Requests for arbitration

Initiated by ☯Lightbound☯ ^talk at 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Lightbound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OMCV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peterdjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mbilitatu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ronhjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Likebox, [1].
• OMCV, [2].
• Peterdjones, [3].
• William M. Connolley, [4].
• Admin, RHaworth, [5].
• Mbilitatu, [6].
• Simonm223, [7].
• Admin, Vsmith, [8].
• Ronhjones, [9].
• Count Iblis [10]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Third opinion request. [11]
• A diff from user OMCV, asking administrator assistance: [12]
• Another admin intervention on edit warring notice board: [13]

Statement by Lightbound

The Quantum mysticism page has a history of edit wars and conflicts. I responded to a request from OMCV on a help page. Edits resulted in User:Likebox being blocked.[14]. I interpreted the name of the article to dictionary sources and dozens of books on the subject as per WP:NAME and WP:POV. The debates continued despite talk page discussion before and after, blocks, other editors, and assistance. Request arbitration to end the reverts, edits, and conflicts. Article has long history of problems.

Response to Arbitrator request from filing party (Lightbound)

Due to the history of the page, I strongly recommend that outside force be used to set some standing issues with the page. Every other feasible attempt has been made, including administrator intervention, to solve the conflicting issues on this page. Below I will list some of the fundamental issues. Please note that no side was willing to relent until arbitration was filed.[15] I did not file arbitration for any other purpose than to have an outside party, with authority, address the specific fundamentals of the article, so that all parties concerned could continue in a unified way. I value the healthy rationlism, of which I subscribe, of those parties educated in physics. It is my strong opinion that if arbitration is denied, that debates will continue, unnecessarily, which may end up taking more administrative time and effort, or worse, that those editors concerned will simply give up and the quality of the article will suffer for it. I realize it is a potentially murky subject, but if arbitration goes forward, I am prepared to provide objective evidence, related to policy, as to address the issues on the page. Here are a few of the issues, of which few can agree on, and that future individuals are likely to also bring up in a debate.

• What should the subject matter of an article named "quantum mysticism" be?
• How to interpret WP:POV and WP:NPOV in light of the grey areas between the science, metaphysics, and philosophcial concepts of the subject.
• Can the scientific criticism be exluded, if and only if, the subject of mysticism, based on the quantum of the natural world, is presented in a completley netural and disinterested voice?
• The developing issue of redirects pointing to Quantum mysticism, such as Consciousness causes collapse, which has now spurred more debate and brought other editors into the above issues.

Lastly, I want to officially state that my goal for filing was to have someone make concrete and final decisions on some of these issues. Splitting the article does not solve all of its problems; it only solves a problem between two editors. There are multiple views, debates, and issues going on. The split is also questionable, as there is already a mind body duality article on Wikipedia. I also want to officially state that it was not my intention at any time, nor to I cite the need, to block anyone. It is clear that blocking Likebox will not stop him. As that has already not worked. Despite his interpretation that I am "new," I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly five years. I did not formally make this user name until recently, as I got more involved. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

I came to Quantum Mysticism a few days before Lightbound because of this notice on the fringe theories noticeboard and found it a mess. There were two editors who had been competing over two versions of the page and neither struck me as neutral, properly designed or particularly legible. I tried to suggest a third option, a rewrite, but since I'm not a physicist I could only approach the article through my background in philosophy and theology. Although the article was approximating a position between religion, philosophy and science this still left me cautious to start making edits because I wasn't entirely expert in the material.

However Lightbound came to the article and had a vision for the article which made it coherent, clear, concise and much more encyclopaedic. I have strongly supported these edits, which I feel improved the article.

Lightbound has been meticulous documenting changes and proposed changes on talk and discussing the issues however when one of the other editors who had been involved prior to either of our arrival at the page was blocked there was little debate so changes progressed quickly.

That editor returned, found the page substantially changed and wasn't pleased.

However I stand by that Lightbound's edits have created an article better than what either of the original to editors had created and better than I could have created. Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Likebox

The topic of "quantum mysticism" appears in the literature in two distinct forms. From 1927-1975 it appears sporadically in the physics literature as a pejorative description of the Copenhagen interpretation by Einstein and others. It also appears in the correspondence of Wolfgang Pauli, describing the nature of quantum mechanics, but Pauli didn't use the term pejoratively. He admired the mystical aspects of quantum mechanics. In 1961, the separation of observer and observed was codified by Wigner into a quantum mind/body problem, and this article marks the rebirth of the debate in the postwar American-centered literature (the early scientific literature was European).

In the 1970s, Heisenberg encouraged Fritjof Capra to write "The dancing Wu-Li Masters" to popularize the topic. Starting with this book, and through the 1980's, "quantum mysticism" was turned into a new-age topic, with the publication of some popular books and self-help books. This is a second more recent focus of the term.

The original article, before lightbound's recent edits, discussed the physics aspects of quantum measurement, the subject of "quantum mysticism" in the years 1927-1975, and the relation to the mind/body problem. The recent edits have made the focus entirely the modern new-age/self-help literature. This is not a problem by itself, but the old material on the debate was not moved to other articles, it was just deleted.

Lightbound has suggested that the scientific material be separated into an article on quantum mechanics, and this suggestion seems sensible, considering that the two kinds of literature are entirely different. The basic outline that lightbound has provided is reasonable for a "quantum mysticism" article on the new topic, while the old material can be moved to the appropriate quantum mechanics page.

There used to be a free-standing article called "Consciousness Causes Collapse" (CCC), which focused on Wigner's 1961 paper. This article was deleted, and merged with "quantum mysticism". The new "quantum mysticism" article no longer reflects the contents of Wigner's article, so I recreated the CCC article as Wigner's interpretation of quantum mechanics. That article can serve as a home for the general discussion of interpretations of quantum mechanics which were previously on the quantum mysticism page.

Because the discussions on how to split the material are still ongoing, I believe that this arbitration request is premature. The material can be split and keep the quantum mysticism article mostly faithful to lightbound's version.

However, lightbound has also erased sourced material from critics of the modern new-age kind of quantum mysticism, which is inappropriate. That material should be restored to the article. This issue of excluding criticism is important. Lightbound's article must be expanded to include the sourced criticisms of quantum mysticism by prominent authors, which make the claim that this type of quantum mysticism is pseudoscience.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that arbitration is unnecessary, since we seem to be converging on the split idea. Lightbound is relatively new to Wikipedia, and might not realize when arbitration is appropriate.Likebox (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since OMCV has considered my contributions inappropriate, I would like to describe the events from my perspective. The page on quantum mysticism was a standard skeptical article until consciousness causes collapse was merged into it. When I saw that this had happened, I added material which talked about the 1961 Wigner article, which is interesting and famous within physics. In order to respect the science, which is very serious (Wigner is a nobel lauriate, and a founder of quantum mechanics) I wrote a context for the material, spending many hours in the library to find the appropriate citations. This material was unchallenged for over a year.

OMCV came to the page, and did not believe that the material was properly sources. In particular, he was concerned that the material from Dennett did not accurately reflect Dennett's position. He also was concerned about the idea that quantum mechanics is being used as a model of reality in the article, as opposed to a strictly empirical recipe for calculating the probabilities for results of observations.

We debated this topic for a long time, and eventually, I changed the wording to be "Dennett says X" and "Dennett says Y" to attribute the material properly. At this point, OMCV did not respond any longer, and lightbound began to delete all the science content from the page.

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for many years, and I have written dozens of articles on scientific topics sometimes from scratch. The opinions of OMCV were debated honestly, the section in question became better sourced, and while OMCV did not like my opinions, they were supported by other scientifically minded editors, in particular 1Z and Count Iblis. The article on quantum mysticism has been split, the science moved to another article, and there is no reason why this should not satisfy all parties.Likebox (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

There isn't anything more that this arbitration can achieve that the involved editors can't do themselves on the talk page, other than imposing sanctions. But if this arbitration were to move in the direction of imposing sanctions, you can be sure that the existing tensions will be amplified and that will likely make collaboration impossible. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by OMCV

I came to Quantum mysticism after noting a misrepresentation of classical mechanics and making an attempt to correct the problem. My efforts to correct this material was reverted by Likebox. I then tagged which sections needed sourcing and that was reverted. I then demanded on what source the section was based multiple times and was eventually told on my talk page. I read the source (where am i) and become more familiar with it than Likebox. The contested text was clearly an example of Synth. The discussion developed into specious arguments and etiquette issues. The most frustrating part is that Likebox would conveniently forget or not understand things and often his talk page activities did not match his behavior on the article itself. His veiled personal comments, familiar tone ("dude"), and repeated requests to "go away" were a minor annoyance in comparison. Likebox has since admitted that he his material is synth and described his personal opinions (first few added paragraphs) which correlates with the synth. Lightbound reworked all of Quantum mysticism considerably improving it by moving to a more encyclopedic voice and in the process removing the synth and the text I added in an attempt to comprise. After attempting to revert Lightbound's work Likebox was blocked (near bottom). Likebox responded to this setback by moving his WP:OWNed essay material to quantum mind/body problem including the synth quantum mind/body problem#Classical mind/body problem which originally brought me to the Quantum mysticism page. During this time I did my best to follow WP:Dispute Resolution. I responded to the situation with a NO OR Board (no response), WP:3O request (conflicting responses), WP:Wikiquette alerts (here), I reported both of us for edit waring (3RR noticeboard), and a couple of RfC. I understand that this page might concern a content issue but should that be the content of Quantum mysticism or quantum mind/body problem? The reason a content discussion has not been viable is the active disruptions of Likebox in an attempt to wp:own his essay. I think Likebox is a detriment to Wikipedia given his current behavior and it would be best to implement a long term block.--OMCV (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If any further citations are requested I can readily supply them.--OMCV (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by 2over0

Part of this material is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, about which at least Likebox (I did not check any of the other editors) does not seem to have received a formal notification. Quantum mind/body problem has serious problems as a fork and partial recreation of a deleted article, but I think this can be cleared up through normal discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Michael C. Price

The (re)creation of Quantum mind/body problem seems to remove the need for arbitration. This article is evolving productively with input from many of the involved editors. Conflict over. Resolved. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0)

• Could the filing party please address whether arbitration is necessary here or whether other means could be used to try to resolve these disputes, in light of the other parties' comments. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Leaning toward decline based on the most recent statements, but allowing a couple more days in case of developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Recuse. Vassyana (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline Other methods of dispute resolution are helping so no involvement needed by ArbCom. I think the Community can resolve the issues so no need to escalate to ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline; it appears as though this can still be handled by the community with reasonable odds of success. — Coren ^(talk) 11:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline - appears to be heading towards resolution without the need for arbitration. Would urge that some over-arching guideline be established for how to handle articles where science and philosophy overlap like this (which is rather a lot of articles, I know), and whether to keep the differing science and philosophy interpretations separate (to a degree) or to have a well-written summary of the history somewhere (including the evolution of the terminology). In particular, how to handle mystical and new age interpretations should be amenable to a guideline approach. As long as the differing interpretations are accurately sourced, and not synthesised, and are carefully weighted, it should be possible to cover these topics in Wikipedia articles. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Decline per the above comments, it's largely content, and DR seems to be working. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Initiated by Jehochman ^Talk at 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved parties

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• GlassCobra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [16]
• [17]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• The community does not have a process for de-adminship. Therefore, this request is being brought directly here. Please note prior discussions that may be relevant. Hopefully ArbCom can provide a reduced-drama venue.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jennavecia&oldid=317280385#Some_random_thoughts
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=317300673#Community_ban_discussion_regarding_The_undertow
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&oldid=317291255#Unclear
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=317302499#Apology_from_Casliber

Statement by Jehochman

At least two admins nominated or supported Law's request for adminship which ended at (101/23/4), while knowing full well [18][19] that the account had been used for persistent block evasion, and that the operator had been de-admined previously and blocked for nine months. Their motivation appears to have been close friendship with the operator of the Law account. I think this was a gross abuse of trust, and I call upon the Committee to remove sysop access. I and others have discussed how to proceed. Further discussion at WP:ANI is likely to only raise drama and accusations of drama mongering. An unenforceable RFC seems like a pointless step that would waste time and generate drama without a conclusive result. The facts are clear cut and I hope the Committee will be able to resolve this matter with a motion. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm OK with any result, but I want clarity:

• Is Wikipedia a serious academic project or is it an MMORPG?
• Do we tolerate subversion of our policies by popular insiders?
• When administrators make a mistake like this, what is the consequence?

Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with David Shankbone below that it would be ideal for the community to handle this matter. However, I had Tznkai and others criticize me for raising the issue at WP:ANI. It's not nice to be called a "drama monger" for raising legitimate concerns. Where are we to have a proper community discussion? Who will maintain order? Regrettably, we are stuck with ArbCom as the only workable process until we invent something better. Friday and I both tried to develop a de-admin process, but it did not gain consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jennavecia: When you want to invoke ignore all rules, do it publicly. Tell people up front why you are breaking the rules. The problem here is that you acted in secret, depriving others the chance to agree or disagree that with what you were doing. That's one reason why people are so upset. Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FT2: As we have begun a private mediation about your concerns, I am removing my comment.[20] The matters you raise are completely separate and should not be linked to this request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 09:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

• An admin who willingly and unashamedly states her friends come before policy here might have her friends gratitude but she should not have Wikipedia's trust. Lara aka Jennavecia knew at the time of Law's Rfa that he was the undertow. When concern was expressed at the breach of trust implied in knowingly abetting the undertow in evading ArbCom sanctions, she responded "he's my best friend, get over it",[21] as well as "I'll always have his back no matter what"[22] and accused at least one of those voicing concerns of "causing drama". "No matter what" implies that no matter what policy a friend breaches, Lara will cover for them and assist them to evade repercussions.
• An admin who knowingly aids and abets an editor's evasion of ArbCom's decision to limit them to one account, by knowingly nominating a sock account for adminship, is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust. Nether should have the admin tools, having proven they are untrustworthy and place personal friendship over the community, the project, and policy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment to Fozzie: the difference is that ArbCom can act. Rfcs cannot.

Comment to Majorly: Had it been User:the undertow who had stood for, and acheived, adminship I would indeed be happy. As it was, he was under ArbCom sanction not to have any more accounts, which renders your "thank them" a bit odd, to say the least. I fail to see in what alternate universe we should "thank" people for evading, lying, misleading, and circumventing the very policies they are bound to uphold. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for FT2 - WTF are you talking about? I'm here now due to discussion on my talk page, as you can easily follow by looking at my contribs. I have zero idea what you're referencing as occurring in a previous month. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I see FT2 is trying to bring a comparison of the Geogre/Utgard case, in which Utgard was not a sock created to avoid ArbCom sanctions and never was either nomed or supported for Admin by Bishonen, and which was handled already by Geogre being desysopped, and this. I see the very tenuous similarity - there is a sock in both cases, after all - but reject the insinuations. I myself have two socks, who have done absolutely nothing - Puppy and The Puppy - but there is a difference between a legal sock and its use, and the illegal ban or block evading sock who is nominated for and supported for admin. I never defended Geogre or his sock, you;ll note, in spite of your nasty hints. I merely thought the Rfc on Bish was silly, and said so. You're welcome to your opinion on that little detail. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

To quote this RfArb's creator, this would be "A pointless step to waste time and cause drama". While I have the greatest respect for Jehochman and KC despite past differences, I see no differences in a RfC and this RfArb. I don't see the ArbCom de-adminning either of them for their actions, and even if that were the case, I don't think a full-fledged RfArb would be anything but a time-waster and drama generator. It should be handled by motion, and possibly admonish Jennavecia and Glass Cobra for committing sins of omission, not comission. That's just my thoughts on it. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a response to FayssalF's suggestion that we come up with something to update WP:ADMIN to deal with this kind of situation, this is what I came up with.

One of the key tests that determine who gets granted administrative tools at WP:RFA is the ability to use good judgment when it comes to Wikipedia disputes. An administrator must be trusted to use their best judgment to enforce Wikipedia's rules and regulations in an impartial way, without letting personal feelings towards participants color their judgment.

If an administrator has information that another user is violating Wikipedia's norms and/or policies, and is unable to act fairly and justly, should forward their information to a trusted neutral administrator, or if that is not possible, to the Arbitration Committee.

If an administrator is to found to be complicit in allowing or assisting other users in breaking Wikipedia's rules and policies, it may be considered bad judgment in the use of their administrative tools and in repeated or egregious cases, may lead to their administrative privileges being revoked.

I'm curious to see what folks think. SirFozzie (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm saddened about the amount of ill-will and player vs player going on here. I am not going to discuss here who's worse. Or what I think should happen in this or similar cases. But I need to speak the following truth to power. It seems there's a general feeling that certain administrators, named and unnamed in this case, have known about users violating Wikipedia's policies and have turned a blind eye to it. Some of it we know. I'm sure there's just as much, if not more, that we don't know about, under the surface. Sooner or later, it all comes to the surface.. we're finding that lesson here, yet again.

Sooner or later, no matter how deep we sweep it under the rug, it's going to leave a funny lump in the rug, and will come out, eventually and be all the more painful when it does.

So if I had two things to say to all, it's: A) Please, temp down the flame and the player vs player. We can do better. We should do better. And B) If you know of any further such situations, please, tell ArbCom. Tell another administrator. Tell someone. Administrators are volunteers yes, but the role of administrator requires that there be trust in judgment. I see that trust in administrators in general being badly eroded. This is just my opinion, but I am hoping that people take it to heart. SirFozzie (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Majorly

Overblown and unnecessary. Nominating a knowingly banned user, despite their productivity is probably not a good idea, because of the Wikipedians who obsess over bans and playing cops and robbers. Law returned to be a productive editor, and that is what he was. The people going after him have ended this. Lara and Glasscobra should be praised for getting a banned user to contribute to Wikipedia productively, instead of coming back with hundreds of sockpuppets and vandalising.

The only important thing is whether Wikipedia was made better with Law as an admin/editor. Undoubtedly, it was, until the witchhunters found out who he really was.

This is far too early for arbitration. I for one still trust Jennavecia and GlassCobra as administrators - they are in fact two of the better ones, and Wikipedia would lose out if they were desysopped. The game players, the wikipoliticians and the drama mongerers will probably win in their own way, but they are irrelevant. The encyclopedia matters much more, and both of them do a grand job administrating it.

Instead of taking this straight here, it should have been opened in an RFC. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Majorly talk 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact he managed to return and be a productive editor is all that really matters. The only policy that was broken was probably the sock one where he failed to disclose his former account. I don't see that as a big deal because overall his benefit to Wikipedia has been positive. If he had disclosed it, he would have been reblocked and we would have been worse off. Majorly talk 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quite agree with Headbomb. No actual admin abuse has occurred, so there is no case. Please come back if/when some actual abuse has occurred. Majorly talk 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Friday

It's appropriate to bring this here. Jehochman has asked some relevant questions. Arbcom, please take the case. Do something about this, or say loud and clear that you will not. Friday (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Headbomb

Alright, I'm uninvolved here, and I don't know how this works but screw it, WP:IAR.

First I don't see what the whole thing is about. For a purposefully no-drama arbcom, I fail to see how it's anything but a drama request.

• Has there been an abuse of admin powers?
  • No? Therefore, there's no problem.

And that's all there is to it really. No need for witch hunts, let's not demonize each other for the sake of "ideals". Lara supported her friend because she trusts him to do the right thing. Now I don't trust her friend (since I never seen him before, and ban evasions are a serious enough thing, but if what Majorly said above has any truth, then I might trust him upon reviewing his contributions and logs), and you probably don't either, but if we start chopping each other's head on matters as trivial as a support !vote because we disagree with the reasons of support, then you might as well chop the head of everyone who ever voted on RfAs.

So everyone take a chill-pill, stop being dicks, and let's go back to dealing with real problems rather than made up ones. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

What occured here went beyond a "Sin of Ommision" when the admins in question nominated and supported in the RFA. This made a mockery on the concept of RFA by consensus, when admins knowingly and willfully hide esential facts from the community. This conduct unbecoming of an admin is severe enough so that I have no confidence in their adminship. At minimum they should be required to demonstrate that they still have community support via RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

I've disagreed with Jenna in the past and have argued with her over quite a few issues. However, I've always been confident that she had the best interests of the project at heart, even if we disagreed over what precisely those were and how best to achieve those ends. I am disappointed and no longer have that confidence. Both Jenna and GlassCobra have broken their trust with the community. They made no effort to tell the community that Law was Undertow. They made no effort to discuss Law's return with the ArbCom or quietly discuss the matter with the crats responsible for closing RfAs. In short, a decision was made based on personal feelings that overrode the good of the project and bypassed both the community and the ArbCom.

Moreover, claims that no harm resulted from these actions are simply not accurate. The unblock by Law of Child of Midnight looked very different in the context of Undertow's and CoM prior dealings. Even at that point, Jenna and GlassCobra apparently did not feel a need to alert the ArbCom about the surrounding circumstances. I'm forced to wonder if it occurred to either of them to even say something as mild as "hey, that's not a great idea given your prior conflict." This paragraph is in error. I was under the impression that Undertow and CoM had interacted previously but that's apparently wrong.

Such breaches of trust are extremely worrying. Moreover, Jenna has been completely unrepentant about her actions and stated unambiguously that she would always support Undertow due to their friendship. This isn't ok. Letting personal feelings get in the way like this is unprofessional and provides serious concerns. If someone is willing to undermine our processes like this then we should have zero confidence that the person isn't willing to provide friends with deleted revisions or even OTRS information. The situation as it stands is untenable and needs resolution. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: I'm also disturbed that Jenna felt a need to be the admin who deleted Law's user page [23]. This shows a incredible lack of common sense when she could easily have had another admin do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Addendum: Regarding Ultraexactzz remarks, aside from the valid response made by Peteforsyth, there is also a distinction between supporting someone in RfA or nominating. And a similar difference between supporting and the strong active support given by Lara in the RfA. Moreover, if other admins were aware at the time of the RfA and chose not to do anything that would be a genuine cause for concern. The seriousness here extends from the fact that GlassCobra nominated Undertow's sockpuppet knowing it was Undertow's sock and that Lara has stated repeatedly and strongly that she will assist friends even if it is to the detriment of the project. Similar remarks apply to FeydHuxtable's remark. Aside from the really unhelpful comparison to Stalinism, the analogy would have some tiny validity if it were "renounce your friend or we will ban you". That's not what is going on here. The concern is that Lara and Glass have shown that they are unable to separate their duties as admins from their friendships. That doesn't make them bad people. But it does mean that trusting them with the tools is extremely iffy. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Faysall

Such a motion would be good. But Lara has said essentially that she won't be professional, that she will put her friends before her professional obligations. If she and GlassCobra made statements that they understand what was wrong and that they will act professionally in the future that might be a good solution. But from the statements we've had so far, it doesn't look like there's any reason to think that they would actually follow such. If they commented here it might help clarify the situation better. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Jenna's remarks

While Jenna's remarks are not in Macbeth's "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" category, they don't address the most fundamental issue: Does Jenna intend to continue to put her personal judgment over the judgment over the community and to withold information from the community when she decides it will benefit her friends? The statement as given seems to be do very little to increase confidence that she will not do so in the future, merely that she won't do this particular narrow thing again. Moreover, I'm disturbed by her pseudo-apology which a) fails to substantially recognize what was wrong with her actions and b) resorts to continued mud-throwing at users whom she has had bad interactions with in the past. This is not sufficient clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. Adminship is not the same as being a member of a guild on World of Warcraft. Friendship and loyalty do not come above your duty as sysop to act truthfully and not to deceive the community. If you find this doctrine unacceptable then you should no longer be a sysop, and the tools should either be removed forcefully or those concerned in practicing a fraudulent lie on the community should step down voluntarily. Because that RFA was the practice of such a fraudulent lie, and those responsible should be held to account, eitherwise we might as well delete WP:SOCK. In my years as an editor and sysop I have never seen anything like this, and nor do I wish to again. Casliber's sins were minor in comparison with those who actively practiced deception. Moreschi (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Karanacs

In addition to the SV example, might I point out that I was blocked and admonished for reversing a mistaken block made by an arbcom member as part of AE. The block was clearly wrong, and for saving another arbitrator the bother of having to reverse it a couple of hours later (which they admitted they would have done), my name was dragged through the mud. Given that the defiance exercised here goes well beyond such instances, and in fact extends to deceiving the community...Moreschi (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

further commentary

Thatcher hits the nail on the head. It is worth also pointing out that the user simply hadn't acknowledged what he did wrong in the first place, as is evidenced by a rather dubious unblock (condemned by the arbitrators below), and a bizarre and slightly terrifying email conversation with me yesterday, in which he alternately threatened to have me blocked for questioning his mental stability (anybody read this guy's WR posts?), and screamed IDCABAL at me when I questioned his rationality, accusing me of some bizarre alliance with KC and god knows who else, something I have never been a party to, nor has anyone even alleged before! Not once! I run the Opera and Fringe Cabals, damnit, not the ID one! So, in essence, GC and Lara got this guy sysopped when he was full of lunatic wikipolitical views and had a totally unreformed battleground mentality. If it hadn't all come out when it did, who knows what damage he would have done? Moreschi (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Karanacs

By actively aiding a desysopped, banned user in regaining administrative tools under false pretences, these administrators have essentially decided that the opinions of Arbcom are meaningless. SlimVirgin was temporarily desysopped for reversing a short-term block made as part of arbitration enforcement. In my opinion, this case is much worse as actions were taken to intentionally deceive the rest of the community. Policies need to be enforced consistently or they are worthless. Cases like these intimidate regular editors - if editor X can get away with that type of bad behavior, then maybe I shouldn't push them to comply with this content policy, because why should they be expected to abide by it? I have zero confidence in the judgement of any administrator who supported this RfA knowing Law's history. If the committee chooses not to definitively rule on this matter, I request that you send those administrators back to RfA to see if they have community support for keeping their tools. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to FayssalF

