Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

• I disagree with WMC's desysop based on my own principles on what should lead to a desysop. Sure there was bad judgment outlined and the abd block was a very, very bad move - but I fail to see how a full removal of his adminship is of real benefit to the site. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll save you from reading about 2 MB of mostly content-free text: The case was moving toward a do-nothing result until Abd tested the page ban and WMC blocked him. This pissed off arbcom, so they desysoped WMC. Arbcom planned to essentially ignore Abd's disruption until Risker proposed the three-month ban in the final days. The end. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too late, I read through pretty much all of it over the past month in anticipation of the case's end. Pretty much sums it right up, though. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another seriously flawed decision. Just plain lazy on the part of ArbCom. I've applied page bans before. I've also applied page bans on articles in which WMC was helping me out. He's a well reasoned, and highly dedicated administrator. To revoke his mop is childish. Hey ArbCom; Restore his mop. Now. You do not craft policy by holding people retroactively responsible for violating non-existent policy. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, William violated existing policy. He blocked Abd during the case, when he was clearly too involved to legitimately take action. One could perform a root cause analysis to figure out how things reached that point, much in the same way the NTSB attempts to reconstruct the chain of failures leading to a plane crash, but it would be a depressing and academic exercise. If there is a moral, it's that admins who fail to recognize goading, swallow their pride, and ignore it will not be admins forever. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What MastCell said. There has been several issues of questionable actions with the admin tools in the past, and blocking someone you were in an arbcase with (at the time the ArbCom case is going on) is pretty much not going to fly, ever. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC did violate policy - he responded to the deliberate provocation of an editor even ArbCom agrees is disruptive and tendentious. It would have been wiser for WMC to resist the temptation offered by the bait. More importantly - and much more disappointingly for Wikipedia - it would have been wiser for ArbCom to consider what was in the best interests of developing high-quality encyclopedic content rather to act on the afront it felt about WMC's unwise block. Unfortunately, the messages from this ArbCom case are (i) that ArbCom either cannot or will not control its own case pages; (ii) that the quality of the science content of the encyclopedia is not a priority of the Committee; and consequently, (iii) that the Committee will not offer any encouragement for adminisatrators to work in contentious areas but rather will continue pretending that science-literate uninvolved administrators (a highly endangered or extinct species) are in plentiful supply. The burnout and departure of science-literate editors is also apparently not a reason for concern. The Committee could have acted against WMC with a forced break and acted in a way that loudly reinforced their dedication to the purpose of Wikipedia. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Arbitrators but the decisions their judgements and priorities in this case have been poor. EdChem (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it is very foolish to do such things while ArbCom is actively looking at you. It's not smart to do them in the first place, but during an arbitration is asking for trouble, sadly. Still, the main result was right: since his return from a block in 2008 Abd has been on a path of escalation to burnout. It's remarkable he's lasted as long as he has before being blocked for a long time especially given his tendency to scream "cabal" at every turn. After the last arbitration he seemed to believe that he'd been fully vindicated and carried on precisely as before (if not worse), which is one of the things that sent me on a long wikibreak. Life is too short for your hobbies to be dominated by obsessives with no goal in mind other than to hound you for failing to agree with The Truth™. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the eventual outcome, but I was alarmed at the degree to which attempts to demonize expert editors were successful. Just because somebody has expertise in a subject, does not mean he has a conflict of interest. We've seen on Wikipedia for some time now concerted efforts by the wilfully ignorant to set themselves up as somehow in opposition to expert editors and to attack their excellent work. Instead of dealing with those people for timewasting, there has been a tendency to treat them at their own evaluation--as somehow being engaged alongside those who have taken the trouble to study the subject in an endeavor to improve Wikipedia. That isn't the arbitration committee's job. It must recognise that some of these "disputes" are in fact political attacks, often openly orchestrated off-site, and intended to distort the facts and weaken the integrity of Wikipedia. --TS 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be taken into account by the Committee when considering their practice of allowing people to keep evidence in userspace and link to it from the Evidence case page is that there are hundreds of thousands of bytes of smears and innuendos, insinuations and unfounded accusations about other editors in Abd's user space that were entered as part of Abd's "evidence" in this case. When I complained about the extent to which my positions, intentions, actions and motivations were misrepresented throughout the case, an arbitrator said, as a way of consoling me, that since I wasn't mentioned in the final decision, I could assume that none of that was taken seriously by the Committee, but that if I felt strongly enough about it, I could ask to have the material blanked. Well, I guess I'm not very consoled, since I value my reputation for integrity and am sincerely offended at being so throughly defamed without any discernible purpose, and I'm not sure how blanking the inaccurate and misleading accusations could be accomplished, when the misrepresentations of fact were strewn liberally throughout the case, and much of the offending material is in Abd's user page.

The "cabal" userpage has been nominated for MfD, but a common argument against deleting it is that it is part of evidence in an ArbCom case so can't be deleted. There is an entire page-long section about me on that page, and the "evidence" is just an attempt using synthesis and OR, using a couple of quotes from user talk pages totally out of context to try to make a case that I had an "axe to grind", simply because I said that in my opinion there were sockpuppets involved in the delegable proxy mess, because I felt that Kirk Shanahan's preferred version of the cold fusion page was more neutral than Abd's preferred version, because I had once supported Science Apologist, and because I had said that I didn't find discussion with Abd to be a particularly productive way to spend my time. These are honest opinions, I hold them still, but for them to be entered as evidence of my "involvement" with a "cabal" is simply beyond incredible. There is no credible evidence for any "involvement" with the other editors listed in the cabal, even if collusion isn't part of the definition. I believe this entire page should be blanked; I request formally that at least my section of it should be blanked. It seems to me it's the least the Committee could do, to remedy a little bit of the harm that's been created by this case. Thank you. Woonpton (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to AGF; after all, I was specifically encouraged by an arbitrator to make this request, so I'm making it. But it's really a bigger issue that I'm raising here: encouraging editors to exceed the evidence limit by linking to unlimited text in userspace can have at least two unintended consequences: (1) it can lead to a proliferation of mudslinging and unsubstantiated accusations cloaked as evidence, as in this case, since it effectively voids the requirement to keep evidence concise and supported with specific diffs, and (2) it creates the problem of evidence in the case not being kept on the case pages and archived with the case. It's just out there in userspace; users could alter it, delete it, add to it, do anything they want with it, rather than it being protected with the case for historical reference. I just think the Committee should think about the consequences when allowing this practice in future. Woonpton (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the problem you describe may be pretty unique to the editor. As for reference, just link to old revisions or copy/pasta into your userspace. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton, thank you for reminding me about this. I will go and carry out the courtesy blankings now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, when you've finished holding your breath, do you think you could give arbitrators a chance to respond before you insert a cynical soundbite like that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley

We closed it because nothing productive was going to come of it. Doing so doesn't necessarily require your assent, though that is preferable. Please stop pursuing this. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. What Skomorokh said. You want WMC to have the mop back, then write an RfA and get him to accept it. That or his appeal to the Committee are the only ways he'll get it back, and this is a waste of time and a drama-magnet. → ROUX ₪ 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC) This is neither the time or the place. WMC can seek community support for adminiship through RfA if he so chooses.  Skomorokh  07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Instead of trying to influence the discussion with "archive," collapse box, strikeout, or similar censorship technologies, let's apply the principle of good faith and move this to RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley: Support Hiberniantears (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I will not be referring to myself as a "Wikipedian" until this travesty is reversed. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Roux and Sko... Come on! Look at the thread below and tell me I'm wrong. Pastor Theo was a banned user. OMG, WTF, WMC??? Why do I need to have this discussion at RfA? You're asking the community to undo an asanine decision in a forum that is historically vindictive towards former admins. Way to put process before the encyclopedia. Maybe one of you two could tell me what you think this project is, exactly? I was under the impression we were a free Internet encyclopedia. If this is actually a place for fan boys to smack people around to compensate for their real world existence... Maybe I should just sign onto some kind of comic con thing. This thread ain't closed... Your's truly, Hiberniantears (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is closed. And you should be conducting yourself in a more appropriate manner. WMC is welcome to go to RFA is he wishes to have his admin tools back. You should talk to him about that, not rant here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) A. I started this thread. B. You guys closed it without consulting me. C. I am free to question the decisions of ArbCom. D. Fine, I brought it to RfA. E. Why did you spell he as "he"? Did I miss some gender bending element? I haven't bothered to read through the case owing to the aimless, sophist structure of your process. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Opposing the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley WMC seems to show persistently poor judgement. In addition to blocking Abd during an Arbcom case involving Abd, WMC reverted the article at issue to 50 edits back, with edit summary "Lets wind everyone up". On 25 June 2009 he indef blocked ChildofMidnight. When questioned about this, WMC responded "I should slow down, and possibly only edit when sober" - either that's a particularly tasteless joke or WMC is totally irresponsible. Either way WMC is unfit to use the powers of admins. --Philcha (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) No way in hell. This case was just the thin end of the wedge of WMC's failings as an admin. MickMacNee (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My thanks to the open minds willing to discuss the transparency of the committee's decision. Oh wait, you arrogantly closed this thread. I guess absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. Once again, any editor is free to disagree with your decisions. Any editor is free to voice this disagreement. Likewise, any editor is free to have these disagreements heard openly. Lastly, any editor is free to wield a minority opinion, and have it not be silenced. I urge you guys to remeber this. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy Discussion

In regard to item 5 of the Arbcom decision:

5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

I have created a relevant discussion page at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Arbcom_directed_discussion_-_Policy_on_non-consensual_topic_or_page_bans. Manning (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. When I have a few moments, I will try to post some background that will be relevant to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged, probably the better place. Based on an initial thought expressed there, I have drafted a proposal at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions that would generalize the "discretionary" sanctions approach used by the ArbCom in various cases.  Sandstein  17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I really don't like the way that arbcom has encouraged what amount to straight votes. The subtext in "should come to a consensus in one month"... The only way that could be guaranteed is by doing a straight vote of some sort, like what happened with Ireland, which has turned into some wet dream for people interested in voting systems. Did everyone forget why we don't usually vote? Gigs (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No voting implied or needed. Discuss things, and if there is no consensus for any change, then nothing changes. i.e. if there is consensus, then make changes, but if not, then don't. What is paramount, though, is to publicise the discussion widely. Get lots of views, of both admins and non-admins. Don't just get the views of those following arbitration cases. Have a look at Wikipedia:Publicising discussions and see if the advice there has been followed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of case pages

Following on from Woonpton's request above, I have courtesy blanked the following pages of this case: the proposed decision talk page, the evidence page, the evidence talk page, the workshop page, and the workshop talk page. I also intend to blank the user subpages that were used to present evidence in this case (or move them to subpages of the evidence page and blank them, but need to leave a note at an ongoing MfD first). I think Abd and Enric Naval used subpages in this case - will need to check that. Starting this section to enable discussion of these actions because WMC left me a note saying he objects to the case pages being blanked. I don't object to my actions being changed or reversed (e.g. by adding a link to the pre-blanked version in the page history), but if some discussion and input from others (including other arbitrators) could take place first, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision and wish it to be reversed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As a thoroughly naive onlooker, I am perplexed at this flurry of "courtesy blanking"? What exactly is the difference here between "courtesy blanking" and "attempt at suppression"? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! Me! I know this one! Courtesy blanking avoids gratuitous hurt while leaving the entire history for anyone who wants to look, whereas suppression is a term almost exclusively used by people who mistake Wikipedia for an experiment in free speech (which it explicitly is not). Guy (Help!) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I too don't get the "Courtesy" bit. Presumably the main effect of blanking is to exclude the content from searches? If so it is a tricky call. It is in all our interests to rebuild Arbcom's credibility and brush some of all this under the carpet. No admin will put the project first if Arbcom cannot be relied upon to be careful and fair. At the same time there is an issue of fairness to WMC and negatives of drawing a veil over the repute of some other individuals concerned which will be unhelpful to the project (e.g. in that it will adversely affect quality of decision making in the next Arbcom elections, it will make identifying other trolls a tedious job from contribution history rather than an easy one etc). On balance WP favours openness so I think the pages should not be blanked. A gui, de to their content might help--BozMo talk 08:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the case it is not easy for an uninvolved editor to get a handle on things in the first place. The de-sysopping of a longtime administrator performing substantively correct administrative actions in protecting the encyclopedia against disruption, over what look to be procedural violations, seems extraordinary. Perhaps I just don't get it. I am certainly going to get it a lot less if Arbcom blanks pages of evidence and deliberations. Arbcom cases are supposed to be handled in a transparent way, aren't they? If you blank the record, I would hope you would vacate any findings and sanctions to which that part of the record applies. Otherwise it becomes a secret tribunal, something that should be reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances. There are other ways to avoid ongoing damage from unwise things some may have said. Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is usually asked for if someone has been needlessly harangued or the parties require some privacy due to real-life concerns. The article history still has the entirety of the information on it, so the information is not being deleted, merely hidden from casual view. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And if some other involved party, such as WMC above, feels that "courtesy blanking" compromises the history of what had happened to them, where does that leave things? --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the page history, two clicks away. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it doesn't help in deciding what to do in the present case, it is worth noting that a major cause of the problem that now exists is the breakdown in control of the case pages. There certainly needs to be a discussion of the lessons that this case has for case management, and I'd like to know whether ArbCom and the Clerks are planning to have any such discussion, and if so, whether it will be on wiki. EdChem (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, even though WMC behaves sometimes like a complete idiot, warranting a thorough rap-over the knuckles, he is still, all in all, one of the more useful administrators Wikipedia has been privileged to have, and something has gone significantly wrong here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC),

There is a confluence of interests here. Woonpton is (rightfully) bothered at Abd's unfounded smears. Arbcom completely failed to maintain control over this sprawling case, so it is in their interest to keep it out of casual view. Thus when Woonpton asked for blanking, Arbcom was all too happy to oblige. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris, there is no way you can stop Abd from engaging in these problem behaviours short of bannination, and that's not consistent with allowing him his day in court. You'd have to have clerks following him round the entire project, or temporarily restrict him to case pages only (I'd have asked for that temporary injunction but that's because I have previously experienced Abd's obsessive behaviour). Guy (Help!) 10:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It rather looks as though C has misinterpreted W's request; see [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Who was it supposed to be a courtesy to? Stifle (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Woonpton; see top of this thread William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is just that, a courtesy, born out of common decency for others who feel that their lives will be adversely effected by the page being open to casual view. If anyone is so curious as to see the Scandal! that they believe was there, they merely have to exert more effort. Now, we can spin our wheels in glorious cynicism about who is gaining what advantage over the political machinery of a website, but I'm entirely more concerned about maintaining the above common decency on the off chance that someone's real life is adversely effected because of something stupid that happened in the backstage of Wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vair nice, but as it is now clear that W doesn't want the pages blanked, and I don't want the pages blanked, and no-one else has asked for them to be blanked, please explain (since arbcomm, as usual when things get sticky, has suddenly gone silent) for whose benefit the blanking has been done? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal. There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case—at least Abd's evidence. Hell, there was an aborted blanking campaign right in the middle of the case[2][3][4] Several users supported blanking the evidence pages in Abd's space, including some of the people commenting here. I found this to be a reasonable request, so the pages are now blanked as a courtesy. If in fact no one wants them blanked, I'm confident we will undo it.

Perhaps this was a mistaken reading of the participant's sentiments, but selectively blanking the pages is not an option we've ever entertained. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a mistaken reading -- indeed, Woonpton said "it blows my mind"[5] that Carcharoth (and now you) could interpret her request in this way. But stuff like that doesn't surprise me anymore. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. My apologies (I think me and Carcharoth were on a similar wavelength here).

Now that it's understood that blanking is an all-or-nothing proposition, does anyone want the evidence pages blanked? Cool Hand Luke 18:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear whether you're speaking for yourself or arbcomm at this point; if the latter, how and where this decision has been made. I would assert a distinction between pages in user space and those in arbcomm space. I maintain my desire to see the pages in arbcomm space unblanked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone wants them blanked, but I say, leave them as is. It is the Arbitration Committee who let things run completely out of hand, and now the involved users feel negatively affected. I don't think that blanking is the solution to that. I don't like rugs, but for those who do, this does not belong under it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that "it is now clear" that I don't want the pages blanked; the statement on my talk page simply clarifies that my specific request was about a particular section on Abd/Cabal rather than a request to blank the case; it didn't occur to me at that time that anything could be done about the false accusations and extreme distortions of fact that were liberally larded throughout the case, but at least I wanted that one section with my name at the top of it to be blanked. My feelings about the blanking of the case as a whole are mixed, as anyone reading my statement with any feeling for nuance (I'm realizing that this seems to be a scarce commodity in Wikiedia) should be able to see. On one hand, I would prefer that the false accusations, insinuations and accusations about me not remain fossilized here for everyone to see; on the other hand I can see WMC's argument too, that the case should be preserved for the record. But isn't it true that if you go back in history to the version before the blanking, it's all still there? So doesn't the blanking serve both purposes: conceal smears from public view without eliminating the content? Or does it really affect the usability of the information in some way?

It is my personal opinion that this case was a complete disaster from beginning to end, and the damage that the case will have done to the encyclopedia will remain, no matter what happens to the case content. I will assume that if the blanking of the case was indeed done in response to my comment, it was an honest attempt to be responsive to my concern (although strangely late; the problem should have been stopped while the case was ongoing, and I find it curious that arbitrators who had no interest in my complaints and the complaints of others while the case was going on should suddenly become so attentive to our concerns, after the horse is long out of the barn). But I'm not the only one to be considered here, and I wouldn't want my ambivalence about the blanking to be taken as a signal to unblank. There are others who have been equally affected, who should speak for themselves on the issue, although at least one of them is unable to at the moment.

