). As regards the levels of disclosure and failures to disclose, and the active nature of the deception, I see GlassCobra's culpability as highest, hence my vote to desysop him, with Jayron32 and Jennavecia having lesser but similar levels of culpability, hence my support of their admonishments, but not the proposals to desysop them. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: On reconsideration, switched to support for the desysop of Jennavecia, per the concerns raised by bainer. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    • Reviewing the motions here again, I now realise it was a mistake for the motions to be set up with admonishments and desysoppings as alternatives. An admonishment is a different sanction from a desysopping, not an alternative. It should be possible to pass both an admonishment (with strong support) and a desysopping (with weak support). As it is, we have ended up with a situation where two of the three admins have a majority of arbitrators supporting (to a greater or lesser extent) the associated desysop motions. That clearly shows that these two admins no longer have the confidence of the Arbitration Committee. The only solution, in my view, is to desysop those two admins and let the community judge them at a request for adminship if they chose to stand again at some future point. Accordingly, I am recasting my votes to support the strongest sanctions (if that is my first choice), and not entering a vote on the lesser sanctions (unless I opposed the stronger sanction), because I believe that voting on the strongest sanctions should be considered first, and only if those fail, should voting on the lesser sanctions be taken into consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above in the motions relating to Law/The_undertow, and as the arbitrator who communicated with Law prior to and during his resignation from the administrator tools, I believe I should address the issue of the "deal" he refers to. At the time that I connected with Law, I made it clear that the discussion would end with him no longer having administrator permissions. At that point, approximately 18 hours after the Arbitration Committee had been informed of this matter, there was more than sufficient arbitrator support for a Level I desysop, and in fact I had the motion drawn up and sitting on a tab ready to go if needed. The initial plan was to attach the motion to desysop to the "Child of Midnight" request for arbitration contemporaneously on the request page; however, Law pointed out that his socking was a separate matter. Thus, I agreed that a separate motion would be appropriate. I offered him the choice to voluntarily resign the tools, or to have the Arbitration Committee remove them; he chose to voluntarily resign, and I facilitated that with steward Kylu because the Law account was not SUL. I asked which account he wanted to keep, and he chose User:The undertow, and asked me to block the Law account (as opposed to waiting for someone else to do it). I stated that I would not bring any further motions with respect to him or anyone else; however, I stated quite clearly on two occasions that other arbitrators might do so. This was the sum of the "deal". For those who may feel that giving Law any choices in this matter was inappropriate, I will point out that no decisions had been made at that time about restriction of editing privileges, so the only objective of the discussion was to arrange the desysop and restriction to one account; following that, The_undertow was not blocked pending further review. I strive to treat all editors with whom I interact with dignity and respect, regardless of the circumstances; hence, I deferred to his preferences because they did not change the outcome. I had never had any prior contact with either account, to the best of my knowledge.
Much comment has been made suggesting that the project has suffered a terrible blow because of the revelations of the past week. And yet...roughly the same number of articles were created in this past week than two weeks before, and in the same comparison period the same number of edits were committed. The edit filters were tripped the same number of times, and just over 50,000 new accounts were registered in both periods. The one risk to the project, that an improperly sysopped administrator may be disruptive, was addressed within 24 hours of the Arbitration Committee being advised. There was no damage to the encyclopedia. What was affected is the social structure of the small sector of the editing community who pays attention to such things. We are cognizant that the only way for this project to survive is to assume good faith unless there is a solid reason not to, and when our good faith is found to be misplaced, we can reasonably be disappointed and disheartened. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for this reasonable level of distress to quickly become overblown, turning the level of behaviour upside down to assumptions of bad faith, bitterness, personal attacks and finger-pointing, often directed at people who had no part in creating the problem. Policies get rewritten without full thought as to the impacts of the changes being made. Issues of equal or greater import are set aside while efforts are made to contain the localized flare-ups. We need to stop these cycles of self-absorption and dispel the aura of hysteria that surrounds them. It is unhealthy for everyone involved, and causes more harm than the initial problem. One does not remove a foot to deal with a plantar wart, and we have to recognise that these situations are the plantar warts of social engagement.
Personally, I would like everyone to take a week or two off on discussing all of the questions and concerns that have arisen from this case. There are many valid and valuable thoughts amongst our broad editorship about ways to improve RFA, clarify the alternate account policy, and re-examine expectations of the Arbitration Committee. Right now, though, the wounds are still fresh and raw, and many ideas have not been fully considered or well discussed. The community is fragmented in trying to address the same issues in multiple places, and there is no consistent decision-making being made, resulting in contradictions and inconsistencies that may take far longer to resolve than if we do nothing at all. I realise this may be a bit of a pipe dream on my part, but I do believe that these very discussions can lead to some positive outcomes once everyone has regained some perspective and recognises that there is no possibility to prevent every form of bad or poorly considered behaviour, so our focus should be on reinforcing good behaviour and catching people doing something right. I'd like to see everyone who has made it to the end of this long screed take a moment to recognise another editor who's made a difference today, or perhaps made a thought-provoking comment. It doesn't have to be a big difference or a big recognition—"thanks for catching my typo" or "that was an interesting point you brought up" would be enough. We need to restore our faith in each other, and it is up to each of us, as individuals, to take the first step. Risker (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Should the desysop proposal include a comment about when the editors are eligible to submit a new RFA and/or request resysopping from Arbcom? Thatcher 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a desyssop passes and there is nothing in that motion or related motions that affects a new RFA or bit restoral from arbcom, then the user may file a new request at any time after the motions are closed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, the motions have stated this clearly. Taking care of it now may save us some clarification drama later. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes

Arbitrator instructions/comments
Please consider 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1 as complementary and not alternative. I was unclear in my intent when I posted the motions (and my votes), and the only arbs who had indicated preferences have since struck those. — Coren (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lara's resignation renders the desyssop moot so don't pass it, but the admonishment could still pass. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status - These results are not final.

Passing
  • 1, GlassCobra
  • 2, GlassCobra admonished
  • 2.1, GlassCobra desysopped
  • 3, Jayron32 admonished
  • 4, Jennavecia admonished
  • 6.1 Administrators reminded and encouraged (2)
  • 8, Jennavecia's resignation (replaces motion 4.1)
Not passing
  • 3.1, Jayron32 desysopped (insufficient support)
  • 5, Mandatory reporting (insufficient support)
  • 6 Administrators reminded and encouraged (1) (insufficient support)
  • 7 Friendship and Wikipedia (insufficient support)
Replaced
  • 4.1, Jennavecia desysopped (replaced by motion 8 - Jennavecia's resignation)

Last updated by: Manning (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Minor clarification by Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close Law, GlassCobra, Jayron32, Jennavecia and other motions

These motions should be closed, per normal procedure, 24 hours after 4 net votes to support closing.

Support
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vassyana (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We're done. — Coren (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=319227429

Leave a Reply