I welcome the addition of stronger guidance for administrators on the expected level of "professional" or ethical behavior, because I think there is ambiguity in some circumstances. This is not one of those ambiguous situations. This case is more than friendship vs. professionalism. It's friendship vs active assistance in evading Arbcom sanctions. Administrators are supposed to have sound judgement - we shouldn't have to explicitly spell out don't provide active assistance for people evading community-issued sanctions. It's not that difficult a concept. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

I find it almost embarrassing that people are arguing that a user should jeopardize her relationship with another person simply because they did not reveal their identity at RfA. As I have not seen any policy that regulates what people think or feel, or who they are involved with, the above statements are almost intolerable. Is it rather interesting that Jehochman starts an Rfar claiming that ArbCom is the only one that can handle admin misconduct yet tried to claim that ArbCom was inappropriate about his own admin misconduct? Is it also a coincidence that the people claiming abuse and going after these three so hard happen to be the ones brought up in that ArbCom as acting improperly (Jehochman, Moreschi, Gwen Gale - see the ANI too). I would hope that if ArbCom desysops anyone, it should be the trouble makers above. The abuse is far greater than anything the undertow has done, and yet we are all 100% quite aware of their abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This, this and other diffs are troubling. Jehochman has made it obvious that he does not want to follow the standard rules and decorum (such as posting in other people's sections here). He is also being quite abusive on standard questions on his talk page and others. It would seem that Jehochman is acting in a completely irrational and unbalanced manner. I would recommend that ArbCom open up the case in order to analyze how Jehochman has not only caused disruption at ANI, but on multiple talk pages in relationship to this. Blocks are to prevent disruption, and I would further recommend a 24 hour block on Jehochman because his actions suggest a user that is acting out of control. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bishonen tearing out her hair

GlassCobra states here that he "felt sufficiently comfortable to place [his] trust in [The undertow] once again" by nominating him for adminship, and to "purposefully leave out any mention of The_undertow" in that nomination. His post is stunningly self-righteous and haughty, expressing not the slightest regret or doubt over his own actions. No, really, there appears no glimmer of a notion that the community needed the information to be able to decide whether or not to place their trust in The undertow once again. Au contraire. GlassCobra magisterially expresses "extreme displeasure with the actions and behavior of the other editors involved in leaking [sic] the information" and quite fails to see "why this particular instance seems to be generating such a dramastorm". Feeding into my own perception of the unofficial but strict "drama" rule so richly illustrated above ("if you have no actual argument, just say 'drama', that'll shut them up."), GC also feeds, more damagingly, into the perception of "ordinary" users that admins have each other's back — an expression unembarrassedly used by Jennavecia — this thing actually makes me blush. User:Little Stupid can have my tools. I strongly suggest that the arbcom follow Jennavecia's request here: "I'll always have his back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. And I would never not get his back because I'm an admin. If you don't trust me with my tools, recall me, but I won't be admonished for supporting my best friend." I've no wish to see Jennavecia admonished or otherwise humiliated, nor GlassCobra. There's too much humiliating going on at RFAR, and too much clumsy admonishment. Just do the practical thing: desysop them. They are not to be trusted with the tools. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

P.S. on Jehochman's request to the clerks

Just ignore Ottava Rima and Majorly, Jehochman. The more battleground stuff they post, the more they embarrass themselves. It doesn't touch you. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Response to FT2

Why call me "Admin X", FT2? Can't you spell "Bishonen"? You know — the admin who blocked you in January? The admin you like so much ? The following diffs demonstrate your pursuit of me and quest for vengeance; please realize that those are not relevant here. [24] [25] [26] Bishonen | talk 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Comment by bemused onlooker Spartaz

I'm sorry but the conduct of those admins who knowingly condoned this action is not acceptable and does not become their office. If the committee is to remain consistent in its approach to admin conduct and ethics then the colluding admins must lose their bits. Please do your duty. Also Undertow refers to a deal in their comment at talk Arbitration Announcements. I would be very grateful if the committee could release the details of this dear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dayewalker

No dog in this fight whatsoever, but to me, this issue has nothing to do with Law's conduct as an admin. He seems to have been a decent one, unblock of Child of Midnight notwithstanding. The larger issue deals with Wikipedia policies, and first and foremost the trust of the community. This seems to have been done purposefully without regard to the rules in place. I would request ArbCom take this case because if this issue isn't clarified, it pretty much serves to undermine the system of rules in place here at Wikipedia, which pretty much turns us into just another forum. Right or wrong, the issue should be addressed. Dayewalker (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved and highly amused Giano

As one who sits and listens to endless and usually very dull, tiresome and schoolmarmish debate about incivility, setting an example, rules are rules etc etc etc..need I go on? (Those of you who churn this repetitive and very lower-middle-class garbage out, know who you are) I find it quite extraordinary that it has been necessary to even attempt to bring this, a very serious matter, to the arbcom to adjudicate. Double standards? You bet it is. It's pathetic and all very odd, but in certain quarters it's OK to lie and cheat, do what you like, so long as one is in the Admin club. Sooner or later a choice has to be made to either clean things up, starting at the top (ideal) or the bottom (easy option and doomed to fail). Why are these people still here and Admins? Someone explain...please? - I'm fascinated to hear who, that will be the best laugh, comes up with even one semi-convincing reason. Giano (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommendation by Sandstein

I concur with this request for desysopping (or referral to RFA) as well as with the statements of KillerChihuahua, Cube lurker, JoshuaZ, Moreschi, Karanacs, Dayewalker and Bishonen (some of who I've in the past strongly disagreed with), and recommend that the Committee act on it. While no abuse of administrator tools occurred, the conduct of Jennavecia and GlassCobra was deeply unethical, for reasons that ought to require no explanation. It is therefore incompatible with a position of trust in any association of decent people, in particular because the two appear to find no flaw in their own conduct.  Sandstein  19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Tznkai

My proposal to ban "the Undertow" for longterm block evasion, abuse of trust etc. was made in good faith in what I believe to be the best interest of the project, and was supported by many (or is; it's been unarchived). I'm not one to dance on graves. I can't even dance.  Sandstein  19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

There are varying degrees of culpability here. An admin proposed Law for RFA, knowing he was a ban-evading sockpuppet. Other admins supported his RFA knowing he was a ban-evading sockpuppet. There is a third group of admins that either knew but were passive about the RFA, or found out later, but in either case took no affirmative action to have the account desysopped and blocked.

There is a dispute within the community about the level of culpability each admin has and what is the appropriate response. There is the "black hat" view (any admin who knew and did not act should be sanctioned), the "white hat" view (no harm was committed by those admins who supported Law knowing who he was) and several shades of grey.

This is not a case of admin misuse of tools, where nearly everyone agrees that admins who abuse their tools should be removed, and the dispute is whether the facts of the case show they abused their tools. The facts are not in dispute here, the disagreement is over whether the facts constitute an offense. I personally think that GlassCobra should be desyopped for knowingly nominating an admin candidate who was under two sanctions (a ban and an RFA restriction) without disclosing this fact. I would like to see some sort of rebuke for Lara and Jayron and any other admins who knowingly voted for Law, but I'm not sure exactly what. But there seems not to be a good consensus on what to do.

I think it would be best to have a community RFC on the subject of admin responsibility. It is not fair to demand that Arbcom desysop or exonerate these admins when there is no prior precedent and no community agreement on what responsibility, if any, each admin had to act on their information. Thatcher 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MZMcBride

Please reject this case. No good can possibly come of it. Both listed parties (Lara and Glass) are open to recall. It's high time that the community stop relying on the Arbitration Committee to resolve every issue that arises on this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by David Shankbone

I tend to agree with MZMcBride above. There are real issues and concerns that need to be addressed, but I think ArbCom is here for intractable disputes, not these sorts of issues that can be well-handled by the community. ArbCom is not the police. There needs to be a de-admin process set up; but since both Lara and GlassCobra are open to recall, I suggest that we use that route, which is as close to a de-admin process we have. In the meantime, it's high time we consider a formal de-admin process that is not voluntary. In this situation, ArbCom is overkill, in my opinion, although I recognize that there are serious concerns. I wish we would start solving problems ourselves instead of asking Papa ArbCom to sort out every issue. -->David Shankbone 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk note: {Threaded discussion removed. Please comment only in your own section.} AGK 22:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Nathan re: "recall"

MZMcBride notes above that Lara and GlassCobra are open to recall. Worth pointing out that both limit the terms of recall to situations where administrator privileges (specifically, administrator rights) were used, specifically excluding events that don't involve the use of these privileges. So, given the circumstances here, neither have a recall process that could address the concerns outlined above. Nathan ^T 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FT2's comment sent me searching to see if I knew what he was referring to; the RfC in question went by rather quickly, and it can be found here. Nathan ^T 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

It is an axiom of administrative involvement and arbitration that the behavior of all parties must be examined, and when we do that, we find many actions that are wanting. The Wikipedia community's essential purpose is to create an encyclopedia, and to that end, we encourage, tolerate, discourage, and constrain certain behaviors. Sysops are those entrusted to use their best judgment to solve certain problems, and are expected not cause them.

In the events immediately proceeding this request, at 05:02 UTC Risker posted the motion announcing the events concerning the undertow. Two and half hours later, at 07:29 Sandstein, the same administrator who had conflicted with Law and called for his desysopping in an arbitration request, started a community ban discussion on ANI. We can assume a lack of malicious intent, but it looks like dancing on someone's grave and is in incredibly poor judgment. Five and a half hours later at 13:04 Jehochman singled out Jennavecia and the discussion quickly degenerated. (Of note, as we all well know, even RfC/U is more effective and less drama producing than adding to a community ban discussion on ANI) At 14:16, Daniel declared “epic win”, presumably over Law's desysop. (Daniel and Law's earlier verbal alteraction was part of the chain of events for those not informed) Again, gloating is not conduct that should be tolerated. GlassCobra and Jennavecia have been called to task above, and it does not need repeating except to highlight what all of these acts have in common: they are examples of administrators exercising allegedly poor judgment. Some acts more obviously show bad judgment then others.

This should not be about some general principle about an affirmative obligation to act, philosophical questions on sins of omission, or even about community will or trust. This has everything to do with trusting an administrator's judgment. If a sysop can be trusted to maintain good judgment often enough, they should keep their tools. If a sysop has displayed significant acts of poor judgment, it calls into question whether or not they can be trusted with their tools.

Therefor, the Arbitration committee should examine the judgment of all the actors, especially administrators in this unfortunate chain of events, and test whether they have adequate judgment. It could, alternatively, decline the request because of the absence of significant efforts in dispute resolution. --Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply to Sandstein

I reiterate: "We can assume a lack of malicious intent, but it looks like dancing on someone's grave and is in incredibly poor judgment." (Emphasis added) Having the self awareness and self restraint to avoid moving for a ban of an editor you were just in conflict with (especially in cases like this) has everything to do with essential administrator's judgment.--Tznkai (talk)

Concerning the motions

The motions concerning mandatory reporting are too broad. I've been told information in confidence and come across supposed information that I have no right to know, that will never pass my lips at RfA or anything short of a genuine court of law. I at the very least, reserve my right to total and complete silence. I broadly and emphatically support judgment as the key issue and appropriate frame for discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning undertow/law's reblocking: I have always been uneasy about any specific action justified as general deterrence, and that seems to be the major ground here. Chip, as he is apparently on the other side of the computer has shown considerable remorse in this situation. Even if has not, he is the proximate cause of a massive melodrama that has mired his friends. That should be enough, more than enough to teach any lesson or to punish any offense. I think if we are to ever strive to do right, we must strive to be compassionate.--Tznkai (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although, in view of his statement just posted, my plea for compassion and forgiveness could have been considerably better timed, I hope still that all "sides" of this confrontation still strive to forgive and understand eachother.--Tznkai (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Verbal

All admins and above who were complicit with this deception should have the tools removed with the possibility of reapplying in the usual way. I find this who affair rather tacky, and the self righteous tone taken by some in "defense" of their wilful disregard for wikipedia policies sickening. Cas has done the honourable and good thing, and shown himself to be better than some. It seems others don't share his decency and dignity, and ArbCom might redeem itself somewhat by dealing with those that feel our rules don't apply to them and their friends. A sad day for the project an admin core. We've lost a good Arb, we've yet to loose the bad admins. Verbal chat 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd also like to remind people here that Law/the_undertow had recently egregiously abused (per arbocm and common sense) their improperly gained admin tools to help a friend - admin tools that were improperly gained due to the knowing and calculated improper actions of involved admins (his friends). Verbal chat 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Adding that I have no personal involvement with any of those involved in this case, and reject the silly accusations made by a (disgraced) former arb and others against those thinking action should be taken. To answer another point, all admins who knew should be warned - with approporiate severity depending on their involvement (ie GC and Jevennica should loose the tools). This is a good chance to clean up the admin core, before it rots through completely. Verbal chat 08:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Observation by Pete Forsyth

As quoted/diffed above, Lara stated that she felt it important to "support" her "best friend." I think this provides an important insight into what happened here.

The notion of "supporting" a friend is one thing, and casting a support !vote is quite another. If Lara confused one with the other, as it appears, that is a significant error in judgment.