@Tznkai: my concern isn't at present a real life concern; I just don't like being lied about. However, there are others who are affected who may well have real life concerns; I wouldn't want to be seen as speaking for anyone else. Woonpton (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Woonpton, and in general, I think the same principle applies even for mere emotional dislike, though it is obviously less of a big deal than say, impending job loss.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra perhaps I've completely misunderstood you (and if so I apologize), but it seems to me what you're saying is the following: 1. ArbCom has mucked up, failing to address 2. a mess where a bunch of people got unjustly attacked and thus 3. ArbCom should not courtesy blank the same so their mistakes are transparent. That seems to leave keeping the mess that adversely effects innocent parties, because you want to punish/expose ArbCom.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Tznkai: I want Arb.Comm. to come with a real solution? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@W: Apologies for misrepresenting your views. Thanks for stating them clearly here. Would it help at all if a header was put clearly at the top of all these pages, something along the lines of "These are the preserved record of an arbcomm case; the presence of an allegation in these pages carries no implication at all that it is true"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if CHL's ref'ing [6] etc is trolling or just a failure to understand. Assuming the latter: that was a last-gasp attempt to do arbcomms duty for it and try to keep some kind of order on the pages. Alas it failed; arbcomm voted for the current disaster area. Which is indeed part of the point: you've failed to keep any order during the case; it is just too late now to say whoops lets shovel it all under the rug. If this info was so terrible that allowing people to stumble over it is terrible, then how could it be allowed on the case pages for months on end? That position makes no sense. Also where does There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case come from? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not trolling. Other parties do not have the right to control the presentation of another's evidence during a case. Nor should others control how evidence is kept after the case is closed.

To clarify an earlier question: I'm speaking only for myself here, and you should always assume that's true unless I explicitly say otherwise. That said, I don't think many arbitrators would support selectively blanking evidence from one party of the case without a really good reason.

There's no rug-shoving going on here. Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked. You might note that I didn't even participate in the deliberation of the case; the interpretation of a cover up did not occur to me until several users here made the accusation. Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Me and Carcharoth honestly believed that users wanted the evidence blanked - I assume that is true. Indeed, you said: There's been seemingly overwhelming support to blank the evidence of this case. However, I've asked you above why you believe that and you're distinctly reticent on that point. Do you now accept that is an error? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Past tense, per the widespread support of blanking here. I am not now sure whether there would be support for complete blanking, but I do not believe selective blanking is acceptable. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A point of data: I am generally in favor of blanking procedural pages as a matter of routine (or at least on simple request) at the end of a case. This, obviously, does not include the decision proper; nor does it include deletion. This is a matter of simple courtesy.

Suggestion of selectively blanking parts of pages because one doesn't like them is... ethically unacceptable. I'm surprised anyone would even consider such a thing— obviously that will never be allowable. — Coren ^(talk) 19:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage you from doing so as a matter of routine, and ask you where you think your mandate for doing this comes from. or at least on simple request is regrettably ambiguous - do you mean, one request from any one participant (not even a party) is enough for you to blank, even against the expressed wishes of parties? A simple majority? I don't think you should do anything after a case that hasn't been decided during a case. If you want this as a matter of routine, you should include it as a routine motion in each case. That would give everyone a chance to express an opinion in an (ahem) orderly fashion, instead of this rather all-too-typicaly disorderly process we've ended up in. Anyone seen Carcharoth around recently, BTW? Blank-n-run seems rather poor form William M. Connolley (talk)

You're making, I think, the unwarranted presumption that there is value to keeping the case pages around after a case has closed. Certainly, the arguments and reasoning have historical value and need to be kept for transparency, but they do not need to be displayed or (worse) mirrored by the myriad leeches out there that are uninterested in keeping that material off search engines.

As far as I and most other arbs are concerned, the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages (and the talk pages) are mere artifacts of the process, and can be blanked without bureaucracy. In fact, many of us have express dismay on how complicated doing seemed to have been in the past. I would have agreed with your concerns if there was discussion of deleting the pages (which is generally not done), or of altering them in a way that can twist their significance; but a simple blanking that leaves the history intact is at worst harmless and at best can help put a matter to rest and keep possibly prejudicial crap off the search engines. — Coren ^(talk) 22:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

67.122.211.205 (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coren, this is helpful. Perhaps I misunderstood the arbitrator who told me on the proposed decision page that if I was unhappy about false accusations and inaccurate statements that had been made about me, I should feel free to request that the material be blanked; I understood that to mean that I could request that parts of the case be blanked. (And while no one has answered my question about whether blanking affects the usability of the content, I found that when I went to bring up that diff to link to here, I wasn't able to bring it up. So that's a problem, I agree).

I didn't see any reasonable way to blank comments that were threaded with other comments, so I wasn't requesting that information be selectively blanked out of the case pages, and I wasn't aware that the entire case could be blanked on request. I just made this little request about this one section that had my name at the top of it and was all about me; it was really just a token request, as a protest against the wholesale defamation of editors in this case. I didn't realize that this was not a reasonable request, especially as I thought I'd been encouraged by an arbitrator to request the blanking of defamatory comments. But (to clarify again) I was happy (delighted, in fact) with the decision to blank the entire case and felt that my concerns were finally being heard; my understanding was that the courtesy blanking was "on behalf of multiple users" so I felt this was a response not just to me but to concerns of the community. I thought that was the best solution to the whole mess, so I was surprised (blown away) this morning to see Carcharoth's statement above that it was done solely in response to my request, and I was also surprised to find that there were people who were very unhappy about it. I believe Luke when he says he was genuinely trying to respond to concerns (and he's right that a number of people commenting on the MfD thought the page should be blanked; where are those people now?). I guess I just want to go ahead and leave, and you guys can do whatever the heck you're going to do about this. I thank those who tried to be responsive to my concern, and wish you well. Woonpton (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment to say I'm aware of the responses here, and to reply to WMC's "blank-n-run" comment above. If you look at my contributions log, you will see that I started the courtesy blankings between 00:44 and 01:14 last night (UTC). My computer then crashed (as was noted in my edit summaries later on) and as it was late I decided to finish things off in the morning. I saw WMC's comment on my talk page and between 07:48 and 08:22 I replied, finished off what I'd started the previous night, and started this section as a place for discussion to take place (the latter action was prompted by WMC's objections). I then went to work. As it turned out, I had to work late, and then I had to get a bus home because of flooding on the London Underground (heavy rain here today). This is why I haven't been around to answer questions. (If anything is ever really urgent, I can be contacted by e-mail during the day). I had always intended to return to this section, so a bit of patience would have been appreciated, rather than "blank-n-run" comments and wonderings about where I'd got to. Having said that, I do need to deal with something else urgent now (trying to set priorities here, and making this post here was my first priority, but there are some other things that need attention as well), but I will come back to this later tonight (in a few hours), and respond further to what has been said here. I do in particular want to try and clear up any misunderstandings about the blankings. In particular, please note the last sentence of the post I made to start this section. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  Just a brief update to point to what I said here (replying to WMC on my talk page). It doesn't cover everything that was said, but hopefully it will answer some of the questions. As I said there, I want to say more tomorrow, time permitting. Bottom line is that either everything that normally gets blanked is blanked, or nothing. No selective blankings. The diff of what I originally said to Woonpton is here. I think she was looking for that. Hopefully that will clear up a few things. I've been consistent with what I said in that diff, and I stand by what I said there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is all this crap about? Blanking a page changes nothing as to what actually happened on a page. It just removes it from search view. So long as the main ArbCase page remains, every single one of the links are there and as noted, several editors are aware of the History tab. I'd also be thinking that consolidation of several other "evidence" pages should be moved under the parent case page and blanked. Many more than the participants and adjudicators of this case are aware of what a black stain it is - but there is no reason that various search engines should casually pick up and rate the various search phrases, surely that is an unintended consequence. There is no doubt that many people will retain an institutional memory of what happened here and will be able to find links quite easily. So what exactly is the rationale to not courtesy blank all the relevant pages (and move them into case sub-pages)? So long as the main or index page which leads to all the rest is present and public, what is the compelling reason to preserve every one of them? Selectivity is unfortunately not an option here. It's all a bad scene... Franamax (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing that any other case pages be similarly blanked? What's so speial about this case that they should be? 98.210.193.221 (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose no such thing, though I wouldn't necessarily object. An "ArbCase SearchPage" function wouldn't be all that hard to design (hint: it would search the 2nd-last version of a page, if the last one had changed radically in size). Blanking of ArbCase pages is not exactly unheard of. But I shan't cite specifics.

In this specific case, whilst we are not apparently faced with a specific request, we have general concerns raised about certain spurious allegations raised within the case. In addition, we're faced with a purported evidence page in a userspace which raises even more spurious allegations. (And other upages of purported evidence, which validity I've not examined) In the one page case of which I'm aware, concerns have been raised to the point of MFD nomination, and the existence (but not text presence) of the page has been defended as it being a record of the Abd/WMC case. Fine, the page should be preserved. What I suggest is that all such userpages containing evidentiary but unsubstantiated suggestions(/accusations) should be moved under the master case page and blanked en bloc, so that no unsupported accusations remain open to search-engine ministrations. We've had enough damage here and many editors will know where to look. There is at least one "evidence" page that should be blanked and more than one are prejudicial to innocent editors. Remember that moving and/or blanking pages hides nothing - it just organizes and creates a different condition for search engine discovery. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So... lets try to sum us where we all are on this disaster. Its become clear that arbcomm would rather "courtesy blank" these pages, but it now looks like the courtesy is to arbcomm rather than anyone else. Ca now admits that he knew halfway through the blanking tht there was no support for it, but continued anyway to get a fait accompli. His current response is I do in particular want to try and clear up any misunderstandings about the blankings but note that he is very careful to avoid suggestion that he might undo it. Meanwhile, CHL's support turns out to be based on "overwhelming consensus" on some entirely different page. What we're not getting is a restoration of the status quo ante while the matter is discussed; arbcomm are just stonewalling. I didn't think you could possibly make this ill-managed case any worse managed but you have indeed succeeded. Given that no magic pixie dust is going to make this decision for you, please explain just how you are going to acheive "consensus" on what to do William M. Connolley (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you are being — to be generous — disingenuous. There is no stonewalling, here, and no drama to be had beyond what the copious amounts of bad faith your are displaying generates. Go do something else for a while. — Coren ^(talk) 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that bad faith here is any faith placed in ArbCom. Pages in wikipedia arb space should not be blanked without good reason and an official request, with discussion. The blanking of user space pages should be decided by the community, and ArbCom and clerks should have never have allowed Abd to spam his accusations all over the place. ArbCom should have never taken this case in the first case - the community was willing to deal with it. The disaster that arbcom and the clerks managed to turn it into would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that you (the arbs) have actually managed to damage the project. A few individual arbs seemed to be sensible, but I would encourage them to leave the stinking carcass of arbcom before they become irredeemably tarnished - like FT2. Undo the blanking of arb pages until an involved user makes a specific request here or by email (and the request is posted here). I warned Abd off AC, as I knew it would end badly for him, but the ridiculous damage to the project, and the view that arbcom is above criticism, is truly something else. Verbal chat 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that bad faith here is any faith placed in ArbCom." Quotable.

At any rate, why do you think that ArbCom views itself as above criticism? As a bloc, we do not want WMC's page to be deleted. I think that criticism is necessary for us to function, in fact. Pile it on. Cool Hand Luke 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest separating criticism of the handling of the case from the question of whether the pages should be blanked. I don't think that blanking is an attempt to sweep anything under the rug; any user with 10 minutes' experience on the site can view the evidence in its entirety, and the blanking only hides it from being scraped and mirrored.

If someone involved in the case (including, for that matter, an Arbitrator) feels strongly that the pages should be blanked, then let's do it. It's a courtesy. If no one wants them blanked anymore, then let's not do it.

I understand the urge to criticize the handling of the case, and I hope that some lessons can be learned from its unfortunate trajectory (and that of its logical predecessor), but that won't happen until the ruckus settles and people (myself included) can digest it in peace. In the meantime, if possible, let's use this thread to discuss the courtesy blanking issue; other venues are probably more appropriate for criticism of the case handling if one feels so moved. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with MastCell's sentiments. Few would dispute that ArbCom members work diligently in a highly controversial arena. It is understandable that editors will, on occassion, disagree (in perfect sincerity) with ArbCom decisions. However, it seems rather irregular to make claims of a conspiratorial cover-up scheme. The blanking is really a rather small issue, and one that should be decided in a collaborative and yielding spirit. —Matheuler 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My response to WMC (on my talk page) is here. I've stated there my view that there have been misunderstandings and incorrect assertions made by WMC and others about these page blankings, and I've suggested a different venue to resolve those misunderstandings, but the relevant bit here is what I've now said and done about the page blankings (paraphrased below):

• (A) I've read through the arguments for and against the blankings in the discussion here WT:AC/N, and given that there was some degree of support for the blankings, and that many people (not just those who objected) had aspersions cast about them in those pages, I'm not going to reverse my actions (though I did come close to doing so). However, given that some people have failed to realise that the full text is still accessible in the page histories, I've modified the notices on each page to include a link on each blanked page to the version of the page before blanking, and to the page history, and links to all the other pages in the case (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I know this is not the full unblanking WMC wanted, but I hope it does address some of his concerns, and the concerns of others, about accessibility, and a desire for people to be able to see and judge for themselves what happened in this case.
• (B) There are a multitude of pages in userspace that still need dealing with in some way. A total of 23 pages. I've made a list here. WMC did ask me not to mix up userspace stuff with what happens to the case pages, so rather than going ahead with what I proposed earlier (moving to subpages of the evidence page and blanking) I've made that list instead, and will leave notices for the users concerned, and then notify my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee, and leave those pages for those users and the rest of ArbCom to deal with.
• (C) If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait a few days or weeks, to see how he feels at that point, and then if he still wants the case pages unblanked, to file a request for clarification. I will abstain from voting on any clarifications filed with respect to the final disposition of the pages in this case, though I may make a statement if needed. I'll remain active on clarifications and amendment requests on other matters related to this case.

As I said, I have to move on to deal with other things now, but I hope this addresses the concerns of WMC and others. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that, in future cases, the practice of presenting evidence in userspace subpages be restricted or explicitly disallowed. This looks like a massive pain to clean up, not to mention a potential drama-magnet. Skinwalker (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The evidence limits are untenable in complex cases. Some of the parties under review have made hundreds or thousands of relevant edits, and to fairly review the case they should all be available. It's rather absurd that Arbcom could presume to take a case and not allow the parties to present all of the evidence. If I am a party and I face that limit, I'll summarize on the evidnece page and create a sub-page somwhere with the complete details. Whould would you suggest? That Arbcom members refuse to read it? That it get summarily deleted? That I be sanctioned for creating a page of diffs? Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then lift (or liberalize) the evidence limit. No deletion or sanctions. It is almost always unenforced unless someone steps well over the line, and often not even then. My concern is that someone could file MFDs for each and every one of the 23 subpages Carcharoth lists. Not to mention that Abd scattered, at one count, around 500 kilobytes of "evidence" around the case pages and his userspace, most of which consisted of diff-less aspersions. This is a gigantic mess to clean up and monitor. Also, if you think arbs read all of the evidence presented, you probably don't follow many of their proposed decisions. Skinwalker (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this just gets worse. My response to Ca's inadequate response is on his talk page. As to Co There is no stonewalling, here - that is exactly what there is William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So... given the total absence of stonewalling here, as asserted by at least two arbs (although how that can be reconciled with If WMC is not happy with any of this, I've advised him to wait I don't know. For the record, no, I'm not happy with any of this), when am I going to get an answer to Given that no magic pixie dust is going to make this decision for you, please explain just how you are going to acheive "consensus" on what to do? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought experiment

What do we do if/when we find out there was an off-wiki coordination by cold fusion proponents to delegitimize opponents? Protonk (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads on pikes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan of drawing and quartering myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File it under "blindingly obvious", recognize it as one of the inevitable drawbacks of a top-ten website that anyone can edit, and resolve not to be goaded quite so easily next time? Question the legitimacy of a field whose proponents seem to spend more time litigating their case on Wikipedia than doing actual science? Use the case as a learning exercise to improve our handling of small groups of agenda accounts? All of the above? MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're new around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, just regressing. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

Who is the banned user? And is this block/desysop politically based, or for the good of the encyclopedia? Thanks in advance for your answers. Majorly talk 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't disapear people for political reasons. Revealing further identity may disclose real life identities, so the committee has not yet come to a decision on what, exactly, to announce. I expect we'll be in a good position for a more detailed announcement in a day or two, though. — Coren ^(talk) 23:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"We don't disapear[sic] people for political reasons..." This is absolutely untrue, but I look forward to seeing who his former identity was, and whether this reaction was justified. Cheers, Majorly talk 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean political as per this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A new name 2008? I don't think anyone on the list was aware of that issue. We've just been informed. Cool Hand Luke 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly germane to that RfA. Has A new name 2008 been informed about the status of their confidante, or is it more complicated than that? Protonk (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see at the RFA, he is aware, and is re-confirming his identity through Thatcher. Who I'm pretty sure isn't a sock of anyone this time. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just about reconfirming identity -- if A new name has put sensitive information at risk by revealing it to Pastor Theo, he needs to be informed of the level of risk. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard the above, now I am aware of who it is. I agree a block/desysop was very appropriate. Majorly talk 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, do you know that, when the only people who should be aware are checkusers and oversights? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the walls have ears; some people are really good guessers; functionaries-en is not leakproof. It doesn't really matter. And Majorly is a checkuser, just on a different project. Thatcher 00:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a very good guess, that's all. Perhaps 99% certain. The facts all add up. No one is leaking anything to me. Majorly talk 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So the community as a whole will never know who pastor theo was a sock of? Only those who have good hearing, and who are good guessers? Ikip (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Note above that Coren says Arbcom is still discussing how to handle it. Thatcher 00:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. People may need to be patient for info (the arbitrators should take their time to decide over a day or two), but the details will likely surface soon IMO. JamieS93 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Coren said "I expect we'll be in a good position for a more detailed announcement in a day or two". So I expect we'll see more in a day or two. Either way, he was put out to Pastor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's bad. @harej 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As disappointed as I am in seeing all this, this really makes me laugh. Baseball Bugs, I never understood why so many people thought you were funny, now I finally do :) Ikip (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is that this is not the first time a banned user has been elected admin. A strong case can be made that all successful admin candidates be checkusered as a routine matter. I'm really sorry for A New Name, and feel that "the system" let him down badly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, A new name could have run on his current edits and not tried to take credit for an extra 10K (for that matter, his user name is itself a poor choice for avoiding drama). Certainly the situation has turned out more poorly than he could have expected though. Thatcher 01:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's all his fault. No need to do something silly like improve safeguards against this happening in the future.</sarcasm> Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a view I expressed long before Theo got popped. In any case, the proposal to checkuser all admin candidates has been floated many times. The checkusers would probably honor a request from the bureaucrats, but the bureaucrats would not make the request without a large community consensus to make it a regular part of RFA. So go start the discussion (again). And, note that this would probably only catch admin candidates who were unprepared for it. Thatcher 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

True. Checkuser is useless if the subject has half a clue and knows it's coming. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (I'm not a CU, but have enough experience parsing httpd log files that I suspect I've got a good idea of how CU works.) Any other suggestions as to how this might be prevented in future? Even with my poor memory, this is at least the second time I can recall in the past year or two. That's twice too many. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea "Checkuser all RFA nominees" comes up perennially. For reasons above, it's pointless. Most serious socks are nailed by behavior not checkuser data in the end anyhow; for example had the user in this case obtained his adminship and then acted legitimately, none of this would have followed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to me disputing whether this merited an immediate desysop under Level I procedures, I was informed explicitly (and confirmed when I requested clarification to be sure) that Pastor Theo was i) operating a second account in contravention of WP:SOCK very recently, and ii) had used his/her "advanced permissions" on the PT account in association with this second account. If this is the case, then I agree that Level I removal is acceptable, however I'm posting these two pieces of information to this noticeboard so that everyone else is aware of the full rationale behind the decision to use emergency removal procedures (as "currently operating a second account and using advanced permissions in relationship to it" wasn't included in the rationale posted to WP:AC/N), and to ensure that when the announcement by the Committee is made, there are no discrepancies between what has been explicitly and unambiguously divulged up until now, and the statement by the Committee itself. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• ...and, by my not-very-extreme powers of deduction, the second account in question is probably Mrs. Wolpoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If so, there's a lot of double-voting going on, most notably Xeno's recent RfB, amongst many others. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ahem... Just a guess... --Jayron32 02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And incase anyone forgot the last time this happened. --Jayron32 02:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It's definitely not Archtransit who is the "banned user" in this saga, to clarify any confusion. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
        • At least 20 people opposed Theo's RfA, unlike Archtransit's unanimous one.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, it was just a guess. I am unfamiliar with the Pastor Theo case, but one must admit, without priviledged information, there ARE some striking commonalities between PT's case and the Archtransit one. I trust that it is not him, but still, we have now then been burned twice by two different persons doing essentially the same thing. --Jayron32 03:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
          • But there were supporters, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As for the double voting, it doesn't seem particularly successful at AFD. Wolpoff's favorite vote is "Per Pastor Theo", but the two accounts didn't get used in very many close calls. The real fun question is who gets to delete all those contributions?—Kww(talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, this is indeed a particular weak comment for an AfD, i.e. no argument, just a vote and sarcastic question. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, if the above is correct we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil Town and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared High, where the non-administrative account comments in the discussion and the administrative account closes it.

      This edit is interesting, by the way.

      The bigger concern is the personal information that someone has apparently sent to this person, though. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

      • No way to know if Wolpoff is Theo without solid evidence, but at the very least it's interesting they were blocked at the same minute and for the same reason, and with the same comment to take any questions to arbcom - and further that their user pages were cleared at the same minute and with the same generic block notice. But that doesn't necessary prove anything, as there could have been a hundred others at the same minute. Or 58, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Using Checkuser and nothing else, there is never any way to know for sure, because  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust ... All CU can do is suggest likelihood or unlikelihood. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy Wow! I think this is like someone escaping from prison, adopting a new identity, and doing just about everything right, before their previous identity is found out and they get sent back to prison. When things like that occur (and I know of several prominent examples of such people), some people would invariably comment that these people should be let go because their track records as fugitives show that they were not threats to society anymore. Although I understand the rules in the book, in this case, it's hard for me not to sympathize with Theo, since I had not the slightest suspicion of who/what he previously was. I just thought that maybe if he had been a bit more careful, then he might have gotten away with it longer... TML (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering he used a sock account to double vote, it would be more like someone escaping from prison, getting a normal day job, but breaking into houses at night. Being a sock of a banned user was not the only issue. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no sympathy for them. Every time someone so blatantly undermines the confidence we have in each other, calling into question WP:AGF and further tarnishing Wikipedia's credibility, we all lose, every one of us. This user's (mostly) productive edits on this one account do not forgive all that. -kotra (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am confused here and hope there isn't a double standard. Take for example, User:WillOakland. He is a sock of banned User:Gazpacho and ended up admitting as much. Moreover, he was even confirmed by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WillOakland/Archive to still be using socks, but even then was only two weeks blocked. User:Dorftrottel was a sock of at least two indeffed accounts, but was allowed to start over and multiple times. I have only encountered positive edits from Pastor Theo personally. Has his current account done anything so eggregious to justify being rebanned, given how tolerant we have been of the above and various other examples? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Be careful there. Every case is unique, and we should not cloud issues from this case with anything going on anywhere else... --Jayron32 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We wouldn't want any double standards with the use of alternate accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

At least one apparent difference is that Oakland owned up to his previous name, whereas New Name has owned up to being a renamed user but not to what his previous name was (sorry, but "just trust me" doesn't cut it), and Theo hasn't owned up to anything, except by inference since he immediately retired upon being exposed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, given that you have been caught and blocked twice for socking, I really did not expect to see you show up here arguing for more lenient treatment of users who abuse multiple accounts. MBisanz ^talk 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, did you expect him to show up here arguing for harsher treatment of users who abuse multiple accounts, then? ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I expected he would see the wisdom in not inserting himself in a discussion that was likely to shine bad light on his past behavior, given that a possible outcome of this discussion would be to have no sympathy for past bad acts and treat past sock abusers as being unreform-able. MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. You may be expecting too much, though... ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, harsher treatment can be quite cathartic; it can help develop an editor's perspective and can result in the added benefit of 10,000 useful edits to non-en:wp projects. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The tabloids always have the news first It seems that the lesson here is if you have skeletons in the closet, don't become an admin. --NE2 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised as I thought "Theo" seemed like a good editor, but if the community banned previous account is who it is alleged to be (and the pieces fit together quite well) then this block is a good one. Camw (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

After being horrified by the Arbcom Sam case, I posed this question: Why can't any editor simply check for sock puppet without having to show evidence? on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations.

If arbcoms and admins are regularly creating socks, our most trusted editors, then this is obviously a systemic problem. The only partial solution is to allow routine check user for anyone who asks.

I think the bottom line is that sock puppets do not effect the financial well being of wikipedia like BIO scandals, so the sockpuppet issue will continue to be ignored. Ikip (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The current checkuser policy allows broad discretion in running checks, but only for the stated purposes ("to prevent disruption" is the most broad). There needs to be some reasonable showing of how checking will prevent disruption, usually this involves evidence of current disruption or behavior that raises at least a strong reasonable suspicion of hanky-panky. Checking accounts on a whim or without a strong reasonable suspicion would represent a major change in policy. You're welcome to start a discussion at the appropriate places to get consensus for this. Thatcher 12:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That "appropriate place" would be somewhere on Meta I expect (or perhaps the Strategy wiki) as it's foundation wide policy. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised. He overdid it with the "pastor" stuff. Keepscases (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So there's speculation that he was Ecoleetage? Wow. Keepscases (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Ecoleetage was blocked on January 16 of this year and the Pastor Theo account was created on a day later. So, it all lines up. Wouldn't be surprised if it's true.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The behavior of User:Mrs. Wolpoff is the key here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is true, and the new account was created a whole 1 day after the old was blocked, would it be too bold to suggest preventive checkuser for the next day - or even two - to stop an exact repeat? Wknight94 ^talk 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone caught twice has probably figured out the two most frequently used ways to catch socks (whatever those ways are), so preventive checkusering does have limits. MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have the number or list of new accounts that were created within 24 or 36 or 73 hours of the Ecoleetage banning? 10? 20? 100? 500? Or of anonymous IPs that edited within that period? Perhaps a checkuser should be run on all of them because of the suspicious nature of the timing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

The community needs to decide whether it wants to allow sockpuppetry or not. Over the five years I've been editing, I've not been able to detect any consistent pattern in how we deal with socks. Some sockmasters are warned, some blocked briefly, some indefblocked. When they return with new accounts, some are allowed to continue, others are indefblocked as soon as they're spotted. Some are allowed to have old user pages deleted so they're harder to find again in future, others aren't. Then we find banned socks are running admin accounts, and we're shocked. But it's because we're sending out the wrong signals.

I suggest we start a discussion somewhere -- maybe via an RfC, or by posting a policy proposal -- to gain consensus for three issues:

• (1) random and regular IP checks on all admins and candidates;
• (2) no alternate accounts allowed unless the ArbCom has been given the name of the second account. That includes people leaving and returning. So if you start life as User:X in 2006, don't edit for years, then pop up as User:Y in 2009, you have to e-mail ArbCom that you used to be User:X, and
• (3) consistent penalties for those found to have socked e.g. community ban for anyone trying to gain a second admin account, or a first admin account if you were previously banned; one year ban for anyone caught socking with a non-admin account.

The above wouldn't stop sockpuppetry, but it would drastically reduce it. Sockmasters would need to maintain separate IPs for accounts and never make a mistake, which requires executive secretary skills that many people don't have, and even if they do have them, can't be bothered using. Only the fanatics would be left with their multiple accounts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One factor you have not addressed is that it's important why the individual was banned in the first place. If a user is banned for repeated POV editing on topic X, and he or she comes back a few months later and edits in a perfectly acceptable manner on articles entirely unrelated to topic X, and never seeks adminship, then (i) often the fact that the person is a banned user will never be discussed, and (ii) a lot of people would say that we shouldn't make an issue out of the individual's status. (I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is certainly true.) On the other hand, if the user's ban resulted from harassment, threats, or other more grievous misconduct, the reaction might be very different. As I've observed in a couple of different contexts this year, unfairness can often consist of treating like cases differently; it can also consist of treating unlike cases the same. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true. That's why I think we should periodically allow people to return to see if they've reformed. It's trivially easy for users to start a new account, and I would much rather have them do so more transparently. Cool Hand Luke 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's why ArbCom does not ban for more than a year. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd support that, SV. → ROUX ₪ 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Easy fix - admins should have to confirm their identity. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To whom? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • • To the people they expect to trust them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec) Absolutely not. How exactly would who you are IRL end sockpuppeting admins?--Giants27 (c|s) 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • One real life identity gets no more than one admin account. Not rocket science. DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a bad idea. We need more admins who approach adminship more casually. By casual, I do not mean uncaring or unethical, but less vested. The more of a Big Deal something is, the more likely they get emotionally involved, get worked up about protecting their reputations, and have the incentive to cheat. --Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Most admins already treat their tools as The Biggest Deal in Town. Requiring a bit of up-front honesty from admins would weed out some of the worst ones right off. DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Most admins are inactive - I believe at last count there were around 900 or so active (Mbisanz has been keeping an eye on it I'm sure), and I can name maybe twenty or thirty off the top of my head. If I did a comprehensive study, I could probably get a list of many, many admins who have way to much ego for their own good - a much smaller population of that set lets it bleed into their work past the point of mere annoyance, and an even smaller population actually has enough clout to cause Horrible Things. What I'm saying is that requiring that bit of upfront honesty may stop problem individuals, yes, but also increase their proportion within the general active admin population.--Tznkai (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Inactive admins are another problem - they clearly do not need the tools (if they did need them, they would use them) - yet try to remove tools from them and they kick up a stink. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
          • If they're inactive for some stretch of time then they should be de-sysopped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
            • That is a gigantic can of tangentially related worms.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, someone else brought it up. But what's the point of having adminship if they don't use it? If someone hasn't used it in a year, why would they need it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• • No. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed, no. Administrators are volunteers. A good number of them are minors, or were at the time they were sysopped. They should not be required to submit some form of identification to the foundation or whoever to get two extra tabs at the top of each page that say "delete" and "protect". Administrator rights are not so important that we need to pre-emptively sanction people in this way. You get no access to private information by being an admin, and all of your actions are reversible with a few clicks of the mouse. Administrator rights are in no way the same league as checkuser or oversight, where damage could be caused by unscrupulous persons. Situations like this aren't fun, but no lasting harm occurs. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • (ec)The rights may be, to you, trivial, but the status is routinely abused by most active admins in discussions. Pastor Theo's misuse of his status in a topic ban discussion is one of the reasons I find it so hard to contribute to this encyslopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I want to emphasize the major gulf between crass deceptiveness and dickery on Wikipedia and messing around with personal/private information.--Tznkai (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Why on god's green earth do we allow minors to be admins? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Same reason we let the elderly.--Tznkai (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
            • And the sockpuppets, apparently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
        • That's funny DH. How is it that PT's actions in a topic ban discussion caused it to be difficult for you to contribute say more than a few days ago? I agree that his actions should have been stopped but let's wonder how indentification would have stopped them? Do we require registered editors to identify themselves? Could he have submitted real and valid ID and still socked on the other accounts? Of course. So I really have trouble seeing this as anything more than an attempt to make adminship generally more burdensome. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
          • As was clear from the context, I was making the point that adminship isn't merely about the tools, it is also about the status. Try reading the thread properly in future before making stupid comments. I want admins to be more honest and open - I am sorry that you find honestly and openness burdonsome. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I figured you just wanted to bitch about admin abuse. My bad. As others have said, elevating adminship to a status beyond that necessary to do the job is a bad thing and will be made worse, not better if admins are forced to identify (making them more 'real' than registered editors). Protonk (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, a thread about a corrupt admin and you object to someone complaining about corrupt admins? What's your problem? What are you hiding? DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Haven't you heard? I'm PT's other sock! Protonk (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • WHAT??? I thought you were Spartacus. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Checkuser is not magic pixie dust. That and I imagine that checkusering enough people enough times to catch 10-15% more socks would make a mockery of our privacy policy to say nothing of requiring more checkusers than we already have. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would support number 3 (though with less specifics), but that's it. Number 1 makes adminship way too huge of a deal (besides a bunch of drama, there was very little damage from this and similar cases) and as Protonk said is inconsistent with our privacy policy. Number 2 is just pointless. Who cares if someone leaves and returns? Especially if they're gone for 3 years. Unless they're doing it to evade a sanction, it shouldn't matter in the slightest. We shouldn't punish people just because they didn't fill out the necessary paperwork. Mr.Z-man 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Number 2 will do a bit more than that. It will A. punish the honest and B. give a sort of legalistic cover to anyone who wants to ban an account that they suspect/discover/confirm is a reincarnation/alternate account. Putting aside the costs of legalism for a moment, this will put a lot of levers in the hands of those emotionally invested enough to hunt, and INCREASE unaccountable ArbCom power, which I thought was out of style. Having a culture of voluntary honesty is one thing - making it a rule is something else entirely. --Tznkai (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • We don't have a culture of "voluntary honesty" - we have a culture if "Get away with whatever you can". DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with the first half of your sentence, but not the second. My point was, creating a culture of honesty will be far and away more effective then trying to policy this problem into submission.--Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• The important thing to bear in mind is that these changes would be widely posted, so people would know in advance what was expected of them. If you're entering an online community firmly opposed to socking, and you sock, it's a gross violation, no matter the reason. If you're entering one that hedges its bets, as we currently do, then it's not a gross violation. And that's why we have so much of it. We have to stop sitting on the fence about it, or else we have to stop complaining about socks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I don't think these people are socking, or being banned and coming back and posting an RfA, because they think its OK and people won't mind. We do treat incidences of socking on a case by case basis, yes; different outcomes in different incidents based on the individual circumstances, which vary widely. The ultimate aim, the benefit of the encyclopedia, stays the same - but that aim is not best served by an iron rule, no matter how much simpler pure consistency would make things. Nathan ^T 16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c) To be honest, I think the fundamental problem is that any sort of allowance for sock flies in the face of our desire to run everything by consensus. Socking destroys consensus, because it skews discussion even when it's not taking place: just look at how badly some of the more controversial discussions fare once accusations of socking start. It's that simple. I agree with you (SV) that we need to stop sitting on the fence; any undisclosed alternate account is a problem and should be both forbidden entirely and slammed down systemically. — Coren ^(talk) 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• We're conflating problems; banned users socking is not the same thing as normal users using multiple accounts. Neither should be tolerated, but the type of response called for is quite different and reasonably so. We don't, in any sense, tolerate socking by banned editors; I don't believe our response to normal users socking is that uneven. The "discipline" applied varies based on the circumstances, and can we seriously entertain arguments that this is wrong? Zero tolerance policies have a pretty spotty track record, and provide a long list of examples of unintended consequences. Nathan ^T 17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• No need for any of this. At my count, there have been 2 admins over the past 2.5 years who have managed to "get away with one". We must promote more than 100 admins a year; that's less than a 1% "bad apple" rate, and any draconian "checkuser them all" measures aren't going to catch anything of significance. Furthermore, lots of people run alternate accounts, even admins, even ArbComs. The requirement that all people run one and only one account misses the point that there are many legitimate reasons to run multiple accounts, listed at WP:SOCK, including seperating public computer and home computer accounts, maintaining bot accounts, etc. etc. Dealing with "sock" accounts must, by neccessity, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, based on the MANY MANY factors before deciding the appropriate reaction to a discovered sock. We cannot treat a newbie who is unfamiliar with policy the same as Grawp; nor can we treat someone who makes a single error in judgement the same as people who create multiple disruptive socks for the sole purpose of socking. Predetermining punishments based on arbitrary criteria prevents admins using good judgement in issuing blocks; any admin action can be reviewed and overturned or modified in community discussion. There should be no changes to the way anything is done over this incident. Someone pulled one over on us. Good for them. We caught them. Now lets get back to doing whatever it is that we do... --Jayron32 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Checkuser for admin candidates is probably a waste of time and effort. Behavior is what matters. Even if someone was a banned user and has reformed himself, he could be worthy of consideration. Sockpuppeteering while being an admin obviously requires removal of sysop tools. And claiming X number of edits under a previous user ID while not disclosing that ID is dishonest and should disqualify a candidate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone can agree that this is a repeat problem, that is going to happen again.