I'm not recommending any specific action based on that error in judgment, but I think this factor should probably be considered carefully by anyone involved in this issue, including Lara. There are many ways to support a friend, that are compatible with one's duties as an administrator; to date, it appears (to me, from what I've seen) that Lara has not acknowledged that there may have been other, better options available that would have honored her friendship. -Pete (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommendation by Pete Forsyth

In lieu of previous comments, I am now supporting Jehochman's proposal of a structured RFC. Seems the best option given the circumstances. -Pete (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

addendum: I am concerned about the apparent desire of a couple of ArbCom members to simply make a determination (on the "motions" page). The underlying issue here is faith of the community, not the use of admin tools. If ArbCom makes its own determination, rather than a judgment of the determination made by the community, I think such a decision will lack legitimacy (regardless of whether the decision is to remove admin tools or not).

We have strong precedent for a trusted body to determine the will of the community: in RFA discussions, a bureaucrat determines the consensus determined by the community; and in featured article discussions, the FA editor or his/her deputies makes a similar determination. This is the model that should be followed here (though it may be that a bureaucrat is a better authority to judge consensus than ArbCom, since they're the ones who determine consensus for approving an RFA).

ArbCom's judgment of whether an administrator's judgment is sufficient to continue their duties is not relevant; admins serve at the pleasure of the entire editing community.

One other thing that seems worth mentioning: even if the 3 admins in question have their tools removed, there's nothing preventing them from running in a new RFA in the future to get them back. The point is, it's always been the community's trust that grants the tools, and any process for recalling them that is not supported by a broad consensus of the community lacks legitimacy. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

Should GlassCobra be de-sysopped for nominating and supporting Law, an account he knew to be a sockpuppet, to adminship? More broadly, is it allowable for administrators to harbor sockpuppetry by others?

Arbcom ought to weigh in because the question won't go away on its own or in other forums. It should lay down the law that: (1) deliberate deception in RfA process is not allowed; (2) knowingly supporting sockpuppetry is not allowed; and (3) complicity in any policy violation is, itself, a policy violation. The "drama" here (which can only be blamed on those perpetrating subterfuge, not those objecting to it) is preventing any resolution on community pages.

We should all agree that using alternate account names to avoid detection of a block or ban is wrong, and sockpuppet administrators are extra wrong. The test of socks is not whether they make good edits, it's whether they are alternate accounts created for an improper purpose. We obviously don't have a rule vindicating fake accounts as long as their edits gain support, or fake admins if they are popular. Fake doctors don't earn their medical license by performing a successful surgery, and escaped convicts don't earn their pardon by joining the boy scouts. The harm is the faking, not necessarily the specific acts (although just as unlicensed doctors are more likely to kill the patient, widespread sockpuppetry leads to widespread trouble on the encyclopedia).

The missing link is whether facilitating a sockpuppet is itself a breach of policy. More broadly, is complicity in a policy violation (by aiding, enabling, conspiring, encouraging, ignoring when one has a duty to police, etc.) itself a policy violation? I think yes. It's deliberate, it creates a policy violation, and the harm is the same.

On the secifics it is wrong to say that Law was a good administrator. What triggered this is that Law reversed a block made to enforce an ArbCom general sanction, without consulting and eventually against the pleas of the blocking editor, with an explanation that flaunted Arbcom. In so doing he mooted a request for enforcement (which I made). There is real harm from the cavalier disrespect for admin policy. It wasted days and days of editors' time by undoing a dispute resolution process that had already spilled onto more than one page and involved a dozen and a half editors. More fundamentally, coupled with knowing that my Arbcom request was undone by a sock promoted by a clique of mutually supportive admins, if nothing is done about this my faith in and respect for, and desire to abide by, Arbcom is greatly shaken. Why should I be the diligent one here with my article edits and dispute resolution, when a pack of cowboys runs all over my efforts and nobody cares?

ArbCom, when asked, unanimously agreed that the unblock was wrong and exhibited poor judgment. That's not good work. That's an administrator going rogue, which is in part what got The undertow de-sysopped and then blocked in the first place. GlassCobra should have foreseen this would happen, so he's responsible that it did. I don't have any opinion for what should happen to GlassCobra, but the current defiant attitude by, and support from other admins, does not bode well. Wikipedia already has a process for de-sysopping for "repeated/consistent poor judgment" and for "gross breach of trust". GlassCobra's suport for Law could be seen as either, particularly if GlassCobra's adminship factored in the nomination process, i.e. if he "wore the badge" into the room. If GlassCobra was okay to do it, will they advance more sockpuppet admins if the occasion arises and will we tolerate it? That's an open issue and Arbcom needs to put its foot down and say no.

- Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note - Ultraexactzz makes a good point, below. We should not punish people for being honest, nor make examples out of two people for a widespread phenomenon. If the decision is that this is impermissible, better to go with a slap on the wrist if even that, and a caution to them and all others not to do it again. That's why I'm heavy on the question of policy, and not so much on individual behavior. Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrelevant musing by NE2

It seems the common thread in the recent "fresh start" cases has been that one cannot use a fresh start to become an admin. Or maybe that you should use it as such, because then you'll only be deadminned rather than banned (except in the case of Mr. Leetage). --NE2 21:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: if there's one good thing that's come from this, it's that every time I think of Law I do a few Kegels. --NE2 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz

By the logic expressed here, any admin who supported The_undertow at his Law RFA, knowing he was undertow, should be desysopped. Which means we are in the position of listing every admin who supported as a party and demanding that they, under penalty of sanction, come clean as to whether they knew that Law was a sockpuppet, and when they found out. We might go further, and list the opposing admins as well - if they opposed due to their knowledge and relationship with undertow, why didn't they blow the whistle on the whole charade?

I don't mean to diminish or belittle the concerns of my esteemed colleagues, above, but the argument here is that Jennavecia and Glasscobra should be sanctioned because they admitted their knowledge of the Law/undertow connection, and others should not because they have not admitted to knowing about it. Should everyone who suspected the relationship be listed as well? (Why didn't they blow the whistle?) This case is the very definition of slippery slope, and no good can come of it in its present form.

I concur that some discussion should be had on when admins (and arbitrators - I note that Casliber is not listed as a party) are required to report violations, or when they can use their discretion in interacting with the blocked or banned user. And dispute resolution may be in order - there has been no RFC, no comment apart from the drama at ANI. It's too soon, though - there has not been enough time for those things to occur.

In short, This is not ripe for arbitration, and the scope is not sufficiently narrow for a meaningful remedy. I urge the committee to decline this request. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk note: {Threaded discussion removed. Please comment only in your own section.} AGK 22:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum in re: FT2's Comments

If FT2's allegations are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt them... Wow. That sounds much like an arbitration case all its own. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm striking this, it's too much the drama. Let it stand that I read FT2's "Obervations..." comment in a way that I'm sure FT2 didn't intend. In light of his comments, though, it might not be a bad idea for the filing party to clarify his position, esp. as it relates to his statements in the referenced RFC. Apologies for any offense. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kevin

In my opinion the act of getting a formerly banned editor to abandon the behavior that caused the ban back to being a productive editor, so much so that he passed RFA, is the greatest achievement here, and one that we should aspire to. The fact that is was done outside the narrow boundaries of a previous ARBCOM decision is a lapse of judgement, nothing more. I do not believe that either admins actions at the RfA actually changed the result, so I look on them more as "moral support for a friend" rather than trying to sneak something through. This is a case for adminishment, nothing more. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Pedro

I've thought hard before commenting here. There is exceptional bad blood between myself and Lara / Jennavecia that has had more than one unfortunate overspill. Equally I have only ever had very positive interaction with GlassCobra.
As an "interesting" note, over at our favourite review site is this where less than two weeks ago the account on Wikipedia Review that idenitifies as being Jennavecia on Wikipedia seems to indicate a mere passing knowledge of Law (note the "or something") yet we now know this was disingenuous at best (an outright lie at worst) - she knew exactly what the editor known as Law's profession was.
I actively opposed Jennavecia's request for Oversight, and righlty so, as it is now proven she will look out for friends before abiding by fundamental Wikipedia policy.
I certainly feel the nature of this issue needs arbcom attention. Let me be clear on that. The levels this runs to is too deep for arbcom to avoid.

Having said that, there are many calls above regarding trust. Well trust comes in many forms. I trust my wife with my PIN number, my kids, my life - but I would not trust here to go and run a presentation to my clients.

Whilst my faith in GlassCobra has been shaken, and I had no faith in Jennavecia to begin with, I do not see how these actions are an natural precussor to desysop. I still trust both of these editors to use admin tools effectively - and there is no doubt both of them have used those permissions extensively, effectively, fairly and within the policies of this website. In paticular I note both editors extensive WP:BLP concerns and efforts in that respect - surely something to be deeply grateful for.
I believe arbcom needs to look at the ramifications of this case but removal of the tools for these editors is not, in my opinon, a benefit to Wikipedia - it's a hinderance. Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment to Willbeback

I have no clue how you define "membership" but other than posting a couple of pictures and a few comments on talk I have had little to do with this Bath Robe Cabal. It was simply a bit of fun after a particular RFA and a photo that was uploaded to Wikipedia. I have never used the (apparently now defunct) website nor the facebook page. Considering you have already had to remove two names I suggest you do your research a bit harder next time. I'd appreciate you at least noting that you have no evidence that this humorous "cabal" was in anyway relevant to this case. I'd also note I had no clue Law was the_undertow and if I had found out I would have been the first little squealer at ANI given I despise the man. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved FeydHuxtable

Its only the most oppressive communities such as Stalin's Russia that demand total loyalty regardless of friendship. Would be different if Law hadn't been a mostly constructive user. Hope this case against two of our best admins is rejected. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to keep it real

In response to comparisons between admins and public office holders , its true that politicians and big company directors have to sign up to codes of conduct which demand honesty. However, even accepting adminship is a big deal to many, the connections a little OTT when one considers that senior execs often don't need to make these sorts of commitments. Even for major office holders, never as far as Im aware is there a clause saying they have to rat on their friends. The issue here is analogous to an MP failing to disclose that a friend covered up a minor COI and then going on to support in say a vote on who gets to chair a committee. Office holders are held accountable for their own honesty , not those of friends or family. Many jurisdictions explicitly forbid prosecutors against trying to compel partners to rat each other out.

There are some questionable views on friendship below, so I'll refer to the best available source for the mainstream POV on ethical matters. "There is no greater love than to lay down ones life for ones friends" (John 15:13). No ones going to be judged on whether they've crusaded for absolute disclosure, but whether theyve loved others as themselves. God cannot lie , but He doesn't merely sometimes fail to disclose, He sometimes purposely hides truth. (Isaiah 29:9-10). Paul the Apostle was "all things to all men." Christ told us to "be as wily as serpents." This isnt to deny truthfulness is very important, but describing whats at worst an aggravated failure to disclose as "abysmal" or "appalling" – adjectives suited for the vilest evil - really isn't something a sincere engagement with reality can support.

If you guys don't with to be bold and end this by accepting the apologies and offering warnings, Uncle G's suggestion could be of benefit. There should be no risk of consensus emerging to desysop, and further discussion might help enlighten hard liners with some real world perspective. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Modernist

Appallingly hypocritical, and drenched in double standard, we have the spectacle of Law, attacking Peter Damian, and Damian's demise; then - Pastor Theo, who really was - Ecoleetage, personal attacks, gaming the system, rules applying to you and to me, but not to a select group of admins who do what they want, (although most don't bother writing articles) but rather create drama, and then essentially explain - it's only a website.Take the case, Casliber has resigned perhaps he should weigh in as well. I am adding that Casliber was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, and no one can really fault him for anything that transpired, but others who are trusted admins by their irresponsibility, duplicity and silence are far more culpable and not surprisingly now far less willing to bear responsibility for their actions, or capable of understanding that their actions constitute a serious violation of the position of authority and trust that they were privileged to bear. There is either a serious lack of understanding surrounding this or plain deception; and both Lara and Glasscobra should be desysopped to preserve the integrity of this body...Modernist (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning professionalism

It seems that the only professional behavior in this affair has been exhibited by Casliber, who has taken responsibility for his actions, rightly or wrong. Law, GlassCobra and Lara however have not...Modernist (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning intentions

One of my father's favorite and often used expressions was The road to hell was paved with good intentions. On the other hand the famous art critic Clement Greenberg would often say that "in order to understand an artists work; you need to first understand what (her or his) intentions are." Although they are somewhat contradictory interpretations of intentions, the implication is that intention is not a justification for doing the wrong thing in either case...Modernist (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved dave souza

Friendship is a valuable part of Wikipedia, the problem arises when friendship is held to justify bad judgement and a breach of the trust of the community in enabling and abetting a sockpuppet to evade community scrutiny and obtain administration tools. Had they shown true friendship, the honest and decent course of action would be to advise their friend that they themselves would be obliged to act properly, at the least his identity should be made known to arbcom, and that they would have nothing to do with nominating or voting for their friend in a deceitful bid for admin tools. From justifications that have been made, a good case could have been made for an open request for reinstatement on the basis of reformed behaviour, but the community is entitled to review that case and not have it deliberately hidden.

Obviously by making the bid, the undertow placed his friends in a difficult position. Casliber evidently behaved decently in trying to persuade him to act properly, and has honourably accepted that by not acting to notify Arbcom of the deception he has undermined community trust. GlassCobra and Jennavecia evidently are unable to see that they have done anything wrong or that they have undermined community trust in their future actions, which from their words will always involve putting friendships before community trust and policies. I have great sympathy for the occasional lapse in behaviour, but these admins are proclaiming their right to continue to act against policies in the interest of their friends.

Regrettably, I must urge Arbcom to take on this case and give full consideration to the necessary action, both in terms of these individuals and in terms of setting standards of admin behaviour for the future. It should have been obvious that deceiving the community by acting covertly to make a known sockpuppet an admin was unacceptable behaviour, but evidently this message has not been grasped. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on responses

As Barberio has helpfully clarified at #'Arbcom legislating' and 'no policies have been broken', there have been clear breaches of policy. The #Statement by GlassCobra in Response to Jehochman and others is well put, and shows what I would consider a reasonable level of understanding of the wrongness of the actions breaching policy. The #Statement by Jennavecia is a well crafted non-apology apology, and while it is a considerable improvement on earlier defiant statements, all it concedes is summarised by "Would I do it again? After this shitstorm, surely not. All that said, I think all that's left is, am I apologetic? To a degree." Not reassuring. It is important that Arbcom impose suitable and sufficient sanctions to make it clear that such actions are not sanctioned in any way. There as been a wide range of degrees of misconduct, and Barberio us wise in suggesting Arbcom consider suspended sentences on probation for those administrators they do not feel should be directly punished. . dave souza, talk 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by FT2

The action of concealment was grossly improper and I endorse hearing it at RFAR. I don't know if it was naive bad judgment by the parties ("he's changed") or something else, but there's no way concealing it at RFA could possibly have been the right thing to do; especially given the history of which they had knowledge.

That's the one place the community relies upon openness as it chooses its future sysops and it was distorted by concealment by the nominators. It's worthy of an RFAR. "Unusually poor judgement" at best. Desysoppable for gross breach of trust? Temporary desysop to mark the seriousness and drive home that it must never recur again? Strong admonishment? Let's leave that one to Arbcom. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update - if the case is heard, then it's important to remember that "a banned user comes back, behaves well, and doesn't have further issues" is traditionally grounds for letting the past be the past. I would respect that, if that was the intention and belief.

It is however poor judgment because in this case the user was seeking adminship, a role they had led into drama and dispute previously, so the community should have been given the knowledge of that, although a year old, and allowed to assess that in full possession of the facts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Observation out of disgust by uninvolved FT2

I don't often speak with simple disgust at other users' actions. This time, having endorsed the hearing of this case, I do. Sorry for this, but unusually, it's a "cannot stay silent on it" issue, relating to those presenting this case. Some background:

2 months ago an admin and MedCom member, and a FA editor and featured portal director with adminship on 5 wikis, Arbcom on another project, and OTRS -- raised concerns that an admin KillerChihuahua and Jehochman both knew, had tacitly allowed another admin, their close wiki-friend, to covertly sock a discussion to their advantage, and had concealed their sure knowledge it was an admin's stacking sockpuppet. The party had not only failed to disclose it to the community when it mattered, but as an admin with direct involvement had allowed the matter to stand undisclosed and even to continue.

Sounds comparable? Behavior like this worthy of RFAR? Dead right. That is exactly why concerns were raised.

But at the related RFC and various talk page discussions in that case, two admins posted quickly and forcefully to effectively protect the sock-aider. Guess who? User:Jehochman and User:KillerChihuahua: - exactly the same pair of admins now bringing an RFAR titled "Administrators aiding a sock puppet".

In that case both Jehochman and KillerChihuahua indicated the case was groundless, improper, should not be asked, and scornfully dismissed the concerns unconsidered. (KC later admitted never even reading the evidence.) In this case about a near-identical issue (involved admin knowing about but concealing improper use of admin-related account misuse) both seek the exact opposite:

• Jehochman: -- ...admins [who]... knowing full well that the account had been used [improperly]... motivation appears to have been close friendship with the operator... I think this was a gross abuse of trust... I call upon the Committee to remove sysop access... The facts are clear cut... Do we tolerate subversion of our policies by popular insiders?...

• KillerChihuahua: -- An admin who[se]... friends come before policy... she should not have Wikipedia's trust... An admin who knowingly aids and abets... a sock account... is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust. [Such a user should not] have the admin tools, having proven they are untrustworthy and place personal friendship over the community, the project, and policy.

Jehochman, KillerChihuaua - this specific case may well be valid, but I do not have any confidence in either of your motives in bringing it. You're either for admin concealment of socking being seen as important, or against it. Not changing depending on who the party may be.

Specifically, your conduct (together) is too diametrically changed, your joint posting too convenient, your complete dismissal (together) of admin-endorsed socking for gain in one case and complete overwhelming pushing (together) for the most severe penalties for it in another, raises the most grave concerns about cliques, gaming, and integrity.

I have not once posted that strongly of a fellow admin, in my five years as a Wikimedian.

If you have a good explanation for the discrepancy and for your joint "first in the trough" in both cases, to protect admin X from the consequences of improper concealment of admin socking in one instance, and to drag admins Y+Z to RFAR in another case, when both revolve around substantively similar actions and ethical issues, I would be open to hearing it.

Otherwise I note the above, and the jointly early arriving together (which Jehochman has stated is noteworthy in other cases), as part of this case and for the community to consider.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Chillum

Hiding the fact that an admin is both sock puppeting and violating an arbcom sanction is a gross violation of trust and I hope that this case is taken seriously. Putting friendship before the well being of a project is exactly what we do not need or want in an admin. A clear statement needs to be made that this is not acceptable behavior for a sysop here. Chillum 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Protonk

More later, the basic idea being that arbcom should reject this case, though not for some of the reasons listed above.

Ok. Permit me to show my lower class roots and tell a sea story. On the U.S.S. Anyfish a team of engineering crewmembers were on watch while the submarine was at sea. They were not paying attention to a minor reactor plant parameter and they accidentally triggered a protective function, forcing the control rods into the core. Normally, this would be a serious but not dramatic problem. The watch team would be relieved, disqualified and an investigation would be undertaken. If the investigation revealed that the protective function was tripped as a result of an avoidable but benign accident, the crewmembers on watch would receive the naval version of a trouting and be requalified. But on this occasion, the protective action was so slight that all the crew members had to do in order to correct it was withdraw rods again and they could pretend it never happened. A watchteam of 5 people, including enlisted personnel with years of experience and a junior officer, chose to falsify records and not report the protective action.

Later, the oncoming watch team noticed a discrepancy and discovered the protective action and subsequent cover-up. The watch team responsible for covering up the action was permanently barred from standing watch on nuclear submarines (the naval equivalent of an indefinite ban. When an outside monitor reviewed the incident (because while the protective action was no big deal, the cover up was important), they found out why this experienced team of people risked their careers in order to cover up this small problem. The command they were operating under (the submarine) had adopted a punitive regime with regard to small infractions. So instead of facing a serious but temporary disciplinary action over triggering the protective action, they might have faced more severe punishment, offering them the apparent rationale to hide the evidence in order to avoid that punishment. In doing so they knowingly compounded a trivial problem (a fast insertion) into a career ending mistake (coverup of a protective action). Were those watchteam members still responsible for their actions? Yes. But part of the blame lays with the command and (importantly) part of the way forward in avoiding a repeat of this action lies in offering a more sensible punishment scheme.

Like those sailors on that 637, here we have 4 (maybe more) admins who saw an editor they knew and liked banned (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) and then were faced with a decision to reveal to the community or the committee the identity (per se) of their friend following his return. They probably felt that Arbcom was more likely to escalate the ban following an attempt to circumvent it and they felt that the community would be unsympathetic. I can't really understand why they all might have felt that the right answer was to nominate and support him for adminship, but once you move down that road of subterfuge and rationalization it is hard to go back. I don't thin it helps to walk back and determine blame but we do have a chance right here to show folks in the future that we will be understanding when they reveal past misdeeds.

I think Arbcom should reject this case, at the most authoring a motion to warn GC, given that his was the most grave sin of commission. The damage that has been done is in the past. Don't establish a reputation as vindictive or severe as you will grow to regret it. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor response to Feyd Huxtable's comment

I will also point out that Feyd Huxtable's comment is inaccurate and breathtaking in its hyperbole and revealed ignorance. Plenty of organizations and governing bodies around the world have strict rules about breaking public trust due to a private relationship, from corporate boards to city councils to legislative bodies. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rodhullandemu

I see no requirement in the RFA procedure to disclose prior knowledge of the candidate, although I also note that there are moves to include this; maybe that is no bad thing, not necessarily because of this case, but because of prior, much more abusive cases. My bottom line is this, and only this: "Does this editor's ability to edit/admin constitute an overwhelmingly net benefit to the purpose of building an encyclopedia?". We continually close our eyes (but sigh) to editors abusing basic policies such as WP:CIV and WP:NPA because they provide good content. Eventually, they may go too far and lose the community's patience, but meanwhile, they are drama-wasps at the picnic. I don't see User:The_undertow being in that tranche. He's here for the best interests of the encyclopedia (remember that?), as far as I can see, and should not be pilloried for that. I don't see that he was required to disclose his prior account, and I suggest that ArbCom has better things to do than a microscopic dissection of something that, in the final analysis, has not demonstrably caused any harm to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kww

This is one of those cases that appears very simple to me, and I fail to understand why people struggle with it. GlassCobra and Jennavecia were aware of block evasion, and did nothing to stop it. The RFA is a red herring: the simple fact that neither of them blocked Law upon becoming aware of the block evasion would be sufficient to warrant desysopping. The whole concept of a "fresh start" is that no one ever finds out. The reason it's important for no one to ever find out is that a whole series of obligations and events are triggered once anyone does. In this case, GlassCobra and Jennavecia were obligated to block Law once the sock puppetry and block evasion were known.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on GlassCobra's statement

I was surprised to see GlassCobra state "While I am unsure of the exact amount of time that passed between the blocking of the Undertow account and the creation of the Law account, I am relatively sure that by the time Law was granted the tools, the block on the Undertow account had expired.". This strains credibility, as per this and [27], it was scarcely three months into a nine month block. It took me all of 30 seconds to look that up, and I would expect that GlassCobra is equally skilled with examining logs.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC) This misses the point entirely: it doesn't matter when he was granted the tools, what matter is that block evasion occured, per this and [28].—Kww(talk) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Franamax

On one level, no arbitration is required here. Jennavecia and GlassCobra have irreparably damaged themselves in their attempt to "help" a "friend". They will never be able to escape this, anything they do or say in future will face the innocent question "Oh excuse me, is what you are saying/doing because it's right for Wikipedia, or is it because the subject is your friendz4ever or you've privately arrived at the conclusion that even though it's wrong 'tis all good anyway?". That damage is done, and the damage has also claimed a pretty good arbitrator to boot. By all indications TU is kicking himself, and he should have had better friends who would pull him up by the short hairs the day before he went to RFA.

On another level, the absolute determination of the named admins in this case that they did nothing wrong, that the end justifies the means, and that it is all someone else's fault - combined with the fact that there is really no practical way to deal with this outside of this forum - pretty much dictates that ArbCom should hear this case. The fundamental trust of the community is at stake here. People would really like to believe that admins hew to values in preference to relationships. Franamax (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Durova

No formal dispute resolution has preceded this request for arbitration. There has been no wheel war and no urgent problem exists regarding use of administrative tools. Yesterday, while none of FT2 points were in mind, I offered to certify an RfC on either Jehochman or Jennavecia primarily because both of their conduct was indecorous. It's important to set the right example, particularly during administrative discussion about someone such as Law who has tried to get it right and made significant missteps. Recommend rejection: people deserve a chance to learn what the community's opinion is and to adapt as appropriate. Durova³²⁰ 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EdChem is right. With respectful sympathy toward the sentiment of FayssalF's suggestion, it treads too close to the line. ArbCom is not a moral compass for the community at large; it exists to resolve disputes. Either there is an arbitratable dispute here or there is not (or perhaps not yet)--which would place specific individuals under scrutiny as compared to site policies and norms. It is not the function of the Committee as a body to advise the community what its norms ought to be, although any or all of the individual arbitrators are welcome at policy and policy talk pages. Durova³²⁰ 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extending thanks to Cool Hand Luke for a clear and cogent explanation of relevant background. Durova³²⁰ 03:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give up on the summary motion drafts. The long term effect of that is to encourage high drama political RFARs--at the expense of actual dispute resolution. Durova³²¹ 14:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disappointed but not surprised that the Committee overlooks both the unseemly manner in which this RFAR was initiated (and a second unactionable RFAR by the same person) and expresses no regret over the 2008 Committee's having let the appeal slip through the cracks (hence precipitating inappropriate action by persons who supposed legitimate appeals were pointless). One-sided summary motions incentivize future drama and political filings. Please reconsider. Durova³²¹ 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninv Ncmvocalist