Boiling this discussion down to its simpilest components: we have Slimvirgin suggested change, and we have editors opposed to Slimvirgin suggested change.

If you don't like Slimvirgin's suggestion, please suggest your own. Otherwise you are simply advocating that the status quo is okay. Ikip (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with advocating the status quo is OK. There does not always have to be a change after every incident. One may disagree with SlimVirgin's "solution" and still want a change, but there is also the distinct possibility that someone may disagree that any change is called for. Such people have a right to speak up as well. --Jayron32 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

UGH. No. If we shot all rapists upon arrest we would not have a situation where convicted rapists were released to later kidnap and rape again. that doesn't mean that those of us opposing the summary execution of suspected rapists upon arrest are guilty of advocating kidnap and rape. Seriously. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay, I agree with you. Just defining the parameters, if you advocate the status quo, I respect that.

Protonk, alrighty then, don't know how to respond. Bordering on Goodwin's law now. Ikip (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion my be that you retract your bizzare assertion that failure to advocate some "solution" makes editors advocates for the status quo. As many people have said above, behavioral evidence is what gets especially pernicious socks. Not procedural stricture. Not technical measures. And not some future 'clarification' of the alternate account policy. But we can't argue that (according to you) without somehow being complicit in the problems presented here. That ends debate far more effectively than a reference to hitler or an analogy to kidnap and rape. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32: "At my count, there have been 2 admins over the past 2.5 years who have managed to "get away with one". We must promote more than 100 admins a year; that's less than a 1% "bad apple" rate…"

And just the other day, you would have counted but one, which we know now to be inaccurate.

We lift up one rug in our home, and a roach scurries away. We lift up another - lo, another roach. None of the other rugs have been lifted…yet you're confident there were only two roaches, and there is no need to lift another rug.24.22.141.252 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To continue your analogy, the proposed solution ammounts to setting the house on fire for the sake of the roaches; yes, it will get rid of the roach problem but at what cost? I'm not sure that upending the long-standing expectations of privacy at Wikipedia, coupled with completely outlawing legitimate alternative accounts, and the idea of an ill-thought out zero-tolernace/mandatory-sentancing policy for all violations of WP:SOCK are measured responses to this situation. They seem way out of whack for what has so far been a few isolated incidents. We have 2000 admins. How many do you seriously think are like Archtransit and Pastor Theo? Another 4 or 5? Are these drastic changes to the way we handle adminship, multiple accounts, and checkuser policy worth the chance to catch those 4 or 5? Look, in both of these cases it became very obvious on behavioral grounds that the admin in question was not on the up-and-up. That is, they actually did shit which was clearly wrong and THAT brought attention to themselves. There is no need to change anything based on what has happened, except to maybe be aware that there may be more like this out there, and to raise our general awareness to the problem. That's about it. --Jayron32 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to imagine that most admins are not Evil Sockpuppets, merely because most admins are tragically boring.--Tznkai (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32: "That is, they actually did shit which was clearly wrong and THAT brought attention to themselves."

He did do things that were very wrong, but that's not how he was discovered - User:Pastor Theo was at the end of a trail which began elsewhere, one which would have been aptly characterized as speculative vetting.24.22.141.252 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't require admins to reveal their RL identity to the community as a whole, we would never be able to police some articles if we did that. But I can't think of a reason we should not ask them to confirm to the arbitrators or the office. We ask OTRS volunteers to confirm identity, there is an established precedent, and this is obviously a recurrent problem causing distrust among the wider community. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd endorse SlimVirgins #2 and #3, but I don't agree with #1 (for obvious and previously discussed-to-death reasons that can be rehashed if needed). We can probably put "All RFA candidates and other nominees for positions should be checkusered" and "All admins should randomly be checkusered" (and anything like these) on the perennial proposals list.

Arbcom looked at abusive adminship in January 2008, following the Archtransit case. RFA doesn't help an abuser that much. Most admin actions are tightly constrained and watched. So it's hard to abuse the tools persistently and not reach Arbcom or community attention. Most abusers also want to use admin tools to further a specific agenda yet not be noticed. It's very difficult.

The main areas of abuse are stacking or !vote abuse, abuse of unblocking, mis-closing of discussions (AFD, ANI, etc), and what could be called 'abuse of standing' (ie: "User X is an admin so they can get away with stuff in a dispute"). There are a couple of other risks, but those are the main ones.

By their nature these abuses are not hidden, they are public and behaviorally visible to the community. Behavioral detection, or admins with integrity quietly alerting the functionaries team/Arbcom/ANI has been a very reliable and historically strong waty to identify such cases. Almost every socking admin case (80%+ at an informal guess) was not only spotted behaviorally, but the admin had taken steps to avoid checkuser in many of them. Even looking back, checkuser was at best merely a further source of confirmation in the majority of these. It would not have been much of a route of detection.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will simply point out that there are currently over 10.5 million registered accounts on the English Wikipedia, not including any IPs that have edited. The number of those accounts that are alternates is likely in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands. The overwhelming and vast majority of alternate accounts are no problem at all, violate no core practices of the encyclopedia, and are either reasonable alternate accounts (for example, I have doppelgangered my RL name to prevent a vandal from usurping it, as declared on my userpage), or are "new" accounts of someone who forgot their password or forgot they'd edited months or years before. IP addressses change, without necessarily any rhyme or reason, in most of the world. The number of abusive alternate accounts that are not caught almost immediately is infinitesmally minute compared to the user base. Only a handful of administrator accounts have been identified that were used in an abusive manner in concert with an alternate account, in the 8 years the encyclopedia has been around. The only time that there is a problem with someone having more than one account is when two or more of those accounts are used in a way to alter consensus. There is no realistic way to verify whether an account abandoned a few years ago is related to a current account. And, perhaps most importantly, routine checkusering of any accounts is a direct violation of the WMF privacy policy (link at the bottom of every page). Given the number of accounts on the wiki, one cannot justify such routine checks as "prevention of disruption". Risker (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the privacy policy is concerned only with the release of private data. It doesn't (so far as I know) regulate who is checked and why. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There are three policies that affect CheckUser/Oversight: the privacy policy, the access to nonpublic data policy, and the one you're after, the checkuser policy (included in WP:CHECK).

The global policy on checkuser states "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects.... There must be a valid reason to check a user.". I read that as meaning:

1. There must be some specific basis for a reasonable concern that abuse might indeed be going on with some user or issue, and
2. there must be reason to believe the checkuser tool can help to check, reduce, or prevent it if so.

To me, the essence of CU policy is checkusers cannot check specific users or IPs at random. There must be some specific rationale particular to that user or case, and a basis of evidence/concern that others can double-check if needed, that leads a checkuser to reasonably believe that there may be actual editorial abuse going on. Not just "lets see if these users are clean". We stretch that to a few other types of harm prevention (suicide threats, bomb threats, collateral damage checks, etc), but not by much. There must at least be a specific basis of concern in each case, and some rationale or evidence that others can review if wished. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry isn't the major issue, here.

Jayron32 has hit the nail on the head. Sockpuppetry isn't the major issue, here in this case. It wasn't the major issue the last time around, either. People who want a Big Discussion of How Multiple Accounts Are Bad (and User:Uncle G's 'bot is here to tell you that they aren't) are missing the issue entirely. This incident isn't egregious because of sockpuppetry. The Runcorn incidents weren't egregious because of sockpuppetry. The Ecoleetage incident wasn't egregious because of sockpuppetry. There were factors such as real world stalking, workplace harrassment, and on-line identity theft that made them egregious. Focussing on the ballot-stuffing sockpuppetry in issues such as these is to miss the important things for the comparatively minor. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about permissive socks like User:Uncle G's 'bot we are talking about abusive socks. Bluring the line between the two does not futher this discussion.

Ecoleetage came back from an indefinete ban as a sockpuppet, and became an admin. None of us here are talking about Ecoleetage's past behavior, that was already dealt with, you are the first person to bring it up because it is completly irrelevant to this discussion, except that someone who was banned for these grevious issues was able to later become an admin.

As I wrote above, this argument seems like support for the status quo. Ikip (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Who did Ecoleetage return as an admin under? I don't remember that, maybe it was during my break, but all I remember is his last failed RfA. Also, I believe Uncle G mentions Ecoleetage because he is mentioned above by Keepscaces. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe UG mentioned Eco because the running theory is that PT==Eco. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm hoping PT ≠ Eco. Because A new name 2008 (talk · contribs) revealed potentially personal info (I have no idea how personal or if personal at all) to Theo and Ecoleetage was blocked for off-wiki harassment. The possibility of an outing is entirely possible here.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are "real-world stalking issues" then the past behaviour of Ecoleetage is germane in at least one way, and possibly another, bigger way.  pablo_hablo. 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious to believe the rumors for my own reasons but I'm unwilling to believe for certain until someone reveals some more convincing information. I'm curious as to the account Ikip is referring to when he says "Ecoleetage came back from an indefinete ban as a sockpuppet, and became an admin.". Is that an assertion that PT=Eco, or is it based on a different account name? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A more formal statement from ArbCom regarding exactly which accounts/users were involved in this incident is forthcoming. At this point, any assertions of who PT was are simply suspicions, not supported by technical evidence. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Smashing, I'm sure it'll make an interesting read. Thanks. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold: "At this point, any assertions of who PT was are simply suspicions, not supported by technical evidence."

[7][8][9][10]24.22.141.252 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to PT there, nor do you have the checkuser flag. Thank you for proving my point - any assertions of who is who are simply guesswork. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, it's clear cut. In addition to the above, Eco's real-name imdb page shows a picture of the same person that was on Pastor Theo's user page. Amalthea 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

At some point arbcom will understand that they work at wikipedia the place where large numbers of editors make seemingly intractable problems trivial through the aggregation of disparate information. It will be interesting to see how long they wait until they make a clarifying statement, if one is forthcoming at all. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One will be forthcoming, Protonk. I know ArbCom is working on it, because they told us that they are (although they did not share the text of it with us on func-l). Being that this does relate to people and their real-life identities, can we please show just a little more patience with ArbCom as they decide how to best handle an ugly situation? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who the we is. I have respect for the ugliness of the situation, but the cat was out of the proverbial bag once the account/sock were blocked. My suggestion is that foresight of that fact for the next similar event would be beneficial for the committee. Protonk (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of waiting isn't that we intend to keep a secret, but that any statement from the committee needs to be just that: from the committee. This normally entails a delay of some hours at the least, and often up to a day given the timezones and availability of the arbitrators to agree on the contents and detail of the statement. In some cases, this is complicated by uncertainty about what, exactly, the committee should say — though there are no such complications in this particular case and I expect a statement to be posted shortly. That some (many?) people could or did figure out part of what needs to be said does not obviate the need for that synchronization. — Coren ^(talk) 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

... or I could also just look a little silly by not noticing while I type this that the statement did get posted a few minutes earlier. I suppose that means I was more accurate than I expected when I said "shortly".  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to keep things secret. A variant on Hanlon's razor might be "never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by bureaucracy". I suspect that you guys are doing your best. I'm just saying that once something like the original announcement gets out, independent investigation is inevitable. It would be up to you how to go about avoiding speculation (or whether it is worth it to do so). I am just pointing out that the speculation will occur (and was evidently quite accurate). Protonk (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The alternative would have been some days-long ANI drama meltdown and RFAR request if someone had raised these concerns in public, instead of coming to ArbCom. Since that didn't happen, and we were made aware of this, we (with the checkusers) dealt with it within a week or so (with no accompanying drama), and once it was clear a desysop and blocks were needed, we moved swiftly to enact that, and then issue a confirmation statement just over a day later. I think this approach actually minimised drama. Think about the alternatives. If we had waited to desysop and block only when the full statement was ready, it would likely have hit ANI or RFAR first, and spiralled from there. As it is, all we have is this thread here. The possible impact on an ongoing RFA is unfortunate, but we weren't aware of that and hopefully that can be sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

←Hard cases make bad law. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of desysopping

Original announcement

Statement from Ecoleetage/Pastor Theo/Wolpoff/Etc...

Ecoleetage sent me an email earlier this afternoon, asking me to post the following text here. I claim no responsibility for the text below. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not everyday when a person receives a reality check and discovers that they are stupid. Not just silly-clumsy stupid in acts of momentary carelessness, but stupid in a depth and scope that is embarrassing to witness and difficult to comprehend. I have received that reality check, and what is shameful to me is knowing that the stupidity is within me and that I have to live with it.

I would like to take this opportunity to humble myself before the Wikipedia community. I have taken the trust and friendship of many decent and intelligent people and threw it away with both hands. I made the ridiculous blunder of treating Wikipedia as a role-playing game and a lark, when it is clearly not designed for such trivial purposes. As a result, I got carried away and made a terrible mess when I had the opportunity to make a significant contribution. The fact that people are using their time and energy to look on aghast at my personal debacle fills me with deep sorrow, and I would never want any person to feel the way I now feel.

My stupidity has created endless self-inflicted wounds that destroyed my reputation among the members of this community and opened me to well-deserved ridicule. I have wasted your time and squandered your support. For this, if it is possible, I ask for your forgiveness. I have learned a very painful lesson, and I promise that I will not return to edit this web site as long as I live.

Thank you and be happy,

Eco

That statement would have meant a lot more if it didn't come after many months of lies, violation of community trust and crocodile tears. Oh, and if it wasn't written by somebody who reviews acting as a day job. Seriously, Eco, if you're reading this - knock it off. If getting blocked was a reality check you would have sent this six months ago. Ironholds (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's instructive to look at what was going on with that user when he "retired" some 7 months ago after being rejected for adminship, and apparently began anew the very next day under the "Pastor" guise - and was able to succeed at adminship, and recently invented at least one known sock. One of the more amusing things is to see the tearful "we'll miss you" stuff on his original "retirement" page, and at least some of those exact same folks posting similar "we'll miss you" stuff on his more recent main user page. Deja vu, oui? He pulled the Wol-poff over their eyes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of one of Ecoleetage's apologies, I must say they are quite good, though they are self-serving, disingenuous, and conveniently leave out the true harm that was done. I'm not buying it, though I do hope we never have to deal with him again. AniMate^draw 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy way to tell, of course. If he shows his sorry face here again we know it was bullshit. Note, Eco, that if you expect us to believe your above statement you're lying through your teeth when you define us as "intelligent people". Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder if anyone is going to write another Eulogy for the "Pastor". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me started on that stupid eulogy. I've been itching to delete it again ever since this popped up. @Ironholds, we don't need to wait to see if he shows up to know that this is BS. If this was all an online game he was playing, why did he bother taking it offline. He called a fellow editor's employer in an attempt to get him in trouble because he opposed his RfA. I'm just happy the Pastor's talk page was protected before we had to read anymore of those nauseating "we'll miss you" messages. AniMate^draw 05:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, let's move along here. The WP:FAC forum needs more reviewers (that goes for me too, I haven't reviewed one in awhile) and there is a long list of content RfCs that need more eyes and opinions. Please focus on what's important and necessary. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Suspected copyright violations is looking rather backlogged as well. We can always use help there as well. AniMate^draw 05:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who used to count himself amongst Eco's supporters, and was fooled by him more than once, I don't believe this one bit. I encourage other editors not to believe him either; Eco is a very good actor, but one can only play the same role so many times before it begins to grate on the audience. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

Second that. Eco's been known to make another user look like the bad guy.--Giants27 (c|s) 11:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I might have been willing to forgive Eco and work with him after his behavior six months ago, but this deception and lies just cuts to the core. Sorry, but he abused whatever friendship he earned from me as Pastor and as Eco. Sorry, your actions six months ago were deplorable, your actions and claims of "I'm a pastor and used to taking confessions" just put it over the top. especially as how your Pastor persona was making a mockery of anybody who has any religious convictions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(This was originally a response to Kevin Rutherford's comment below, but is now out of place following refactoring out of my control) The fact that this admin decided that not only was it appropriate to re-insert a personal attack, then support a ban on the victim of the attack reporting such attacks in future, and then refused to answer questions about his behaviour should have made anyone who has a brain realise that he was completely unsuited to being an admin. User:DuncanHill/badmin if you are an admin and want to see the diffs. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

At some point, Duncan, it's really worthwhile to stop the morbid equine percussion. Seriously. And do not move my comments. → ROUX ₪ 15:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(refactored personal attack out, because Duncan wouldn't → ROUX ₪ 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)) I did not intent to move your comment - the movement was cause by the anti- edit conflict software. We were both editing at the same time. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Refactor that immediately. I do not support personal attacks, and true to Wikipedia form, your allegation that I do is itself an attack. What I do support is people getting over it already. Continuing to harp on this after the sock has been unmasked (unhanded..?) and permanently banned is the very definition of beating a dead horse: it will result in no action, and you're just wittering on (and on and on and on and on and on) about the same issue that was dead and buried quite some time ago. → ROUX ₪ 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you are only complaining about my comments - why not tell everyone else to stop beating a dead horse? No, I won't refactor. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You won't? I did. There we go. → ROUX ₪ 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have we blocked his IP address? Also, looking back at it, there were a few warning signs that might've clued us to him. Other than Mrs Wolpuff, him including the word pastor in his name tried to imply trust, which we now know was a ruse. Looking at my most recent RFA, it seems as if he really tried to gain my trust when he blatently insulted those opposing me. I now realize that voting for him was a mistake, but statistically there could be another administrator out there who is flying under the wire, per se. Please don't think that I want a witchhunt, as that is the last thing I'd ever want. I'm just saying that we have to be careful about anyine here as a few bad apples have ruined the social harmony that we have here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• This 'apology' isn't worth the bandwidth it sucked up. Within six months he'll be back--you know it, I know it, he knows it. → ROUX ₪ 15:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Six months? Unless someone is willing to do preventive checkuser, he's probably back already. We won't find out for six months maybe... Wknight94 ^talk 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was clinging to the last vestiges of hope. But yeah, I'd be astonished if he weren't back, and this is certainly eyebrow-raising. → ROUX ₪ 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then he remembers his apology and reverts back. Anyone else smell feet?--Giants27 (c|s) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but I haven't showered y-- oh. Yeah, I'd say a CU on that IP (User:155.104.37.18) wouldn't be a bad idea. → ROUX ₪ 16:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Eco. I just didn't mean to edit under my IP address, and don't want my username connected with it. 155.104.37.18 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with him as this IP is registered to Northrup Grumman. He seems clean anyways, with a lot of edits. If he was Pastor, why edit hundreds of times on an IP? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of admin actions

Since noone said they did so, I reviewed the AFD closes Eco made as Pastor Theo where he himself participated as Mrs. Wolpoff. In all those AFDs (see Wikistalk link in announcement), he did not made any significant argument, mostly repeating previous arguments. As such, the closes are correct imho even if one discounts his own !vote. Regards SoWhy 07:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is somewhat reassuring, but it's impossible to determine how his ¬votes affected others who participated (or may have participated) in those debates. I am of course thinking specifically of his double ¬votes in close discussions like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab, Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Juliancolton, Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Xeno, and of course this. decltype (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at those discussions. I am satisfied that the double voting would not have affected their outcome. For one thing, if a crat would close such a discussion differently give just one support/oppose more/less, I don't think they're doing the job the community appointed them to do.... WJBscribe (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then let's add one more fraudulent vote. And one more. And one more. Just because we use fuzzy logic to close discussions does not mean that one bad vote is unimportant. Voters often look at what people have said before, and that can sway them. Every vote has the potential to affect the outcome. That said, I don't think it would be good for Wikipedia to rerun all those discussions. If somebody points out a particular concern, we could review it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan. Long time no see. So I use "fuzzy logic" when closing discussions do I? Glad to see you're ready to mend fences and move on from disagreements we've had in the past... WJBscribe (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. Fuzzy logic is an established technique for dealing with situations that aren't amenable to exact quantification. (Like, say, closing discussions on Wikipedia...) Jonathan is in the IT industry and may simply have assumed that everyone would know what the term meant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One might say pretty much anything that has a human element of decision making uses fuzzy logic. --Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, assuming he only had the one sock. To really tip the scales on a given vote, you would need many socks, because if it's borderline the deciders would normally go with "no consensus to change", so to speak, and a single stray vote theoretically shouldn't make any difference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember also that this does not only apply to the discussions were both accounts were used, but also the numerous RfAs and AfDs where only "Pastor Theo" participated. Since Ecoleetage's editing privileges had been revoked, he had no right to comment in those discussions, even if his arguments were valid. But it's all in the past now, and I suppose it'd be more productive to focus on trying to prevent this kind of thing in the future, rather than digging through all the contributions of the "Pastor". decltype (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although at least on the AFDs, his !votes were either the last ones cast or merely repeating another !voters comment. On the RFAs, it's more difficult to determine and the closing crats might want to revisit those RfXs to ensure that consensus was not influenced by those !votes but imho there is no indication that this is the case. In the cases of Juliancolton, Davemeistermoab and his own RFA, his female alter ego made only comments like "good guy", the same as his Pastor persona. They are unlikely to have influenced !voters or even crats. On Xeno's, the Pastor made a lengthy oppose that made some people !vote "per Pastor Theo" but so did his Mrs. Wolpoff persona, so there too it comes down to a simple increase in numbers and none in arguments. Since RfX is about arguments, !votes by Eco "in disguise" that contain no argument are pretty much ignored anyway, so there should be no influence. But then again, that's only my opinion. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"...contain no argument are pretty much ignored anyway". In theory. —Dark 08:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I partially disagree with this. We might say "RfX isn't a vote" but really it is on some level a vote - not a pure vote, but a vote none-the-less. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as a "discretionary range" as all % levels would have either outcome as a possibility. Thus, 2 votes can make a difference in a very close outcome. That said, I don't think it would be wise to reopen any of the cases as that would just increase the drama and/or harm done by this affair. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Reopening cases now would be unnecessary. If somebody wants to run again, they are free to do so.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember an incident at AFD where a person used sockpuppets to comment in over 300 discussions to varying levels. After he was caught, Paul Erik went through and saw the number of debates where his comments mattered. Obviously in the debate he used 9 socks in, it made a difference, but in a good number of the ones where only one or two socks were used, did it matter. If 50 people used socks or one person used 50 socks in Xeno's RFB, there might be a reason to look at it, but marginal changes, even to a ballpark borderline debate, generally are unnecessary, and of course, as Balloonman says, if someone thinks things would change, they should just run again. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And if they ran again, they just might garner some sympathy. "Support, john should have passed last time, but Eco's puppets hurt his RfA."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it, for the reasons given above, unless it was extremely borderline. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I guarantee that the above !vote WILL appear in future RfA's... probably by somebody who supported the first go around, but there will be people who will point to Eco/Pastor's !vote. Probably won't make a difference, but it will happen.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing anything rash. Rather, can I simply ask that the next time you disagree with me on a talk page, that you neither rollback my comments, nor remove them to my talk page? This is a talk page, and I was talking. Angrily? Yes. But on a talk page, and I was, frankly, pissed off that my initial thread was hidden, and I was deeply angered when I had my next thread undone. Do you see the problem with that? This is the type of talk page where we are allowed to voice opposition to ArbCom decisions. I opposed one, and had the right to be heard. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at WP:ANI. Using the language you used was highly inappropriate, calling arbcom members "corrupt" is an unacceptable personal attack. I understand your frustration with the situation; but WP:AGF applies to ArbCom as well as anyone else. Also, you really should choose your words carefully; corruption has a very specific meaning, and to claim that somehow the ArbCom had been bought off or bribed or otherwise were using their power for their own financial gain (which is what corrupt means) is flatly inappropriate here. --Jayron32 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, 'corrupt' and 'corruption' don't necessarily imply financial misconduct. Corruption suggests a wilful disregard for law or policy with the aim of unjustly benefitting a person or group (often, but not always, oneself); that benefit may or may not be financial in nature. More generally, the first couple of definitions: 1 Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved. 2. Venal; dishonest. [11]. On Wikipedia, a corrupt individual would be one who used his power (as an administrator, an arbitrator, or what have you) to distort or subvert our articles or to suppress particular editors or groups, for the purpose of achieving some sort of on- or off-wiki gain (social or political reputation and recognition, financial benefits from promotion of ideas or products, etc.).

That said, I think that 'corrupt' is an inappropriate charge to level without evidence. Further, it paints with too broad a brush. (Newyorkbrad, for instance, has frequently and consistently impressed me throughout his tenure.) While I would be quite comfortable arguing that some of the members of the Committee have demonstrated some breathtakingly poor judgement, and I also feel that there may have been a certain dereliction of duty with respect to timely and responsible case-handling, I don't think that all have been equally sloppy, nor do I feel that there is any indication that their errors and omissions are deliberate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've come across this before IRL, and I'll still maintain that corrupt doesn't imply any intentional wrongdoing, it simply connotes something that has gone wrong. Looking at my Webster's, I see the etymology of the verb is from, well, [L. corruptus, pp. of corrumpere, com-, altogether, and rumpere, break] No idea how to read that scholar-wise, but to my brain "corrupt" would mean "altogether broken". And from the adjective definition, I can find putrid; infected or tainted; vitiated by errors or alterations. Now I could also pick out the other definitions of corrupt or corruption implying moral wrongdoing, and I'd agree that when you read the word in the popular press it usually means that cash or favours have been exchanged. But since we're living inside of an encyclopedia, I'd take the word at it's face value, which is to say that corrupt means something has gone wrong and it stinks. We live in our own little world, can't we use words in their natural meanings? Franamax (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally think that if someone wants to act like a jerk in public, he should be allowed to. Hiberniantears, it is unfortunate but true that WMC has used his admin tools in ways that are at least questionable ([12] [13] [14] [15] for example). Blocking your named adversary in an Arb case during the case is so egregious (really, he couldn't find any other admin to act?) that it may have combined with the other evidence of borderline and questionable actions to convince a majority of arbitrators that his judgement was too flawed to continue as an admin. It's funny how people who were elected for their trustworthiness and good judgement suddenly become corrupt idiots based on the outcome of a single case that someone objects to. In any case, you have the opportunity to correct this "injustice" both by supporting WMC's RFA, if he decides to file one, and to run for Arbcom yourself, if you think you are viewed by the community as more trustworthy and cluefull than the current arbitrators. In the mean time, be my guest and make as many hyperbolic bad faith accusations as you want. Thatcher 11:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add to that that accusations of this nature cover only the accuser in ridicule. I am one of those who voted against the desysop, and nevertheless was worried enough by William's poor judgment in those matter that I felt sanctions were necessary. That other arbitrators felt more was needed is entirely legitimate. For that matter, ignoring justice for the sake of expediency or popular acclaim might credibly be called corruption, but going ahead and favoring an obviously unpopular remedy because one believes it necessary and just is a sign of integrity by any measure of the term. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow - that's some high-quality spin, Coren... I never would have thought of trying to cast the desysop decision as an act of integrity. EdChem (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any specific remedy (though it does obviously apply in this case IMO). I'm stating that the willingness to do what one sincerely believes is the best thing to do despite the foreknowledge that it will be unpopular is intrinsically one of integrity (or, at the very least, of honesty and self-consistency; this may or may not match your definition of integrity). — Coren ^(talk) 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, as someone who is normally a big fan, I'm disappointed. Some of your remarks there seem to be both unfair and – I would have thought – beneath you. The links you offer in support of the claim that WMC took 'questionable' actions as an administrator don't seem to suggest any such thing. Two are blocks: one sock, indeffed; one IP, 48 hours for trolling. Two links are to page protection logs: one for global warning, which is a magnet for vandalism and trolls, and where WMC used mostly semiprotection over the last three years to limit the damage to a dull roar; and one for global cooling, where he applied semiprotection on a two occasions to discourage recurring socks. Those are all real stretches. I do agree that he mooned the jury by blocking Abd during the case, but everyone knows that Abd was deliberately trolling here. WMC's crime was rising to the bait dangled by a user who is now under a three-month ban. (I do wonder if WMC would have been able to find an 'uninvolved' admin to block Abd here — Abd had named every editor who criticized him as members of a 'cabal' in his evidence. The few remaining admins who frequent AN/I would probably be too frightened to block someone who was participating in an ArbCom case. And the Arbs themselves hadn't made any edits or paid any apparent attention to the case for several days at that point.)

With regard to criticism of arbitrators, the sit-down-and-shut-up-unless-you're-willing-to-run-yourself response may be superficially satisfying, but doesn't really work. Try Don't criticize the President unless you're willing to make a run for the White House and you'll see the problem. The fact that the community expressed a preference for these candidates over others should not shield them from criticism, either. We have no opportunity to see how candidates will perform as Arbitrators before we actually put them in the hot seat. We make our best educated guesses based on their work in other areas, but once they're in there's no trial period, no probation, no recall. The priorities, commitments, and judgement of sitting arbitrators may shift over their tenure. In many cases, the three-year term of an Arbitrator is as long as – or longer than – their entire previous Wikipedia history. Neither the selected individuals nor the expectations of the community that they serve will remain static over that period of time. We hope that both will tend towards greater wisdom, but there is no guarantee.

Moreover, the Abd/WMC case served admirably (and unfortunately) to highlight a number of serious defects and deficits in the arbitration process, defects which the sitting arbitrators seemed content to gloss over or ignore. There were questions raised about the appropriateness of last-minute additions to arbitration panels (arbs 'activating' themselves hours before case closure to vote on proposals and change case outcomes). There were issues surrounding communication (messages lost by or undelivered to the committee, utter silence from all arbs for days at a time, lack of feedback on evidence and proposed remedies). There were problems related to enforcement of decorum on participants in the process (the case pages were used for long, conspiracy-mongering screeds which the clerks and arbitrators saw no need to curtail or contain, limited and conflicting guidance was offered regarding the size and nature of permitted evidence submissions). There were serious concerns about the way that committee resolves contradictory remedies in their decision (arbs who were willing to 'game' their votes enjoyed more control over the outcome). Yes, a lot of the immediate outcry here is the result of this single case, but the Abd/WMC decision represents two months of work by the Committee. If sixty days of substandard, shoddy work isn't sufficient basis for criticism, what would be? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. In what wiki-universe does making 1025 article edits not count as "involved" for purposes of applying protection.
2. In what wiki-universe does making 213 article edits not count as "involved" for determining whether or not to block someone.
3. In what wiki-universe does making 228 article edits not make you involved for purposes of applying protection?
4. Lauof_Pinch (talk · contribs) is indeed a sockpuppet of Scibaby, but he was not checkusered until 31 hours after his block by WMC. The five pages edited by Lauof have a combined total of 1753 edits by WMC, and that only counts the 1377 edits to Talk:Global warming and not the additional 1025 edits to the article itself. Isn't that a teensy bit "involved"?

If the argument re:Global warming is "the ends justify the means" then I just don't buy it.

Regarding arb criticism, anyone can criticize. Thoughtful criticism is probably more useful than shouting epithets, though. Thatcher 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is how many people define the term "involved." WP clings to the odd usage that if you wait long enough after editing content, if your views are well known but you haven't edited the content, if your edits are only stylistic/copyediting of the content, if you only create policies directed at the article and do not edit the article, or if you are only adding sources/images to existing content, it is permissible to take admin actions. I have even seen some admins claim to be "involved" in one section of an article and "uninvolved" in another section of it or that they are "involved" with respect to a reference they added or image they uploaded, but "uninvolved" with respect to the paragraph the reference or image is used in. A more solid definition of "involved", possibly along the lines of "if you edit the article or your views are known, you are forever involved with it" might be a less gameable definition. MBisanz ^talk 16:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if T might stop the mudslinging? [16] [17] aren't questionnable - or at least, if anyone ever felt the need to question them they didn't tell me William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They were listed in Ikip's evidence for this case, although the block of 75.40.129.51 had previously come to my attention. When an IP comes along and makes 3 edits to IPCC challenging whether it is a scientific or political panel, don't you think the fact that you have made 213 edits to that article might slightly impact your judgement as to whether the IP is a troll or someone with a legitimate content dispute? And Mudslinging? Thatcher 16:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are impossible quantities of evidence in this case. Are you seriously expecting me to have read it all? To have responded to it all? As to the ip: yes indeed: when an anon comes along and makes the std POV-pushing vandalism, they should be blocked; if you can't recognise the edits there as the std stuff, you're just proving how we do need admins who know the articles William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens, "no one ever questioned these actions" is not quite the same as "there was too much evidence for me to read it all"; not my fault. And your argument is just a restatement of the ends justify the means. I'm still not buying it. Thatcher 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"there was too much evidence for me to read it all"; not my fault - quite right, it isn't. The fault lies with arbcomm for failing to contain the case. As has been said over and over again - you must have noticed. Alas I'm afraid I can only speak from my own knowledge; you're right, I need to modify my statement to: if these are indeed considered to be questionnable acts that impacted the judgement I was never given a meaningful chance to reply William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Forget about whether it was evidence or not, and maybe just try actually answering what Thatcher asked? Over 1000 edits to an article and you're not involved? Beggars belief. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this belies the fact that, if the decision to desysop WMC was so inappropriate, he could merely reapply via RFA and be a sysop in the next week. If the popular outrage over the decision is so tangible, then there will be overwhelming support to give him the tools back via the normal channels. That's why the ArbCom put that stipulation in there. What they are saying is that "Under the opinion of a simple majority of a dozen of us, he screwed up bad enough to remove his sysop tools. But we are perfectly willing to concede that we are wrong on this, so the community is free to express their opinion and overturn us by supporting a new RFA". General complaints like "Because of this one single instance I disagree with, every ArbCom member can be called names and have their integrity questioned." Integrity isn't "doing exactly what I expect them to do". ArbCom is here to make hard decisions independent of popular sentiment. That we disagree with them on the outcome of this case is fine. Merely because I disagree with someone does not mean I feel they are unfit for their job. It's perfectly OK to disagree and still not attack someone's character. So if ArbCom is wrong, prove it. WMC can start a new RFA, and the 100% support he recieves in that RFA will put egg on the ArbCom's face. That'll show them! But calling ArbCom members names and impugning their character with words like "corruption" and "lack of integrity" and demanding that they all be fired, en masse, for making one unpopular decision does nothing to make ArbCom look bad. It only makes the people that make those statements look foolish and unreasonable. --Jayron32 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it would be awesome if WMC ran again. The sooner the better, in fact. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this completely misses the point of how wikipolitics work. Once someone has been an even minimally active admin on controversial topics passing a new RfA is essentially impossible since it takes so few oppose votes to derail an RfA. The ability for WMC to regain his adminship through a standard process is thus close to meaningless. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the formally banned user who became a well respected admin and the recent resysopped desysopped by arbcom admin, of course.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Close to meaningless is not the same claim as that it doesn't ever occur. Also, you'll note that I said absolutely nothing about banned users (and in the case I think you are referring to there were some interesting complicating factors that would probably not be productive to discuss on wiki). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless is a strong word - and both of my examples were people steeped in controversy of one sort of another. I personally have no doubt that WMC has a lot of noisy enemies who will wait for their next opportunity to strike again - likewise, I'm sure he has friends who will defend him. Whats left is those of us inbetween. It may be more difficult compared to the "typical" candidate, but really, its not that difficult. I am of the opinion that it is incredibly doable at some point in the future - that point not being right now. In a month, most people won't care, in two, most won't remember. With enough time, WMC, like anyone else, can build a suitable reputation. --Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But that wasn't the claim being made. The claim being made was that if the ArbCom was wrong an immediate communal override would be possible. That's not the same thing as claiming that he might be able to run again in 2 months after he establishes a reputation. That's of course aside from the myriad other problems that could arise. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what ArbCom's intent was ( and the ability o glean intent from a body like that is a separate discussion) but I think the mechanism is valid. If ArbCom's judgment was critically flawed and out of step with the whole of the community, then the community could and would easily override it. Right now however, a large group enough is convinced that WMC did screw up and ArbCom didn't, very few people are convinced of the opposite, and an even larger group is uncaring. Whatever errors ArbCom did or did not make, it is empirically proven that they were not so great and so obvious that no reasonable observer could disagree, nor were they so grand that it brought community wide attention. That isn't a misunderstanding of wikipolitics - that is a proper execution of the same.--Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we bring this to a close? Arbcom isn't going to change anything so it's pointless. And as a tactical matter, people without a stake in the immediate issue eventually get tired of hearing about something even if you're right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, see ya. Thatcher 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To Thatcher, and Jayron, and Coren; I have a job. My job pays me well. Wikipedia is my hobby. Wikipedia pays me nothing. I am not selfish for dismissing the pursuit of a seat on ArbCom. How is this statement proven? Simple; I am an administrator here. For all the single people in the crowd, go to a bar, find the person you think is most attractive, and then engage them in a conversation about your status on Wikipedia. You'll find yourself going home only with your hand. Please understand that I do not support admins running willy nilly around the project beating people over the head. Likewise, I don't have the time to produce the volume of admin actions that protect the project. Whether we are talking about a Majorly, a Fut. Perf., or a WMC, the actions of ArbCom are cutting off our hands to spite our face.