I'm glad FayssalF sees through this, and ironically, my comment would be similar to his main one (perhaps longer, and with less emphasis on professionalism). But if we start focussing on professionalism with respect to this request, we cannot ignore some of the concerns raised by FT2, Jennavecia, and others; that some users manage to repeatedly cause disunity even with professionalism, due to their own glaring loyalty to certain users. It's impossible to resolve these issues without drastic steps. Perhaps a motion that reminds all parties of what this project is (supposed to be), and urging them to genuinely settle or resolve their differences amongst themselves, in a manner that is voluntary, tactful and in good faith, is the best we can do here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moved my update to here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Jayron32

You can go ahead and add me to the "parties" section of this case if you choose. I knew that Law was the undertow. I supported him in his RFA knowing that. I am not ashamed or embarassed by that. --Jayron32 05:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Orderinchaos

Personally I think the matter is unactionable, and actioning it would produce loads of unnecessary drama. I think the wrong thing was done and certainly, some people come out of this looking less than squeaky clean and would probably have to acknowledge that if they were to go through RfA right now, they would probably fail it. There is a *big* gulf between not taking action against your friends, which is a conflict-of-interest issue anyway and one I've had to deal with with at least one user, and *actively assisting* in violations of Wikipedia policy. Friendship does not require that of anyone - the best course of action when in doubt is to abstain, and to advise from the sidelines. (I once had a friend who, while incredibly well-intentioned, was constantly incivil and prone to edit-warring and it put me in a very awkward spot.) But I can't see anything ArbCom can consider about the specific individuals concerned that would lead to any more than a few "Such-and-such is admonished..." remedies, and a lot of bad blood could come out before that inevitable is reached. I tend to agree with Fayssal's approach below regarding passing a motion or making a ruling on cornerstone principles or ideals such as to provide guidance to future editors who find themselves in this kind of situation. Orderinchaos 07:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to Jclemens below, I do personally think it is a perfectly acceptable solution to an awful conflict of interest situation to abstain entirely. i.e. "I do not think what you are doing is right, I think you should not do it, here are the reasons why, but as a friend, I cannot stop you." Orderinchaos 08:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Badger Drink

Should friends come before Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit? Absolutely. Should Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, then give carte blanche to what is, at its heart, unabashedly clique-like behavior? Absolutely not. I don't dispute for one minute that GlassCobra and Jennavecia believed they were being very noble in putting friendship before Wikipedia - and so they were. But that nobility comes at a price, and to wave aside said price does nothing but cheapen whatever nobility their actions had. To be blunt: You took a gambit, the gambit backfired. Man up and admit and accept that you are no longer trustworthy enough to perform administrative duties. Don't hem and haw and err and umm and hand-wring and hand-wave and blow smoke up our asses about how you really, actually, no kidding, honestly, we-mean-it had the project's best interests in mind - such transparently two-faced backpedaling is disrespectful to other editors, disrespectful to the project, and I daresay it even trivializes the no-doubt loyal nature of your friendship with Law ("we're your friends, tried and true, and have no problem risking our necks for you - well, er, until our necks are in danger, and if that's the case, then, uh, we were just supporting you because, uh, we thought it was good for the project, or something...").

I also submit that, in the spirit of WP:IAR, the statements and comments at this page are an indicator of the community's view, and referring this matter to an RfC so the same people who offered statements and comments here can go over there and transclude their statements from here to there, then endorse each other's comments, is sheer process-wonkery of the worst sort.

As a postscript, any "ends justify the means" rationalization of their behavior in supporting Law cannot ignore Law's horrible unblock of ChildOfMidnight, which reeks of the same bad relativism that characterized the whole White Pride fiasco which semi-indirectly led to the undertow's original block. Do such ends really justify the means of Jennavecia and GlassCobra? I think not. Badger Drink (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by utterly disenchanted DuncanHill

So some admins lie and cheat to promote their blocked or banned friends? So what? We all know this sort of thing goes on all the time - the best thing for ArbCom to do would be to acknowledge that admins are exempt from all the normal standards of decent behaviour, and let them get on with their silly games. Admins cannot be trusted, and no attempt to rectify that is ever likely to succeed. I would just like to add that any block of someone for calling an admin a lier or a cheat is going to sound very hollow from now on. DuncanHill (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'll add this on friendship - a true friend does not help you to lie and to cheat, a true friend tries to guide and support you towards honesty and fair play. Too often on Wikipedia we see "friends" encouraging very damaging and ultimately self-destructive behaviour in their victims friends. It is time we stopped this "friendship means never telling someone that they are way out of line" nonsense in its tracks. DuncanHill (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question to all arbitrators

Did any other Arbitrators know of this, or would have known had they been more attentive to their emails? And are any arbs aware of any similar cases? DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the personal and the public

Many admins know of blocked or banned users editing through sock accounts and take no action out of personal loyalty. So long as this is a passive "failure to reveal", there is little disruption (personally I find it distasteful at best, but I do recognise that my standards of friendship and honesty may differ from those of many others). However, when that knowledge is concealed in a community discussion which could result in enhanced privilege for that friend, such concealment becomes an active deception of the community, and serves to undermine the process in question, the community's ability to trust the judgement of that admin, and trust in admins in general. This disrupts the project significantly. In short - if your friend is editing through a block or ban - don't nominate or support them at RfAd! DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Hogarth's "The Polling". It's time for Wikipedians to drag themselves into the 21st century.

Part of what it is to be human is that we starve without relationships and dread losing them. Every sophisticated human institution throughout history has had to erect strong defences against the injustice and in-group bias caused by that basic human need. Lara Love/Jennavecia made the problem explicit when she wrote that she'll always place her friends' interests above those of Wikipedia. We all do this to some extent.

Wikipedia has built almost no defence against it. This coming ArbCom election is the first time we'll have a secret ballot, for example. ArbCom decisions and procedures are often inconsistent with the basic ideas of natural justice. We're still ruled to some extent by a god-king who for a long time upheld a system based on personal favours, because there was nothing else in place. We have Arbs and admins who play to the audience, including on IRC and Wikipedia Review, because they want to be liked, or are scared of being disliked. We're hundreds of years behind the rest of the world's institutions when it comes to understanding what fairness entails.

We have a situation here where an Arb was willing to watch Lara/Jennavecia gain access to oversight, [29] even though he knew she'd helped a desysopped friend evade an ArbCom ban for harassment and regain adminship. The worst of it was that the Arb couldn't see that he had to resign without discussion when it came to light. This is a bad state of affairs to be in, and we're all to blame for it, because we're all part of a system that encourages it.

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, and to make some tough decisions about the role of the ArbCom, functionaries, and admins so that the friendship culture is replaced with something more professional. We need an explicit and actionable code of conduct for Arbs (which should not be written by them!) and probably one for admins and functionaries too, with the understanding that, if people violate it, they're expected to resign without argument. When we elected you last December, we voted for change. This is an excellent chance to deliver. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Gatoclass

I have virtually no familiarity with any of the protagonists in this dispute, and I normally refrain from commentary in any case with which I am not personally involved, but in this case I think something needs to be said. I find it absolutely outrageous that administrators would nominate and support the adminship of a user they knew to be both desysopped and longterm blocked, without first notifying the community of the candidate's previous identity. Glasscobra's paean to Law in his RFA nom is breathtaking in its mendacity. I'm sure these users must all have been having a very good chuckle at the community's expense over the fast one they managed to pull. They have made dupes out of every user who !voted for Law in good faith, and shown their utter contempt for the community and its processes in doing so. Both Glasscobra and Jennavecia should be desysopped forthwith. Now that Jayron has "come out of the closet" and admitted to being part of this fraud, he too should lose the bit, along with anyone else who has participated in this deception.

Jennavecia, an admin whose judgement up until this moment I had respected, made the comment that her friends would always "have her back" over some "website". That is her prerogative of course, and certainly no-one could criticize her for making such a choice. However, she should also understand that from the point of view of the website, she has in effect announced her unfitness to hold a position of responsibility there.

I don't see how the community can possibly condone this sort of behaviour. It would make a mockery of every process that has been painstakingly built up over the years if we allowed this to stand. Administrators cannot be a law unto themselves, overturning community decisions by stealth in order to reward their buddies - no matter how bad they may have considered the original decisions to be. How will it look to non-admins to see administrators getting away with such behaviour? What sort of message would it send to other admins? Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to FayssalF

And just in response to FayssalF's comments below, in which he expresses an apparent reluctance to act upon this case apart from making some motherhood statement about the desirability of cultivating an attitude of "professionalism". I invite you for a moment to imagine someone standing for adminship who, when asked about their commitment to wikipedia policies, replied: I'll always have [my friends'] back no matter what, because we're friends regardless of what's going on with Wikipedia. I would never put a website before a friendship. How much "professionalism" can you detect in an attitude like that? How much chance do you think such a candidacy would have of being successful? How about none? In which case, why should a sitting admin who has recently made such a statement not be shown the door just as readily? At the very least, these admins should have to stand again to re-test the community's trust in their judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re "community based resolution"

With all due respect to those who have proposed a "community based resolution", I don't believe that is a viable option here. One only has to look at the mess that transpired after a "community based resolution" tried to get Elonka recalled not so long ago. Certain issues are simply not well handled by the community, which is why arbcom was set up in the first place.

In regards to the idea of creating a community based desysop process, which has been floating around for quite a while, I personally don't see much need for it as I think arbcom has generally handled such requests reasonably well in the past. However, it is not in my view practical to start talking about creating such a structure to deal with a here-and-now problem. If users want to develop such a process, fine, but I think this particular case needs to be dealt with now and the only effective means we have of doing so currently is through arbcom. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Jclemens

ArbCom should take this case, for the purpose of deciding one question: Are community sanctions binding on every administrator? If they are, then Jennavecia and Glass Cobra probably need to lose their admin bits. If they're not, and individual admins are allowed freedom of conscience to not personally enforce sanctions which they do not believe are in the best interests of Wikipedia, then there is no reason for either of them to be penalized. A simple statement of principle--a summary judgement, if you will--is appropriate, if not necessary, and will help settle the matter where other measures will not. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by EdChem

ArbCom should not take this case.

The basic facts here are uncontested. The question is whether the act of nominating, supporting, or concealing the fact that user:Law = user:the Undertow is sufficient to make the community lose trust in an admin continuing to hold the tools. In essence, it's about whether they fail a 'fit and proper person' test, and this decision is the community's to make in a recall procedure. It is not ArbCom's place to substitute its opinion for that of the community (even by way of motion) in this situation, even though there is no recall procedure extant. It would also be unwise of ArbCom to wade into these waters as the cases about other admins learning about Law and not acting will just continue appearing. Maybe the development of such a procedure could be a positive thing to come out of this case.

ArbCom can contribute to the resolution of problems like this in one substantial and tangible way, and that is by publishing the long-needed arbitrator recall procedures. Even before this case appeared, I had posted a question at WT:AC/N about the arbitrator recall agenda item (and I'm still hoping for an answer). Such a procedure could be a template for mandatory administrator recall procedures. Like an RfA, recall needs to allow consideration of not only specific actions but also for an overall decision as to whether a person has the trust of the community. LHvU (at Jimbo's talk page) has suggested that the procedure may need to be introduced by god-king fiat, and he may be correct - but maybe we can get community consensus to overcome self-interested resistance to introduce this overdue meaningful accountability measure. In either case, ArbCom would do the community a serious dis-service by trying to 'solve' the problem here. The flood waters on the issue of a need for a recall process will never stop rising, and ArbCom acting might build the dam a little higher but that is not in anyone's interests long-term. EdChem (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement from Juliancolton

I must say, the drama levels on this project are currently higher than that I've ever seen. The overall morale of Wikipedia's editors is astoundingly low these past few days, largely due to this "dispute". These recent events are having a significant impact on the community as a whole, its perception of trust, and its trust in certain users. With that being said, most—if not all—parties have come clean, so to speak, about their involvement in this situation. The rest of the community has said their piece, and has almost unanimously agreed that the actions of some user during this ordeal was inappropriate. This is certainly not something I'd like to see again in the future, but I ask that the committee reject this case in favor of a more community-based resolution. I'm in agreement with MZMcBride's statement above which submits that no good can come of this case. The Arbitration Committee exists to resolve unproductive disputes that the community has failed to resolve, and at this time I see no evidence that this dispute is continuing to cause harm to the project and requires intervention from ArbCom; in other words, WP:STICK. All this in consideration, I believe that accepting and arbitrating this case will, likely, be unproductive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement from entirely uninvolved admin Gladys J Cortez

While I agree with those who believe that Arbcom acceptance of this case would lead to no goodness and much badness, I do feel compelled to raise this point: If this situation, and the possibility of similar situations in the future, isn't enough to spur SOMEONE to create a concrete, workable, universal, and enforceable standard schema for admin recall, I question what kind of brick-to-the-collective-head we'll need. Either a solid, non-skeletal proposal needs to be brought by some visionary member of the community; or Arbcom or a similar Voice of Authority should create a committee for this specific purpose. But SOMEBODY needs to do it, and start it post-haste. (I'd take a stab at it myself, but I, as my talk page says, am on a wikibreak.)GJC 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

statement from DGG

I do not see how there can be community resolution, since the situation involves 1/ the repeated declared intent of one administrator, Jennavicia, to act to support her friends rather than to support the best interests of the encyclopedia and 2/ the act of another, Glass Cobra, in deliberately lying in nominating a person at RfA. The appropriate remedies in each case include ones that lie in the jurisdiction of arb com. This is one of those things which need to be settled definitively and rapidly. This is especially important because of the admitted action of a sitting arb in concealing knowledge of the false nomination. I do not see what the community can do that would be equal to the situation; drama though arb com is, community action is even worse. It would of course be possible for the two admins involved to themselves end this matter by the obvious course of action, as did the member of arb com. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GlassCobra

I would like to begin by apologizing for my delay in posting this statement. I have spent the time attempting to collect my thoughts and working on a way to best express them. However, it seems that the delay has caused some people to come to the conclusion that I am unremorseful, which I can assure you all is untrue. I care deeply about this project and the community, and would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize to the people whose trust I have shaken or lost completely.