Why? Simple: Wikipedia, like an encyclopedia, is not a democracy. Admins, dealing emotionally with obvious trolls are nothing more than admins dealing with a troll. Certainly, decorum is a preference, but content comes before decorum. The fact that anyone is upset with me for citing ArbCom is corrupt, rather than explaing how they are not, demonstrates that most people think the majority of ArbCom IS corrupt. That is my opinion, which is based on observation of a number of decisions over the years which genuinely cut off our hand to spite our face. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"The fact that anyone is upset with me for citing ArbCom is corrupt, rather than explaing how they are not, demonstrates that most people think the majority of ArbCom IS corrupt." Guilty until proven innocent? —Dark 07:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has refuted your arguments about ArbCom corruption because you have not made any; a simple assertion that a decision was wrong, and therefore ArbCom is corrupt, does not provide much to refute. You say they are corrupt, others say they are not, and your "arguments" are of equal value - none. Nathan ^T 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is very simple you see. The phrase "ArbCom is corrupt" is shorthand for "ArbCom makes decisions that I personally disagree with." This is very common Wikipedia language. Similar remarls apply to phrases such as "Jimbo is corrupt" and "Admin _ is corrupt." JoshuaZ (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the pay scale for arbitrators? It's the same as that for admins, only with more crap to go with it. ArbCom is not corrupt, ArbCom is a small group of people trying to manage problems which we, the community and the admin community, can't handle ourselves. These are necessarily the hard cases. They try to do it in a way which does not move away from the original ethos of the project. I doubt most people could manage this. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

When a person says of someone else "that person is corrupt", the implication is that they are deliberately and seriously misusing their role or access. It's a heavy duty accusation to throw at someone.

Corrupt doesn't simply mean "they aren't doing their job". If you want to say "they aren't doing their job" then there are other words for it - and when you use them, be careful whether you are saying the group as a whole is failing in its job, or that certain people are incompetent - there's a big difference.

Overall the best advice is in older versions of WP:NPOV: state the evidence and concern, don't throw around labels.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so much worried that anyone agrees with me on this, but I am worried that when I lay out my logic (or perhaps lack there of), it is acceptable for Tznkai to remove it, as he did here. Granted, my original arguments were way to generalized, but this comment that was removed was a pretty honest assessment that as an organization, those of us who make up the core content contributors, as well as those of us who fill out the ranks of admin, ArbCom, etc., represent a small portion of the community. As an admin, I'm laying that on myself as much as anyone else. Based on his comments on my talk page, it appears Tznkai removed my comment because I referenced Glen Beck as a source of controversy, and cited the Catholic Church as insular. Well... Beck is controversial, and the Catholic Church is insular. That is not a controversial statement, nor would it be controversial to explain why Beck is controversial, or why the Catholic Church is insular. Equally, it is not inflamatory to point out that admins and anti-vandalism editors spend a lot of time keeping the peace (or picking up the pieces) around articles that concern the likes of a Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh.

As far as the group think part of my statement is concerned, we few Wikipedia insiders routinely fall into the trap of insular thinking. As a Catholic, I found my comparison of an often hierarchical, proportionally small component of an organization making decisions for the greater good of a community without any true proportional representation from the community to be apt. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it certainly is not a dictatorship, but we do often tend to be a bit of a walled garden. Just look at RfA. There is no consensus for what qualifies someone to be an admin, other than votes, and votes do not need to be substantiated. Anyone in their right mind who wants to be an admin can spend a couple of weeks following RfA patterns to get a sense of which RfA's they should support or oppose in order to garner support votes from the regulars. We've all done it, and that adaptation is an example of group think. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed your comment because making/repeating broad criticisms about particular controversial pundits or religious bodies tends to lower the quality of discussion, rather than raise it. I have no particular problem with the rest, as my edit summary should have implied. I'll try to get back on topic for the rest of this discussion.

I think several people have, with great purpose, pointed out that corruption implies something more than mere incompetence, and is a serious charge. I'm not, and have not, and with any luck will never be an Arbitrator myself, but I know on sheer volume of issues on Func-L, Oversight-l, Checkuser-l alone, there is a small legion of e-mails that the Arbs need to be at the minimum, keeping an eye on, as those are potential cases in a moment. Add that to case load, potentially explosive AN and ANI messages, thats a lot of crap to deal with at once, and thats just what I can see. I have been told that the volume on Arbcom-l is truly ridiculous.

Furthermore, and this is the important bit, what feedback does ArbCom get? It gets a lot of heated criticism or lauding after the case has been decided, usually by editors clearly invested one way or the other. Each decision is examined in microscope, with really inflated rhetoric. In my experience, most of the criticism comes from editors who had every opportunity to speak up during the case itself, and didn't - and if they did, they usually weren't particularly helpful. One of the basic skill sets expected on Wikipedia is the ability to write neutrally and fairly - skills rarely applied in formal dispute resolution.

So, we get what we deserve.--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom routinely bans or otherwise unjustly punishes hard-working volunteers, excuses the serious misconduct of particularly influential users, and conducts all its decision-making in secret. Its fortunate that we human beings have so much experience in dealing with that kind of thing, because it has caused us to generously equip our languages with adjectives to describe it. One such word is "corrupt". It won't do to just say "incompetent"—the ArbCom knowingly makes unjust decisions, and does so without exposing its deliberations to the light of day. Call it what it is. Everyking (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support ArbCom doesn't function in a bubble, and the fact that they are consistently making the same bad judgements on fundamentally similar cases, and that these poor decisions undermine the project in the long term, then I view that as corrupt because it is ultimately corrupting the encyclopedia. Corrupt is not the most horrible description anyone has lobbed at ArbCom. It isn't even the worst thing I've said about them, and I never received any feedback on colorful language in the past. Many words have various definitions, and I apologize if anyone thought that I was saying that ArbCom functions like an unaccountable and secretive body that is unresponsive to its constituency, and is not willing to make or receive honest assessments of their actions. I participated in a far more reasonable manner on ArbCom talk pages before realizing they were making high impact decisions in areas where they were ill-informed and not thinking broadly. This is different than my simply disagreeing with decisions. I am disagreeing with ArbCom consistently failing to see the bigger picture when chosing the correct decision, as they apply simple remedies to complex and nunced problems. Many of our chronic issues in content areas would not be chronic if we simply dealt with them (i.e. no nationalism, racism, hatred, or fictional representations of facts; this is really only a goal, not a rule). Hiberniantears (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Corrupt" implies doing it deliberately EK. Wow this section is long. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If Tznkai hadn't removed that edit, I imagine someone else would have. Not for the reference to the Catholic Church, or for calling someone "controversial" - since that isn't what Hiberniantears said, but his follow up doesn't make that clear, I'll note that describing a living person as "ignorant, hateful, and gleefuly narrow minded" clearly violates the BLP policy. I'm surprised any administrator would write something like that, and it's particularly surprising that after having time to think about it Hibernianteras would actually object to it being removed. Nathan ^T 03:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Nathan... If there are any admins on the Wiki who think Beck is objective, then they should lose the mop. The same goes for anyone who thinks Michael Moore is not a parody of intellect. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting as this is, this is not the right place to have this discussion. Either bring it back on topic (i.e. directly related to an announcement made on the arbitration committee noticeboard), or take it to another talk pages or your talk pages. General discussions about the arbitration committee should go to WT:ARBCOM. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

Awkward wording on "Zero-socks for 12 months." Suggest tightening that up for future announcements, and perhaps considering standard and wikilawyer-resistant unban language. Nathan ^T 03:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Wording suggested here will likely be used in future announcements. I should note here that the zero-socks condition doesn't imply that socks after 12 months will be allowed (though presumably legitimate alternate accounts will be), but the implication is that, if RMHED socks, the ban is instantly reinstated. I think that is what was intended. On more general matters, BASC are working through a backlog at the moment, so more announcements may be made over the next week or so (in case anyone who appealed is reading this). Failing an unban, people should hear back from BASC soon. At some point, there may be a discussion on how successful BASC has been at taking some of the workload off ArbCom as a whole, and other ways of approaching such appeals. There are some discussions elsewhere on-wiki about this, but I don't have a link handy right now. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that wording is not used again. What is a "zero-sock"? It's not English. What's wrong with "No using sockpuppets" or even "No sockpuppets"? Zero-socks sounds ridiculous. Majorly talk 12:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say "Checkusers will, for the first 12 months, verify on a regular basis that no sockpuppet accounts are used." or "The unbanned account will be monitored by checkusers regularly for the first 12 months to ensure no violations of the sockpuppet policy occur." And since 1RR is likely to be standard language as well, I'd go with "The unbanned account is restricted to one reversion per page in any 24 hour period, except in cases of clear vandalism or violations of the BLP policy." Nathan ^T 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a really useful suggestion. Will try and make sure it filters back to those on BASC, and is stored somewhere for use as a standard text. One of the reasons for the inconsistent wording being used is that BASC membership changes, with (usually) one arb position being rotated every month. Ideally, the arbs whose job it is that month to review the appeals would use standard wording, but that doesn't always happen. I'll say more about this in reply to comments further down this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point: RMHED was banned by the community, if I recall correctly. So why are three people deciding to overrule their decision? Majorly talk 12:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I did recall correctly: [18]. So why are Arbcom overriding consensus? This should have been brought back to the community, for them to decide, as they were the ones to enact the ban. Why has this not happened? Majorly talk 13:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing a discussion somewhere about this or is this all there is? Garion96 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Those three people are a subset of the fourteen elected by the community whose job include handling such appeals. — Coren ^(talk) 13:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Been a long time I read arb pages. What happened to on-wiki discussion? Garion96 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom are the ones to be contacted, yes. Arbcom should not however, take action on behalf of everyone else, and take matters into their own hands. They should have proposed the unban to the community, because they were the ones to place the ban. It's just completely and utterly disrespectful to do this. Majorly talk 13:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No. An appeal is exactly this: a request to some entity to review a decision made by another. ArbCom is in a good position to allow a community banned editor to return under strict conditions, and has the authority to revoke that return swiftly should the conditions not be followed without devolving into the kind of drama-raising circular disputes such discussions unfailingly generate (and thereby confirming and strengthening the community ban into an ArbCom ban).

This has worked well in the past, and I've yet to read a cogent argument that it's not a reasonable way to both avoid mob rule and give more difficult editors a fair opportunity to return. An argument could be made that those objectives are no longer relevant, but this is not the place to do so and would require much wider participation than can be found in the half dozen regular contributors to this talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring the community again then. I for one believe RMHED should remain banned, and I haven't even been given the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter. I expect many others do too, but who cares? Arbcom knows what is best.

You'll note (or perhaps you don't) that the community ban discussion was fairly swift and went through with little in the way of drama or anything like that. This is a community and you are completely disregarding their opinions and their efforts. We do not want difficult editors here. Thanks a lot for ignoring us again. Majorly talk 13:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. You are not "the community". The community is several tens of thousands of editors that, for the vast majority does not give a damn. We are not ignoring "the community", we are trying to uphold "everybody can edit" as best as possible. — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. [This, like it or not, represents a community ban. You've just rudely brushed those editors' opinions aside (note I did not participate). Why do you think it's acceptable to ignore the community and push your own opinion on the matter ahead of everyone elses? There are 17 people supporting the ban there, and none opposing. Now they've been overruled at a whim by 3. It's just so rude and disrespectful, and I am furious they were completely ignored. Majorly talk 13:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I recused from this decision. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, see Wikipedia:ARB#Subcommittees for roles - i.e. does not specify banned/blocked by whom. Majorly consider this - as with other unblocked/unbanned editors, he will sink or swim. Alot of eyes will be upon him and I am sure any infraction will not go unnoticed. It has been six months and he appealed as appropriate, and we have determined some conditions for his return as spelt out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What I don't like about this was that, besides stating these three conditions, everything was done off-wiki. What's so bad about doing it on wiki? Garion96 (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sensitive information" probably. They don't like the rabble to know what they get up to. This time it's undoing a ban of an editor clearly endorsed as banned by the community. Majorly talk 14:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point Garion96, flipping between private and public pages, I do sometimes forget which are visible and which are not. The BASC pages are on arbwiki currently and I (personally) can see a case for moving them here. I will raise this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Majorly here. RMHED was banned via community discussion. Any unban should have included community input--not just the subset of the community that is ArbCom. If I recall correctly, this is not the first time ArbCom has done this; I believe Guido den Broeder was unbanned in similar circumstances. Bad call here, ArbCom. → ROUX ₪ 14:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Several points. (1) Majorly said: "I for one believe RMHED should remain banned". The fact that Majorly is prepared to say this without even listening to what RMHED or others have to say is a large part of why community unban discussions don't work. The most vociferous, with pre-formed opinions, leap in and take over the discussion (Majorly has posted seven times in this thread already). (2) It was not 3 people agreeing to an unban. No objections were raised by other arbitrators, and three people agreed to mentor RMHED. That makes 17 people right there. I suspect you would find others supporting an unban as well, given the conditions imposed, and the six-month absence. (3) Community input before the unban takes place is good, but there needs to be a way to do this without the discussion degenerating and showing the worst and most unforgiving aspects of the Wikipedia community. There are some things that community discussions are very poor at handling, and unban discussions are one of them. Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"The fact that Majorly is prepared to say this without even listening to what RMHED or others have to say is a large part of why community unban discussions don't work". How is this different to not bothering to listen to the community? Or even asking them? "The most vociferous, with pre-formed opinions, leap in and take over the discussion (Majorly has posted seven times in this thread already)". This is not an unban discussion, so what's your point? I'm sick and tired of your shenanigans, so I'm obviously going to not be happy when you yet again fail to involve the community in your discussions behind closed doors. "It was not 3 people agreeing to an unban. No objections were raised by other arbitrators, and three people agreed to mentor RMHED. That makes 17 people right there." I'm not interested in what the arbitrators think. RMHED was banned by the community. It's not up to arbcom to give their personal opinion on the matter, because frankly, arbcom are out of touch in this area. Where was the offer of input from the people who should be the only ones giving input? There was none. "I suspect you would find others supporting an unban as well, given the conditions imposed, and the six-month absence." Oh, do you? I suspect you'll find many opposing this unban. Where's your proof? "Community input before the unban takes place is good, but there needs to be a way to do this without the discussion degenerating and showing the worst and most unforgiving aspects of the Wikipedia community." Please read the original ban discussion, and show me anything problematic with it. "There are some things that community discussions are very poor at handling, and unban discussions are one of them." Completely disagree. In fact, the community is good at handling unbans, when arbcom bothers to involve them. It's arbcom who are poor at handling unbans because they a) Don't know the history and b) are out of touch with the community. Majorly talk 16:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I don't want to get into an argument with you. I'll just point out that some in this thread don't agree with you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom has always been able to overturn community unbans, it derives from the any disputes premise of the committee. Likewise, the community can, and has, been able to do pretty much whatever it wants if it gathers proper consensus. ArbCom's make up has a lot to do with consensus as well. No procedural or fundamental issue is actually at stake here. Criticizing the action at hand is something else, albeit somewhat useless. I can only return to my oft its a website - unbanning someone is an exercise in compassion and cautious optimism, and last I checked there was no accusation that RMHED actually did something horrible like out someone, harass them in real life, or similarly weighty problems..--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly RMHED was a long term good contributor who specialized in difficult BLPs - He was banned after something set him off and he started using socks for blatant pointy vandalism. I hope he's feeling better and will return to being a good contributor. --Versageek 15:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, could arbcom get in the habit of using more explicit language for its announcements? It took a while to figure out "BASC trial" referred to a test ("trial") of the new Ban Appeals Sub-Committee ("BASC") process. I thought it might have referred to some sort of formal tribunal ("trial") and had no idea what "BASC" meant. There have been other announcements that left me perplexed too. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have noted this habit and complained over this in the past, and I think other users too. It seems we should now what is meant by I/P, AUSC, BASC, func-l, etc, to be able to understand those announcements, as well as know all mentioned users (links are not always given). It seems to be general as far as ArbCom is concerned, as I made for example a complaint here that the CU/OS election presentation was completely meaningless for any users not versed in wikipolitics, it was assumed that every user knows what is ArbCom, CU, OS, etc, and no explanation or even link is necessary (for a page that would be added to the watchlist notice !). Cenarium (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Did no-one notice me making this edit, which was before the comments above? I personally do always try and avoid jargon and try and expand abbreviations and use the full terms, in arbitration cases as well as announcements. In talk page threads, I might slip back into jargon, though I try to avoid it, or at least use the full terms in the first instance. SBHB, you seem confused about the ban appeals subcommittee. It is not a trial (where was that wording used?) and has been going since April 2009. Current stats (part-published in the half-year report published on-wiki in August) are: 55 appeals dealt with, of which about 13 appeals were successful. Currently some 12 being processed. It is possible this is too high a workload, and something that is likely to be reviewed before the end of the year, but many appeals are trivially easy to decline. Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the ban appeals subcommittee was a trial -- in fact I said I had no idea that's what "BASC" meant (or even what it meant at all). I would appreciate your not imputing things to me that I have not said. And yes, I saw the edit but did not immediately make the association between the ban appeals subcommittee and "BASC" as the two did not appear side-by-side (the former was on the main ACN page and the latter was on the Talk page). Eventually I realized the connection. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote what you said then: "It took a while to figure out "BASC trial" referred to a test ("trial") of the new Ban Appeals Sub-Committee ("BASC") process." I read that as you thinking that this unban was a test of the BASC process, which I interpreted as you thinking that BASC was new. I remember thinking at the time that you can't really have meant that, and should have asked you first what you meant. Sorry about that. I'm still confused as to where this word "trial" appeared. Ah! I think I see what you are talking about now. You are talking about the language used in the announcement of the unblock of User:Life? In that context, "trial" would be a probationary period. I see what you mean. The language does need work to ensure standard terms are used. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Update: Just realised that by "BASC trial", SBHB was referring to the unban notice placed on RMHED's user page and talk page. I didn't think to look there, but at least the source of this confusion has been cleared up now. I agree. The wording there should have been more explicit. Carcharoth (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Committee does have the right to review community bans. Always has, always will. That said, I think it was a step in precisely the wrong direction that ArbCom created a subcommittee, reducing the sets of eyes that see an appeal from fourteen to three. Fourteen wasn't enough; the Committee would be much better off notifying the community and soliciting input before reaching a decision. Every banned sockpuppeteer who files an appeal is going to claim they've stopped socking. When more editors are aware of the appeal there's a much better chance of distinguishing lies and ongoing problems from meritorious appeals. Durova³²⁰ 18:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the options discussed was to have three admins and three arbs forming a panel of six, and for more community input. That, coupled with Cenarium's proposals (Cenarium can point people towards those), is the direction I see BASC going in. This will all be reviewed with the community at some point. It's just a question of getting the data together to have a meaningful discussion. As I've said before, one of the best ways for the community to influence the committee's agenda is to actively comment on it and make suggestions as to what we should be prioritising. It's the section right up at the top of this page that no-one ever edits. If the community showed more of an interest in helping to set a global agenda over a whole year, rather than just reacting to announcements like this, it would really help things move forward more smoothly. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were clear what the rule regarding sockpuppets is. Some pointy sockpuppets appear to be allowed, and others not. The reasons are not particularly clear to someone like me. —mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, please step away from this discussion. Bringing in other examples of socking won't help here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the good advice regarding taking a proactive rather than reactive stance. Clearly the future of the project is related to the effectiveness of the dispute resolution mechanisms. It is completely understandable that some editors would wish to focus mainly on content. Nonetheless, it is good for us (the non-arbitrators) to be aware of ArbCom policies. Being aware and commenting on the policy before a situation happens will prevent surprises and the drama they create. The arbitrators really do, in my opinion, attempt to solicit outside comment on their procedures. Unfortunately it is all too easy for the general community to wait for a widely publicized incident to develop before giving meaningful input. —Matheuler 05:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention. Some unbans are only done after a full vote of the arbitration committee (e.g. Betacommand and Thekohser). Possibly this should have happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue of announcing a ban appeal so that interested users can comment was discussed extensively in July following the unbanning of Thekohser. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Provisional suspension of community ban: Thekohser and Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 3#Appeals of community bans. The current banning policy requires that affected editors be informed of a ban appeal. "When reviewing bans, any editor (such as a prior victim of harassment) who may be affected should be informed, so that he or she can participate in the ban review."   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I was away for two periods in June, and that latter discussion is one of the ones I never got round to reading. Who are the affected editors who should have been notified here? Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any particular interest in this case, but the BASC should have a procedure to make sure that such individuals are notified. Making a public announcement would be one way. Another would be asking the banned individual if their ban was related to behavior towards any other person.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... at least those editors listed here. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the assumption that someone who supported a ban is an "affected editor"? Surely if ban discussions are held properly, those editors subjected to harassment (to use the example given) should not be indicating support or opposition in the ban discussion (they should be presenting evidence instead)? Ban discussions should be for uninvolved editors to give their opinion on whether a ban is needed. Victims give evidence. They don't sit on the jury deciding what to do with the accused. In other words, the victims of a banned user should be notified, but those deciding consensus in the ban discussion are merely part of the jury. They don't need to be notified when there is an appeal. OK, the analogy starts to break down, I'll admit. But some of the comparisons are valid. Those participating in a ban discussion should not be so emotionally invested that they need to follow every step of the subsequent process. If they do, they are too involved. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Participate in the ban review" is left undefined. But I would think the minimum would be an opportunity to make a statement and submit evidence.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That analogy is far too over simplified. Wikipedia editors are not victimized in a criminal sense. Editors up for a ban are not actually criminals. Editors who voted on the ban are affected because their joint decision was overturned without any conversation. Assuming that ArbCom is not ignorant to the point that you are unfamiliar with RMHED or the established, respected editors who voted on the ban, I can't understand how quietly over turning a unanymous decision does not affect the people who made that decision. Most of those voters voted because they were the ones with the experience dealing with RMHED. They are not on a jury. Instead, they are charged with transparently monitoring the encyclopedia to ensure that disruptive editors are not allowed to persist. If a decision is made that is bad, then ArbCom should absolutely take action. However, alerting the community that this action is being taken allows informed individuals to provide timely feedback that would allow ArbCom to make a clearly more informed decision. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Hiberniantears' view. Anyone who "votes" on a banning should be uninvolved. However it's likely that whoever brings the banning request has a strong interest and may have felt victimized by the editor. It seems like a simple solution would be to announce which bans have been appealed, or at least those that are being considered for unbanning, so that interested editors can send mail to the BASC. That was done for the appeal of Betacommand.   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't disagree with my view. You disagree with the reality. Your position is that voters should be uninvolved. Your position is a good idea, but in reality, it isn't the case. I guarantee nearly all of the voters we involved. You could argue this justifies ArbCom's secret lifting of the ban, but two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the entire process is wrong.Hiberniantears (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Secret? That is a new one. How is it that I've heard of this secret unbanning?--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So much for letting bygones be bygones. Thanks for the disdain Tznkai. You heard about it when I did. Thus, it was a secret process, followed by a public announcement on a message board where we are not allowed to debate the results, or get a detailed explanation of what went into the decision making process. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors here may be using hyperbole, which wouldn't be helpful. I think Hiberniantears meant that the appeal was secret. As far as consistency goes, it's worth pointing out that when an admin is considering lifting the block he or she is supposed to consult with the blocking admin. I don't see why a decision about the lifting of a ban shouldn't include those who were involved in placing the ban, such as giving evidence or background. In some cases there has been additional evidence which was lweft out of a ban proposal because it wasn't needed or for privacy, or which was uncovered after the ban but wasn't posted because the case was closed. Handling appeals with input only from the banned user doesn't seem like the ideal practice.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment was not meant to be mean spirited: I merely wished to point out that calling it secret is substantially more inaccurate than accurate, and that careless rhetoric is a problem.--Tznkai (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we all avoid emotional language. Let's stay calm.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for being obtuse, but what language was emotional?--Tznkai (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily addressing you. I'm just making a general plea to keep the drama to a minimum. 01:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said Will. That was my point exactly. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

←Hiberniantears, can I correct you on this point? "we are not allowed to debate the results, or get a detailed explanation of what went into the decision making process". This is incorrect. A debate is taking place right here. ArbCom is aware of this thread. Arbitrators are reading it. Lessons learned from the reaction here will almost certainly lead to changes. But ArbCom is not a monolithic body. Because it is made up of 14 people (who sometimes disagree), it takes time for change to happen. (I'm couching my reply in non-committal terms precisely because I, as an individual, can't speak for the Committee as a whole). I know people have said that the objections raised before at other unbans were not listened to, but I've now pointed out the discussion that took place in June at WT:BAN (the banning policy talk page), and I think it is possible that a combination of a dip in BASC activity (and a rise in appeals), coupled with the other events that have happened since June, led to that discussion being forgotten or overlooked in subsequent appeal discussions. I can't say for sure though, as I wasn't following that earlier discussion, and I'm not currently on the ban appeals subcommittee (one of the points of which was to delegate stuff so other arbs had time freed up to do other things).

There is nothing secret about the appeals process either. I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has about it, and the process can be documented somewhere in more detail, if that will help increase transparency. The basic process is that appeals received at the arbitration mailing list are acknowledged, and either summarily rejected if the matter is clear (there are some standard responses designed for that purpose) or passed to the ban appeals subcommittee. Usually, a standard form is sent out, putting the onus on the appellant to provide the information needed. This form states that we may contact anyone else needed to get further background information, including the blocking admin, checkusers and others. There is also a question asking whether the appellant would like the appeal heard in private, or held in a public forum. What could be added there is a note that community ban appeals can be heard and decided in private, but that there will be a public notification period.

What is unlikely to happen is letting ban appeals just be a re-run of the original ban discussion (though banned users always have the option of asking on their talk page for a community unban discussion to be started, or ask by e-mail for such a request to be posted on their behalf). One of the points of a ban appeals committee is to see if there are possibilities of handling things differently, or if things have changed, or whether some issues were not considered at the time. It is worth emphasising again that the majority of appeals are rejected, or deferred until more time has passed, or until credible assurances are provided by the appellant. One thing that might help increase scrutiny is to publish details of all the appeals and the decisions, but there are sometimes some privacy issues involved.

As I said, if anyone has any questions, they are more than welcome to ask. Maybe a good starting point is a summary (at WT:BAN) of the WT:BAN discussion from June? Or picking up over there the point Will made above, that "Participate in the ban review" is left undefined. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing secret about the appeals process either. - no. There is a good deal that is secret. There was no announcement that the appeal was starting. None of the evidence and arguments used at the appeal was made public. No justification has been offered for why secrecy was necessary. the majority of appeals are rejected - but the existence of failed appeals remains secret. There is a *lot* that is secret about the appeals process William M. Connolley (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors who support this unban of RMHED

Based on a number of comments in this thread, it seems rather clear that ArbCom doesn't think this is a controversial decision, or that this process would have benefited from some greater transparency, or advance warning. It is also rather surprising that when respected and experienced editors express an opinion that this is a bad decision, ArbCom members are actually shouting them down dismissively. So let's get an idea of what the community thinks. Many ArbCom members have expressed frustration that people complain after the fact, or simply express disagreement with ArbCom. I'm not holding this poll to overturn the decision. I'm holding it to quantify opinion for feedback. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "this is pointless" and "most people do not care". Not to mention that some might disagree with your summary of the situation.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually want a real feel for opinion on this. Up or down, without comment in the section below. Thusly, I struck part of my description, though Majorly does appear to be summarily dismissed right from the start. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to participate in an up-down vote, but for the record; I'd support this unblock only on the condition that any regression by RHMED into disruptive editing be met with his being immediately re-shown the door. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely what we had in mind. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai gets my feelings pretty much dead on. I don't have a problem w/ arbcom unbanning people for three reasons: 1. Unbanning is cheap, if the person messes up again, they are gone. 2. You have to be able to email someone, if you are community banned, who do you email? Who do you contact to contest it? 3. It isn't worth the trouble to set up a 'shadow arbcom' for "community stuff". I specifically don't subscribe to Cla68's interpretation below. Self selection has not invalidated consensus on wikipedia, ever. All in all, its kind of a non-issue. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Congrats kids.--Tznkai (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What happy timing. Apparently recent cases have been so well run that all must have prizes William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think the clerks on "recent cases" have done an admirable job given difficult situations. I certainly hope you are not implying that clerks are somehow to blame for results you disagree with. ATren (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Whilst most of the blame must lie with arbcomm, certainly the one we're all thinking of was not handled "admirably" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not blame the clerks for your misbehaviour. --bainer (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, if you think the case pages were a disaster area primarily because of WMC then I can only infer you were asleep during the case. Hint: WMC wasn't make allegations about a cabal involving a group of other editors... WMC didn't present evidence in several dozen volumes... And, all those appeals from other editors for controlling the case pages, removing accusations and slurs, etc, didn't go unaddressed by WMC...

It is true that the Clerks don't deserve all of the criticism for the conduct of the case and control of the case pages... much criticism properly belongs with those who failed to offer leadership in dealing with the problems as they arose. When you are trying to identify who I mean, if you are struggling, I suggest trying a mirror. EdChem (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that; Mr Connolley is just the most recent to have tried to shift the blame onto the clerks instead of accepting responsibility for their contribution. --bainer (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that Hersfold had an "educative experience" while clerking the Abd-WMC case. As a new clerk that never carried a case by himself he did it as well as he could. And I think that he did it quite well given the complications in the case. We should be grateful that he didn't burn out.

Also, carrying personal grudges from old cases into discussions about other persons is Not Good, and these guys don't deserve that sort of crap, so please cut it out and go fight at your talk pages or something. WMC and bainer, that means you. Hush. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. Also, I think I've said before: the blame lies primarily with arbcomm, not the clerks (oh look, I said it just above; I wonder how TB missed it; selective blindness I think). But to write that the clerks worked tirelessly in this case, or that they did well, is to lose track of reality William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the clerks deserve appreciation and commendation for their tireless efforts on behalf of the community and its elected arbitrators. —Matheuler 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I second. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This should have been done some months ago, I think. By delaying these promotions, the operations of the clerk office were put under strain that was quite avoidable. That said, I echo the congratulations offered above: welcome aboard to the "new" clerks. AGK 14:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the delay is simple. We were waiting until all the trainee clerks had clerked a full case. It would have been nice if other clerks had helped out during the summer, thus relieving the strain, but that didn't happen. AGK, maybe you could suggest a way to avoid that in future? Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer is trivially simple, and I'm disappointed that an Arbitrator wouldn't immediately see it. Back in the shadowy mists of time, there were no clerks. Arbitrators directly 'clerked' the cases themselves. To my knowledge, there has been no sudden and dramatic increase in the caseload of the ArbCom. Either they should have been planning ahead to recruit and train clerks to meet their needs, or they could buckle down and get their hands dirty doing a bit of the scut work themselves.

If there was inadequate communication between clerks and the ArbCom about the availability of clerks and Arbitrators over the summer months, the responsibility ultimately falls at the feet of the ArbCom. Arbitrators select their clerks; arbitrators choose what cases to accept; arbitrators decide when to close cases; they completely control their own workload. There's no excuse for cases left in limbo because no one could be found to clerk — the Arbitrators are supposed to step in if no one else does. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been stepping in when no clerks were available (they are volunteers, just like us), and I've said before that ArbCom takes ultimate responsibility for situations like the absence of a clerk. We don't completely control our own workload, as declining cases merely because we have too many to deal with at the time of a new request, is something we've discussed internally and rejected. What we probably should do is defer some cases in some instances, or formally put them on hold so we can concentrate on others. This is effectively the situation at the moment, with most attention being directed to one case that is taking a lot of our time. But this is something beyond the scope of this section. As you know, I've made attempts at documenting the work done over the year so far, so that people can make suggestions for how to improve ArbCom's management of its workflow, but any help with that would be greatly appreciated. I am hopeful that while management of our workflow is by no means perfect, things have been improving. Anyone is welcome to contact the clerks and ask to help out, and eventually become a clerk themselves if they enjoy doing that. Someone has offered on the clerks noticeboard. Anyone else interested should offer there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

NOTE: Temporary desysop should not be interpreted to mean that Piotrus has violated any of our policies. ArbCom simply needs to investigate the matter fully before Piotrus' status as an administrator can be resumed. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why has he been desysopped? Majorly talk 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The committee may want to give a clearer summary for those not in the know, instead of forcing people to scour through various noticeboards.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read the noticeboard thread, but haven't seen any allegations that would lead to desysopping - particularly as a temporary measure in the absence of a conclusion (by the 3 committee members voting) that he had violated any policies. I'm a little surprised, and probably not the only one, that this sort of drastic step was taken so quickly and with so little explanation. Nathan ^T 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