I have been in close contact with the Undertow/Law for a long time, and I know a lot about his personal situation. What I said at WT:ACN was the absolute truth: Law told me that he intended to abandon the Undertow account (which he did), and start afresh with the Law account. We had a detailed discussion about his life both on and off-wiki, and I felt assured that his personal life was in a much better place than it was when the Undertow account was blocked. As Law, he was a fine admin for the project. Up until this very recent glitch with ChildofMidnight, the vast majority of the admin actions he made were absolutely fine. I think that users essentially accusing me of allowing the drama to occur is unfair; are we now to accuse the nominators of all admins of allowing their drama to happen? Furthermore, for however much time was "wasted" on the case, I'm sure the amount of time saved by having Law as an admin, reverting vandals and issuing blocks and the like, not to mention being a productive editor and writing articles, is far, far greater. However, I do not think it fair to judge the quality of an admin simply by how much time they have "wasted" or "gained" for the project.

Law was brought to RfA and judged by the edits he'd made under that name, and the community saw fit to grant him the tools. While I am unsure of the exact amount of time that passed between the blocking of the Undertow account and the creation of the Law account, I am relatively sure that by the time Law was granted the tools, the block on the Undertow account had expired. Further, as I mentioned, Law had completely abandoned the Undertow account; I'm not really sure what the egregious and disruptive violation of WP:SOCK is that people continue to mention. It is unfortunate that his identity was revealed this way, and I reiterate my displeasure with the actions and behavior of the other editors involved in leaking the information.

I am surprised by the vitriol in some comments here, and would like to apologize again for the delay in this statement. I do note FT2's comments involving the questionable motives and bad faith on the part of certain users here, and hope that arbitrators and regular editors alike read those carefully. While I obviously do not wish my tools to be permanently revoked, I would submit to a temporary removal, or perhaps a reconfirmation RFA if necessary. I do realize the inappropriateness of my actions, and do see in hindsight that the better course of action would have been to try and have the Undertow's block rescinded, though I'm not sure how successful such a motion would have been. To sum up, I do not feel that supporting a friend and acting in the best interests of the project need to be mutually exclusive goals, and I feel that the two were one and the same in this instance. I can say with absolute certainty that were I to believe that the Undertow would not be a net positive for Wikipedia, that I would not have nominated him. Thanks, GlassCobra 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Moreschi

I regret that your most recent interaction with the Undertow has been unpleasant; unfortunately, I am afraid that this whole debacle has made him feel quite guilty for having put his friends through these issues. Hopefully he'll make a cogent statement here on-wiki soon. GlassCobra 00:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Jehochman and others

There appears to be a desire for me to state explicitly that I will no longer engage in these types of activities. Perhaps I was not clear enough in expressing this in my statement above, so I apologize. The community has my utmost solemn pledge that I will not be participating in any sort of backdoor dealings at any point in the future. Thanks, GlassCobra 23:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Leaky Caldron

Arbcom must take assertive action

Well we can only speculate as to his state of mind/personal circumstances alluded to above, so as far as the facts go it is no more than rhetoric intended to afford a degree of unjustified mitigation to the wrong-doing committed.

You don’t need to wait for judgement to give up your admin. function either. Just relinquish it instead of clinging on. A section of the community now lack confidence in your integrity and therefore every intervention you and your fellow miscreants make will be scrutinised endlessly, leading to all the more problems further down the line.

Sorry to appear blunt but inappropriate behaviours by trusted functionaries need to be addressed with harsh remedies in the wider interest of the Project, and not by pandering to individuals. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Lara (refactored Oct. 11 following clerk tidying)

As a plain old user contributing at a pretty uninteresting level, I need trust in you, being one of the elected functionaries around here. I think your various explanations here [30] and partial apology above is pretty mealy-mouthed, I hope you don’t mind me saying. - - :You could readily have kept your wiki-friendship loyalty separate to your fiduciary responsibilities if you had only seen through the miasma that appears to cloud your judgement. When you are on here your loyalty is to the whole enterprise, not to do favours for your wiki-friends. It seems that in any dispute in which your friends became engaged you would be likely to use your privileges in their favour, regardless of merit. That is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 15:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk note - Threaded discussion removed. Manning (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment added to Daniel Case's comments (removed by clerks 11 October}

• It is quite clear that Lara has dug herself in for the long haul. She sees no reason to voluntarily relinquish her position and will receive a meaningless admonishment from Arbcom (for whom she has little or no respect anyway). When I called into a question her future trustworthiness [31] (subsequent editors more articulate than me have done the same) her position remained one of defiance. My points were batted back with a combination of ridicule and disdainful ignoring of the concerns raised about ongoing community trust in her.

• Let it be so. I have no doubt that her behaviour as an admin. will be closely scrutinised and a repeat of her intentional lapse of judgement relating to her friend’s desperate desire to return to power is unlikely with so many eyes on her work. How that makes her feel is for her and her conscience to grapple with. A reaffirmation of community support via RfA would certainly clear the air but she clearly feels that is either unwarranted or too high a risk to take. I’m not sure why being a voluntary administrator here is such a cherished office (it seems a thankless task to me) but to some it seems to carry a hell of a lot of kudos to be willing to put up with all this vitriol being thrown in their direction. Leaky Caldron 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Barberio

Dispute has been raised as to if ArbCom should, or even may, take this case.

It is my finding, that ArbCom is entitled to take action in this case.

The facts of the matter are, as mentioned above many times, not in dispute. A previously banned administrator was allowed, through complicity of a friend, to regain administrator rights without disclosing his previous ban. Several other administrators supported this action. Further did not disclose the events when they discovered them.

The dispute is over if these acts were wrong, and are punishable.

Ultimately, this is *not* something that would be decidable in a consensus discussion. It is immediately obvious considering that those who made those acts and their supporters would be involved in any discussion, and constitute a large enough group of people to withhold consensus. This marks it as a dispute not resolvable by community means.

This case includes acts which, while not direct use of admin tools, involves use of admin priveleges. It should also be decided if granting someone the ability to use admin tools in disputed circumstances is an abuse of Admin privileges. It should be decided if covert acts against the interests of the community are an abuse of Admin privileges. It should be decided if a covert cover-up of these acts are an abuse of Admin priveleges.

This case also involves the implicit reversal of an Arbitration Sanction. It is fundamentally necessary for the Arbitration Committee to investigate and rule on cases where its prior sanctions have been circumvented, else it's sanctions would become impotent.

I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to take up this case. I also urge it to be Fast Tracked, as statements have been made by the involved parties responding that the facts of the matter are not disputed. I recommend that as part of this fast track, there be no 'workshop' page in this case, and that the Committee quickly draft a finding of fact, a set of principles, remedies and enforcements to vote on.

I also urge caution in dismissing this case, or handling it only by summary motion. This is a case where the 'full weight of the court' is required, due to the fundamental issues involved, and particularly the overturn of a previous sanction. It would reduce the legitimacy of the committee if this case were mishandled or diminished. --Barberio (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to recommend that in this instance, the arbcom should consider giving suspended sentences on probation to those administrators they do not feel should be directly punished. Suspended sentences becoming active should there be any occurrence of misbehaviour by the admin. There has been a past history of administrators ignoring admonishments. --Barberio (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Arbcom legislating' and 'no policies have been broken'

I've read some complaints against taking up this case, justified with "the arbcom can not create policy", and trying to create a fog that obscures what policies have been broken.

Now, I was the major push behind that particular rule. So I feel confident and authoritative to state that this is not a valid argument in this case.

And I strongly defend the right, and even duty, of ArbCom to take up this case. Because ArbCom will not be creating new policy.

They will actually be working well within established wikipedia policy. Specifically those of

• Wikipedia:Banning policy — Overturning and assisting the overturn of a ban without the consent of community consensus, or the Arbitration committee, is forbidden by any means.
• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry — Alternate accounts must not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; or circumvent sanctions or policy. Collusion to support this is a grave breach.
• Wikipedia:Civility — Aiding and abetting someone's breach of policy is a hostile act against the community. Engaging in a cover up is a hostile act towards the community. They are a grave breach of civil behaviour.
• Wikipedia:Administrators — Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

Several people involved with this case have made clear breaches of all of the above policies.

I urge the committee to act. --Barberio (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion by Apoc2400

How about this:
Motion:

• Principle: Misleading the Wikipedia community to help your friends gain an advantage is not ok.
• Fact: Jennavecia, GlassCobra, User3, User4 mislead the community to help Law/the_undertow gain adminship.
• Remedy: Jennavecia, GlassCobra, User3, User4 are admonished and reminded not to do it again.

What those of us complaining need is for ArbCom to settle the dispute and decide that what Jennavecia, GlassCobra and maybe others did was wrong. We don't need their tools back unless they do it again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Robofish

I don't normally involve myself in dramas, and wasn't going to comment on this case, but I feel GlassCobra's comment above deserves a reply. He doesn't seem to understand that what he and Jennavecia did was wrong, and thinks deception in this case was justified 'for the good of the encyclopaedia'.

It might in fact be the case that Law's becoming an admin was ultimately beneficial to Wikipedia; but that does not mean they were right to support him for adminship. By doing so, they broke our rules against sock puppetry (in spirit, if not in letter); but our rules also advise us to ignore them when doing so would improve the encyclopaedia. I think what is more serious here is the sheer lack of respect their actions showed for other members of Wikipedia - in particular, for ArbCom (for undermining their block of the_undertow) and for the commenters at RFA.

I was one of those who commented on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law; I supported him, on the now-somewhat-ironic grounds that 'a lack of conflicts in one's history is a good sign in a would-be administrator'. I had no idea that Law was the formerly blocked and desysopposed the_undertow, and fair to say, if I had known I would probably not have supported. But the important part is that GlassCobra, Jennavecia and everyone else who knew didn't deign to tell the rest of us. They took the decision to withhold this information, knowing it was highly relevant to Law's adminship candidacy, on the basis that they were better fit to judge him than the rest of us; that most voters at RFA would hold Law's past against him, and that only by hiding it could they pass him off as a suitable admin to the voting masses. In short, they treated us like idiots.

I for one feel somewhat humiliated by their actions, to say the least, and I would expect most other people who voted in that RFA without being 'in on the secret' feel the same. The point of RFA is to examine a candidate in detail to determine if they would make a good admin; if someone supports an RFA without revealing important information about the candidate, they are treating both the process and the other voters with contempt. Perhaps if all the details have been revealed, Law would still have passed; but I doubt it, and given what has happened since I think his failing would have been justified. In any case, that was not GlassCobra and Jennavecia's decision to make; what they knew about him, they should have revealed, and let RFA voters decide.

Finally, in light of what's happened, I find the argument that all this was for the good of Wikipedia hard to sustain. That may have been their justification, but look what damage their deception has done: one arbitrator has already resigned, others users are coming under question, and the credibility of the Wikipedia system - which depends on admins treating users fairly, not forming cliques and helping out their friends - has been called into doubt.

Given all that, I don't think further desysoppings are necessary. But at the very least, those involved in helping Law evade a block and become an admin owe the rest of us their apologies. And even if it only admonished those involved for their mistakes, a judgement from ArbCom would be welcome to make the official position clear, and to help put this matter behind us. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comment: the suggestion from Apoc2400 above appeared while I was typing this. It basically says what I'm saying here in considerably fewer paragraphs. A big ArbCom case isn't necessary, but just a symbolic admonishment would be helpful. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Gazimoff

I'm frankly surprised and dissapointed by all of this, and feel that some perspective is urgently needed. Firstly though, some simple questions:

• Has User:Law caused any serious material damage to encyclopedia articles or content, either through normal editorial practice or use of administrator tools (apart from the noted ChildOfMidnight episode)?
• Has the recent episode caused any serious damage to the reputation of the project? By this I am asking if there has been any onward reporting in the popular or technical press?

From what I can tell, there has been minimal if any damage to the product (the encyclopedia) or to the project through this episode. There seems to be much discussion about the morality of what has happened, almost as if there is anger at being not being in on some shared secret as much as anything else.

Expecting people to hold loyalty to a website above family, friendships and other close associations is at best optimistic and at worst ludicrous. This isn't a job, this is a volunteer effort. This isn't a political party, it's an academic endeavour. This isn't a factory floor where product is just squeezed out - it's a crowdsourcing effort. Life is full of priorities other than what goes on here, and it's important to remember that. Administrators are selected to be able to make a range of judgements on order to safeguard the content of the project and improve quality, not to make automaton decisions in robotic fashion - if that is what you're after, perhaps changing criteria at RfA would be more appropriate.