At a rough guess, I'd say that either the Arbitrators are bored that they haven't desyopped anyone in the last 48 hours, or they have seen contents of (purported) messages that were not posted on the noticeboard, that call into question Piotrus' trustworthiness. Thatcher 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what I assumed initially, but CHL's comment that it "should not be interpreted to mean that Piotrus has violated any of our policies" suggests otherwise, doesn't it? Nathan ^T 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec a couple of times) I hardly think a temporary desysop is "drastic." Hell even a permanent desysop is not drastic in the grand scope of Wikipedia. If Piotrus did nothing wrong he'll no doubt be exonerated by the committee, but I can only assume that the Arbs (or at least several of them) saw something that could be troubling in the evidence presented to them and decided a temp desysop was needed as a precaution. If that turns out to be wrong then Piotrus gets the bit back, no doubt with an apology and a statement that he's a fine admin. It's not a big deal. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, when a bunch of arbitrators are lawyers or law students. To me it says, "We're pretty worried, but we must allow for the possibility that things are not as they have been initially reported to us." OR whatever. Thatcher 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am bit surprised with the Committee (I've never been temporarily desysoped when I was a party to a formal arbcom before, and there is no arbcom opened yet...), but I hope this will be clarified in due time. I invite everyone to look at my admin contrib log and tell me if anything they see there seems problematic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I'm never on the fun mailing lists. Since I was pounded on pretty heavily for trying to answer a couple of Eastern Europe-related arbitration enforcement requests, I'd appreciate knowing if I was discussed on this list and if the response against me was coordinated. No hurry though. Thatcher 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any mailing lists fun? Majorly talk 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pornopedia-l is probably good times. Lara 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Pornopedia-l list is moderating it. You check a new mail for approval and make a u-turn to find it's not the gender(s) you were expecting. Much better on the user end. Keegan (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of tucking and rolling then, huh? Lara 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the only way off this page. Keegan (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Naa, it's all a bunch of wank. → ROUX ₪ 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this list archive was allegedly stolen by person/s unknown, posted on some share site and then subsequently downloaded off by some admin. The original allegation was that the archive contained some 3000+ emails with more than a half filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. 1500 emails about Russavia? Seems to be a bit far fetched to me. Some have said that this alleged archive contains personal information, there is a privacy issue involved here, apparently. --Martintg (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the large number of emails on the functionaries mailing list that some (seemingly minor) disputes generate, and having seen the enormous quantity of email, noticeboard, enforcement, and talk page stuff about the EE arbcom case, I can believe 1500 emails. I hope it's just a misunderstanding (but I also hope Bigfoot will one day be proven true). Thatcher 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would be functionaries beware - being on mailing lists sucks--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - only apply if you like seeing 50 new emails in your inbox every hour (only 4-5 of which may actually apply to you) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We should write a primer for the next elections (Hello worthy candidates. This is why you should run screaming now)--Tznkai (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. My mail filters were woefully unprepared when I was added to that list... :D (also)Happy‑melon 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are potential privacy issues which made continued public investigation of it on ANI untenable. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Summary version: There is an email list that allegedly involves off-wiki coordination within the Russian and Eastern European topic areas. If the allegations are true, there has been significant manipulation and disruption of the project. The Arbitration Committee is currently investigating the matter. ArbCom is not stating at this juncture that Piotrus has committed any particular wrongdoing or abused the tools. While some appearances may be worrying, we have not yet have the full opportunity to review the evidence before, solicit further evidence, hear from involved parties, or otherwise acquire the information and take the time we need to make an informed final decision. The desysop is a preventative matter, equivalent to an injunction, pending the full resolution of the investigation and any accompanying case. Vassyana (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is the time certain people should be thinking about two other editors Irpen and Ghirla, both of whom were practically hounded from the project. Giano (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot get into specifics, if for no other reason than because I have not fully reviewed the evidence before us. However, the impact on specific editors and what the information might reveal in restrospect about particular situations are certainly two aspects that will be examined. Vassyana (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the evidence goes back that far, so you will be dependent on honesty, and that is in very short supply on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A question if I may. As yet we have only been advised of User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo and User:Radeksz being amongst the members of this email list. I have suspicions that User:Martintg, User:Biruitorul and User:Jacurek are also involved in this debacle. As there is going to be an arbcom on this issue, and due to the amount of evidence that it is likely that targetted, harrassed and stalked editors will need to provide, is the committee able to provide information on whom the involved editors are, in order to assist editors who will need to present evidence to begin the search for diffs and the like, in order to give Arbcom a clear view of what is what. These editors have clearly stepped over the line, and it is only fair that their victims have the right to present evidence. Additionally, will editors who have been targetted, and are unlikely to even know about that fact, nor the fact that they have been discussed at length in regards to being attacked; will they be contacted in order to give them a voice also? --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well I don't support arbitrary desysops, if that's what they've done, although if they read the last few emails in the last week (and if they think it is real) then it wouldn't be surprising that they would desysop Piotrus for real things. I don't agree with random desysops for smelling dodgy. People just check the length of the black book when judging people so even if Piotrus is cleared, others will just assume he's a crook anyway. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The sensitivity of this specific case is appreciated. As a matter of generality, however, it would be interesting to solicit the views of other experienced editors regarding the role of ArbCom (and all Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms) in affairs involving off-wiki evidence. What is the purpose of evaluating evidence from external sources? If an editor's behavior was wrong, it would be wrong whether or not they wrote emails or posted blogs about it, wouldn't it? Doesn't it seem that if editors were clearly baiting or otherwise harassing another editor, that would be wrong regardless of any proof of conspiracy? While it is easily seen why behaviors indicative of a conspiracy would be repugnant, could matters not be handled in a simpler manner if the on-wiki evidence were solely considered and evaluated empirically? What are the reasons why on-wiki behaviors cannot simply be evaluated based on their own merits without recourse to external evidence? It is certainly not my intention to have the very busy arbitrators respond to this general question. A sampling of a spectrum of the editing community would be lovely. —Matheuler 02:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Many edits, like gaming 3RR or vote-stacking, look legitimate in isolation. However, they're still violates if they've been coordinated elsewhere. On the face, there seems to be a lot of coordinating evidence, and it's worth examining whether it illuminates possible policy violations here on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have received this and read much of the content. The list is a veritable bonanza and shows certain users operated exactly the way I always said they did. I hope I'll be getting apologies from ArbCom and other fellow admins who were fooled into making my life hard with regard to these chaps. Piotrus 2 made a laughing stock of ArbCom and now everyone who gets to see these emails will know this for themselves. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, I am going to repeat what I said to Alex here [19]. You DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION to make the contents of these emails - be they genuine or fakes purporting to be genuine - available to ANYONE. These emails supposedly include personal information which raise privacy and security concerns for people involved. These personal private emails were most likely obtained through the commission of a crime and then probably tampered with. In fact you do not even have my permission to view them and I ask that you immediately delete them yourself (and I'll assume good faith here).

More generally I want the Arb Com to make a general announcement that any further dissemination of any of these supposed "archives" (judging by some peoples' comments it seems there's more than one version floating around), if they include personal names and other information (as they almost surely do) is forbidden and can be punished by an indefinite block per Outing and private correspondence guidelines. I am amazed at how brazenly some people think they can violate others' privacy and endanger their physical and professional well being.

I've never been part of an ArbCom before so I am unsure what the appropriate venue for making such a request is.radek (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could pass a motion discouraging or prohibiting dissemination of the archive. You can normally propose motions on the workshop page, but in this case you should just email the committee directly at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Usually motions are passed as a preliminary matter in the case. Do note, however, that we've already posted notices reminding users that posting the contents of these emails on-wiki violates our policies. Cool Hand Luke 04:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody appears to have hacked User:Tymek's account and used that to email the archive link to me early on the 16th of September. I blocked the hacked account and forwarded things along to ArbCom. I believe the link was emailed to others as well. I did not look in the email archive because of the way it was obtained. Gentlemen don't read other peoples' mail. Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman. And it's not just a matter of courtesy and social ettiquette.radek (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You may not want to thank me too thoroughly. I think an analysis of on wiki behavior would be a good idea, as would stricter application of our behavioral standards. Editors have been getting away with harassment for way too long, as Giano has pointed out in the cases of Irpen and Girlandajo being run off. This battlezone needs to be shut down for a good long time with a liberal application of bans. Jehochman ^Talk 03:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point maintaining privacy and security are my main concerns as some of the stuff that's gone on is frankly somewhat scary.radek (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal information I'm certain will be kept well under wraps. Ephemeral privacy perhaps less so. What I say to my real life friends is "private" to Wikipedia - but if it turns out what i've been saying offline is coordinating the manipulation of Wikipedia, that privacy loses the balancing test. If Arbcom gained access to that information, they would have the right and responsibility to address it, but no right to release say, my and my friend's name.

As an aside, the three bad things done on wikipedia I can think of that matter enough to rain hell and fire on people is the abuse of personal information, the deliberate manipulation of content for personal/factional gain, and running off editors. If any of these things are the case, I expect heads on pikes outside the city gates.--Tznkai (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom already should have known what was going on because I, Sciurinae and others were telling them, and even pointed out incidents when this was revealed online along with countless incidents where off-wiki coordination was promoted. User:AldenJones actually revealed on Wikipedia that he was asked to perform reverts by one of the users in question, yet they issued a ludicrous FoF saying there was no evidence, admonished me for bringing the case, and drove away User:Irpen with a civility and revert restriction, despite the fact that all he did was speak the truth rather civility while rarely edit-warring. There's an old Gaelic saying, "If reason is not your ally, truth will be your foe" ... All ArbCom needed to do was study the evidence themselves properly, rather than relying on one arb's inaccurate summaries, and then months of hell for various users would have been avoided, good users would not have been driven away, and truth would not appear to be ArbCom's foe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This case was before my time as an arbitrator. Could you post a summary of links to the most helpful evidence on the new case we just opened? I would appreciate it very much. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way here is a good article on email privacy. As you can see, an expectation of privacy should not be assumed. This is one reason why some professions, like stockbrokers, from what I understand, are reluctant to use email to conduct business. If Wikipedia now has these emails and, by cross checking the dates on the emails with on-wiki actions, verifies that they legitimately show violations of Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia's administrators can do whatever they want to with them, within policy, of course. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason courts exclude evidence acquired through illegal means. We are not a court, but there may be wisdom in taking that approach. It is not clear how this evidence came to ArbCom. I sent it in, and identified it as coming from an illegitimate source. Perhaps they also received the evidence from a legitimate source, or maybe the hacking reported to me was a sham meant to discredit the evidence. We can't know for sure. Clearly some folks are playing games and need to be stopped. Jehochman ^Talk 05:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As always, there are balancing tests to made. Its worth noting that governments have certain powers that Wikipedia can never, and should never have - compelling the production of evidence, warrants for search, seizure and a arrest, and the like. I don't mean to minimize the ethical complications at all mind you, but we are in a very different business than governments.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins do not have the actual ability to check other people's email, and so we don't need devices like that to take away the incentive. Wikipedia is not a national government. We have very little power (and usually little will) to prevent this kind of disruption, and when evidence comes that helps we use it. We don't have the burden of trying to keep the power of an enforcement agency in check. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not true that, "courts exclude evidence acquired through illegal means": For example, even in the US the exclusionary rule has exceptions for criminal cases and does not apply at all to civil cases (which, at a great stretch, would be the most analogous to arbcom proceedings). The situation is even more complex and varied outside the US, and generally more permissive of such evidence. I have no dog in the fight, but wanted to correct an common and oft-repeated misunderstanding. Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have subpoena power, as Tznkai notes. Without leaks (or some breech of trust) there would be no way to get access to such evidence. I think we have no option but to use it in a way to carefully avoid broader dissemination. If we don't act on such evidence, leakers could only respond with widely publicizing it. In the future, I would like parties to send this evidence directly to ArbCom to avoid wider dissemination, so we should act on such evidence once received.

In other words (and in contrast to when government power needs to be checked, as with the exclusionary rule), acting on such evidence will produce a better outcome than pretending it doesn't exist. Cool Hand Luke 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

CLH, I don't think it is the Committee's purpose to get involved in how hackers act with respect to non-Wiki, private email lists. If you do act on such evidence, at least if you act on it in a particular way, you will only encourage this kind of cyber-warfare, the hacking of users Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia accounts, and other illegal activity. There is a real danger that acting on this simply rewards this kind of illegal behavior and legitimizes it as a way of carrying out Wikipedia battles.

If you were not to act on this, and if the hacker published the illegally obtained information online as a result (which would be unfortunate), this would simply be a matter between the list participants and the hacker (and the server which hosts the illegal information) and whatever law enforcement authorities have jurisdiction in cases like that - basically it would be just like any other case of somebody illegally hacking other's private information.

The only way that I see that ArbCom has a responsibility to act on this (and no, there's no reason to pretend that this illegal information doesn't exist) is to attempt to identify the on-Wiki identity of the hacker who has committed the crime (via Checkuser or other means) and take action in respect to them, and to stand ready to cooperate in any kind of legal proceedings against these hackers that may arise.radek (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is not considering confiscating your property or liberty. The most they can do is restrict your ability to edit a web site. And if there is evidence of wrongdoing in Wikipedia (for example, a series of messages discuss how to provoke someone else into doing something they could get blocked for, backed up by diffs showing that it actually happened) then they should certainly take action. You say that acting on the emails will encourage further hacking. Tell me, don't you think that ignoring these emails would encourage further secret mailing lists and coordinated disruptive behavior? Your protestations make me ever more interested in seeing what you wrote in these emails. Thatcher 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is potentially acting in a way which potentially contributes to further dissemination of illegally obtained hacked, private and personal information. Furthermore, it really has no right to look through private emails that had been obtained by somebody through the commission of a crime.

You're assuming that there was "coordinated disruptive behavior". There wasn't, there was a group of people discussing Wikipedia matters, like people do on countless forums across the internet. But really, this is none of your business. And seriously, which one is a worse thing to encourage? That people gather together and discuss Wikipedia in private, among themselves, or that people start going around and illegally hacking people's emails. Hint: one is a criminal activity, the other is not. Your last sentence appears to be saying "if you defend your right to privacy, that means you must be guilty of something". I'll leave that without further comment.radek (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The emails suggest that there were a lot of violations of our policy going on. We're going to investigate and either corroborate them with on-site evidence, or discount them. We will not pretend it doesn't exist—doing that would in all likelihood increase the mystique of these files and broaden their distribution even farther. Cool Hand Luke 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The emails (whether they are genuine, fake or doctored) supposedly contain a ton of personal private information which you have not been given permission to review. The emails were obtained by a hacker most certainly through illegal means. So you're looking at illegally obtained private personal emails and information, which you have not been authorized to review. While your concerns about not increasing the "mystique" of these files are appreciated, this is simply not your job. If people who are most affected by the ArbCom case, because it is THEIR personal information that has been hacked, think that it would be better for ArbCom to concentrate on finding out the on-Wiki identity of the hacker rather than start what could turn into a very closely watched public event which attracts undue attention and furthers the dissemination of this hacked personal information - then you should listen to them. It's their privacy and personal security at stake here.radek (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to play the game that Arbcom is bound by the same rules and procedures as a criminal or civil court, you should probably read this. Consider especially the argument about social cost; that is, the social cost to Wikipedia and all of its editors of ignoring this information. Thatcher 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already clear that you are desperate for arbcomm not to read this list, and it is also clear that they are going to ignore you. Why keep adding words here? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say they are "most certainly through illegal means"? It's not clear to us how they were obtained. Nor is it within our capacity to investigate that matter. Again, we do not have subpoena power. If you think a crime has been committed, you need law enforcement. We could cooperate with law enforcement, but we will not act like we're police officers because we're not; we have neither the mandate nor the ability to do what you propose. We do have the ability to look after our own project, however. If we ignore the files, the problem of compromised privacy will not go away—and in my view it will be aggravated. Cool Hand Luke 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of odds, its much more likely that someone on the list leaked the materials. The idea that anything can just be trivially "hacked" is mostly a myth perpetuated by movies and other fiction that use hacking to fill plot holes. Mr.Z-man 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, before starting to read private emails obtained without permission from the people who wrote them, has the ArbCom contacted the Wikipedia legal team to clarify whether doing that is legal? Loosmark (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's legal. No court in the free world would prosecute someone for reading an email. The only person who might face legal action would be the hypothetical hacker, but if it was someone in that mailing list who leaked the email that wouldn't be illegal either. Could you imagine the legal and bureaucratic nightmare that would occur if a government did try to make it illegal to forward email to someone, or read what was forwarded to you? It would be absurd to try. -- Atama頭 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But for example if somebody stoles emails from your mailbox and then sends them to other persons, and they know it was obtained without your permission, do you think they have the right to read them? I don't know, you might be right, but it sounds a bit weird to me. Loosmark (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, legality is not an issue. Even publishing them may be legal (I am not suggesting the arbcom do that!). For example consider this recent high profile case in which a sitting US state Governor's private emails were published by a newspaper without any repercussions or even threat of legal action. Its fair to discuss how the arbcom should treat and trust the email evidence, but lets move beyond the legal red-herrings. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well but Sanford is a politician and privacy standard for public figures is considerably lower because there is something called "public interest". It is for example similar situation to a magazine publishing a pic Britney Spear on the beach vs a pic of a normal person. Loosmark (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They have a right to read them. What they do after reading them might be illegal, but actually reading them isn't illegal. Imagine someone gave you a piece of paper and said it contained confidential US government secrets, could you be arrested for reading it? Not even then. If you photocopied the paper and handed it out you could face prison or worse, or if you gave it to someone else to read, or told someone what you read. So Arbcom might have to be careful what they do with the information, but they can certainly read it. -- Atama頭 22:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. Loosmark (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• With some surprise, I note that I have been named as a party to the case. I have made a public statement at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Statement_by_Sandstein and will not make other statements in this matter.  Sandstein  08:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Please note that this is a very preliminary list based on the participants of the ANI thread. If it's any comfort to you, there are even more surprising names on the list. It will be revised, I promise. Cool Hand Luke 13:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On whole, I think the evidence can be used. Wikipedia's goal is to make the site better. It is not clear how the evidence was obtained. There is no proof of hacking. We have somebody who claimed to me that they were a hacker, but that person could have been lying. A hacker is somebody capable of dishonesty. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To your "Irpen and Girlandajo" per Giano point above, these were among the most virulent of combatants and ran off dozens of reputable editors with their constant attacks. If you'd like documented evidence of Irpen's edits deliberately misrepresenting a source, also summarizing that source in direct contradiction to the authors' own statements, I'll be glad to go back and provide those diffs—on Holodomor, a major area of contention. If the intent is to make past history part of this along with an invitation to dredge up every perceived slight by the current short list of Russavia, Offliner, et al. on the part of a set of individuals they consider to be their opposition, nothing good will come of this. You of all people (per your own off-Wiki interview) know Wikipedia has no due process. Let's not open the door to infinite indemnity regarding the past. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

¿Qué? Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Que indeed [20] Some grovelling appologies are looking to be a little overlate in coming. Giano (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ekhm. My offer to all to list my problematic admin actions here (or in arbcom evidence) still stands. So far as AFAIK not a single one has been listed anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence to support any finding of fact will be given to all parties that will be mentioned in the ruling. The material will be supplied either by email or on the workshop page, or a combination of both as needed to maintain privacy. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)