If there is concern about policy or process, then RfC is the correct venue. Arbcom isn't here to set policy, only to interpret it. By everyone's admission, there is a gap of policy in several areas brought to light by this episode - but that's an area for the community, not Arbcom, to decide. Gazimoff 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ben MacDui

I can only echo the views of Moreschi, Karanacs, Sandstein, SlimVirgin, Modernist, Barberio and others above. These actions are unacceptable and sanctions are required. If another process were available it could be considered, but there isn't. It is irrelevant whether or not User:Law "caused any material damage" - that is not the issue at stake. Nor is being a volunteer an excuse for an administrator deliberately evading an important community policy. It does not need a clairvoyant to know that if those entrusted with an organisation's safe-keeping set themselves abysmally low standards then its future is unlikely to be a happy one. Ben MacDui 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Finell

Sock puppetting is a very serious offense. Is there really any question that it is very serious misconduct for any Wikipedian, especially an administrator who is responsible for enforcing community norms, to knowingly support a sock's RfA? Isn't there already policy language to the effect that an admin is held to the highest behavioral standards? The recent Civility poll revealed a fairly widespread belief that admins routinely apply a double standard that favors other admins and well established editors. I am on record that I do not share that view. However, there are isolated instances where some admins are unduly lenient toward misbehavior by other admins (comparable to the more universal culture of real world cops not "ratting out" cops) or by certain favored misbehaving editors (including some perennial troublemakers). It does not take very many of those incidents to feed a perception that this is the rule rather than the exception—that is one of the prime bases of prejudice.

I once stumbled into an incident where editor was blocked for willfully vandalizing that day's main page FA (I spotted the vandalism and followed up) because he was angry that his RfA (his second or third) didn't pass. He apologized, blamed the stress of losing the RfA, and promised not to do it again. The block was lifted (which is OK, although sitting out 12–24 hours might have been more equitable) and his block was expunged from his record (I didn't even know that was possible) as were his vandalism edits. I thought that was unjustifiable. In additional to smacking of favoritism, the incident of vandalism should be known by those who vote if there is another RfA for this individual. If I vandalized some obscure page out of pique, or perhaps the user page of someone who made very offensive remarks, I would be blocked and the block would not be expunged from my record, despite my having a previously clean record (the would-be admin's record wasn't clean). That is how it should be, and how it should have been for the disappointed would-be admin.

I was wrong about the incident in the preceding paragraph. In fact, the block for vandalism was not expunged, so this is not an example of favoritism by admins. The incident happened 11⁄2 years ago and I recall (I think) discussion about expunging the block and believed that it was expunged. Another editor's comment caused me to check the log today, and it shows the vandalism block and unblock. I should have checked the facts before I posted here, and I apologize to the community for not doing so. Finell (Talk) 22:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, it would be in the long term interest of administrators as a group, and of the Wikipedia project, for administrators to bend over backward to avoid any appearance of favoritism to fellow admins or their cronies. Enforcement is more difficult if there is a prevalent perception that admins unfairly favor their own—and the perception is more important than the reality. That means holding admins to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary editors, just as experienced editors (like me) should be held to a higher standard than newbies, who understandably don't know our policies and guidelines.

Statement by Jennavecia

I sent a response to the committee a couple of days ago, but now that the dust is settling a bit and I've got a good grasp on the concerns of the community, I'll post here. If you think FT2, NYB, Abd, and Carcharoth are bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I first bumped into Chip on this project at his RFA as the_undertow in the summer of 2007. He saw my girlie sig, clicked on my user page, and was inclined to follow me around to get my attention. Some funny edit summaries and a couple talk page convos later and we were wiki-friends. Hard times led another wiki-friend at the time, Giggy, to give me Chip's off-wiki contact info. I sent him a message about a week after that, and six days later he wrote me back. Two years ago this week he and I had our first real conversation, and the rest is history. Most people meet their best friend for lunch now and then; mine lives 2,500 miles away. I have my friends that live near me, that I go out with, but when I really need that someone to turn to, that's Chip. We've helped each other through some crazy hard times and he's the one I know will answer when I call no matter what, and I'll always answer for him.

So there's the personal background. Here's the wiki history: I know pretty much all the details of the_undertow's ban. Was it necessary? Yes. Was is excessive, though? I think so. He attempted to appeal, and from what I'm told there was general agreement among the ArbCom of 2008 to accept his request, but the thread went silent and was apparently forgotten. I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too. His personality is tied to that account, just as mine is tied to this one. His images, his sense of humor, his interests... those were all attached to the_undertow. AC was silent, though. So he went on as Law and I supported him in that. He wanted to continue to edit, and he wanted to do so constructively. He started his Master's program at SDSU and used WP to help his studies, writing articles on the cases he was assigned. Well-sourced articles that went through DYK is what he created. In participating at DYK as Law, he found an interest that he had not come upon as the_undertow. Working that area is what re-sparked his desire to be an admin.

So why not go back to the_undertow at that point? Well, he'd already been ignored once, and trust levels were not high with ArbCom. And I get it, how dare there be a mention of trust! But that was part of it. So why not just admit Law == the_undertow? Well, I was sure the AC knew; he'd told too many people and dropped too many clues. He was sure they didn't and he feared if he revealed it he'd be re-banned. I was sure that because Law was such a good editor, he wouldn't. We talked about this extensively, but ultimately it was his decision, and I told him I would support him no matter what. He decided to go forward with Law, despite really wanting to come back as the_undertow to sort of reclaim his identity, if that makes sense.

So why support Law's RFA? I knew his intentions were good. Some people say intentions don't matter. Well, to me (and to Chip), intentions are everything. Decisions are made all the time, and often they are mistakes. It's human nature. Things don't always go as planned, all things aren't always considered. At the end of the day, intentions are what matter. I trusted him to do well with administrative privileges. Is that a matter of me presuming I'm better fit to judge him for adminship that anyone else? Well, maybe it is. I didn't think of it in those terms, though, so I don't know. I surely know him better than anyone here, maybe anyone else at all. Is that why I kept it a secret? No. My vote was based on trust, the same as it is for every candidate I vote on in RFA. I've trusted him with personal information that I'd not shared with anyone else; why would I not trust him with adminship? I supported Law's RFA because I had seen the changes in Chip since his ban. His changed views, his new focus. I knew without doubt that he wanted to improve the project and I trusted he would do well... and he did. He made mistakes and he had his moments, but he was a good admin.

That said, there is misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my words on AN/I. (Most of the following I posted to DGG's talk page earlier.) I never said I would support a friend over the best interests of the project, and I wouldn't. That's not what I'm talking about and that's not why I'm here. I didn't support him in everything he did. There were things I didn't agree with, and those things I talked to him about. However, where I thought his actions improved the project, I supported him. Where I believed it was for the benefit of the project, I supported him, regardless of SOCK. He attempted to appeal his ban and his request was ignored. Not rejected, ignored. I may have broken the spirit of a policy, but I did so with the belief that the project would be improved for it. And it was. I wouldn't rat out a friend for a website, though. If he had gone rogue and started causing trouble, I would have handled it on-wiki as if he was just another editor whose behavior needed to be dealt with, and off-wiki I would have ripped into him in that way I do. I didn't have to do that, though.

I don't expect to bring anyone around to my view, but I'm not at all shy about stating it. I may lack the ability to clearly word it, but I don't mind clarifying. To cover a few other points. Was it a mass conspiracy where we all met and coordinated ways to cover for Chip and carry out actions of protection? No. There was/is no cabal. GlassCobra and I didn't conspire to get Chip into adminship as Law to do our bidding. Rarely did we cross paths. We didn't work the same areas, we didn't edit the same articles. I didn't use my administrative privileges to protect him at any point. Where I backed him up on things was where I agreed with whatever he had done, the times when I believed he deserved defense. Does that mean it was always without bias? Probably not. If someone else had unblocked CoM and ended up at ArbCom, would I have written the same statement? I don't know. I would have supported them pretty much the same, though. I can say that with certainty.

As for where I stand now... ya know, a dozen people can say the exact same thing, but you'll take it differently depending on who's saying it. Some people's opinions are move valuable to us, depending on previous interactions, assumed intentions, etc. While I'm being honest, I'll let you know that some people's opinions don't matter to me, just as I'm sure mine doesn't matter to them. That's fine. When it comes to this case, I was basically unfazed to begin with. Thatcher's was the first statement that really gave me pause. I've always had a great deal of respect for him, so that one hit me hard. Reading comments from others I respect who stated they'd lost respect and trust in me... that sat me down, so to speak. However, it was my boyfriend telling me that if he didn't know me, he would have supported not only my desysop, but my ban. It's one thing to hear it from the people you respect; quite another from the person you love.

Do I regret what I did? No. Life is too short for regrets. Do I think I did something "wrong"? By my definition of wrong, no. I broke the spirit of a policy and the project was improved because of it. Would I do it again? After this shitstorm, surely not. All that said, I think all that's left is, am I apologetic? To a degree. I apologize to those whose trust and respect I lost, for giving them reason to change their view of me. I've always been careful not to abuse my positions of trust. Clearly I apply that as much to my personal relationships as I do to my responsibilities here. My choice to have the former trump the latter caused some to lose their faith in me. I find that highly unfortunate and I am saddened by it. Further, I apologize to those whose trust and respect for me remains, for the drama that affected them. I did not foresee this reaction. This is far beyond what I anticipated. For the rest—for those who neither had respect for me nor held any trust in me to begin with—I offer no consolations. I wouldn't put a website before a friendship. I volunteer my time here because I believe there is valuable work to be done, but I would never consider that more valuable than a true friendship. Lara 05:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Will Beback

This statement is full of errors. We're not a formal group at all. Our membership rules are mostly jokes. The only serious one is the image that makes you a member must have you in a bathrobe and you have to have at least one thumb in the upright and locked position. We don't have a domain. We had a domain over a year ago. It hosted pretty much the same page you see at WP:BRC. We had a Facebook page. I guess it's still there. No one ever really used it that I know of. Riana created it, but I don't think it was ever active. I don't remember there ever being a Yahoo group. It may have been created, but it was never used. We do have an IRC channel, which is really more my private channel as for all of its existence it's had more people who were not members than those who were. It doesn't see much action lately. Usually about five people in there at any given time. It's all but tagged historical at this point.

Ched Davis and Iridescent aren't members of the Bathrobe Cabal. Pedro and I don't even like each other, which is clear from his statement here. And EVula clerking an RFA, considering he's a 'crat, isn't shocking. As far as the meetup, it would be best if people stopped assuming that everyone whose name is on the page was there... or a BRC member. The meeting wasn't some... I don't even know. This whole thing is out of hand. It was a meetup. Nothing more. Keegan was amongst those at the meetup too (and he's not a member of the BRC, but Daniel is). Conveniently he's not included in the statement. If people have nothing better to do than investigate terry cloth afficionados, so be it, but you're wasting your time. And regarding our support votes, if I have to again explain how there is trust in friendship, I've wasted my time. Lara 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{Clerk note: Threaded discussion removed. Please comment only in your own section.} AGK 22:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification of Daniel Case's statement

The thread on WR Daniel is talking about regards the article on Jennifer Fitzgerald (now deleted). I originally posted this thread to WR to get opinions. This "biography" was almost entirely negative, containing sensationalized tabloid garbage, rumor, and innuendo. It was immediately clear that I was not alone in my opinion of the article being inappropriate.

It was taken to AFD by Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the result being to delete.

Here it was pointed out that he'd used his administrative privileges to retrieve the contents of the deleted article and added it to http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald. The main page of this site reads:

Welcome to the dKosopedia, a collaborative project of the DailyKos community to build a political encyclopedia. The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take.

In moving the article there, it suggested not only why he had written such a negative and slanted piece, but also (I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong) he broke the GDFL because now the original authors are left uncredited. As of this posting, the article remains on that website with only his account name in the edit history.

Other than that, I don't know what the issue is with the Sixstrings account that he mentions, which was over two years ago and before I was an admin. Lara 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk note - threaded discussion removed. Please comment in your own section. Manning (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal by Uncle G

I see various people commenting that they wish one or more de-sysoppings, but that variously either they do not believe that the Arbitration Committee represents the full weight of the editor community as a whole, or that there is no process for such a community de-sysoppings available.

I have, therefore, constructed such a process, for use if you wish it.

The process is Wikipedia:Community de-adminship. There is a full guide to its operation at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship; and an example request for Community de-adminship, that can be copied and pasted into a new request sub-page for whomever the Committee decides to present for community review, can be found at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Example.

I strongly recommend starting by reading the Guide. It should be clear from that (a) what it is based upon, (b) what community consensus decision it is narrowly construed to provide a process for, and (c) how it works. I've tried to make it simple, straightforward, and easily comprehensible (to the point of being downright obvious) by people who already understand RFA, Bureaucrats, and so forth.

As I said, this is an option for you to choose if you are looking for a way to refer a de-sysopping decision to the community. You can choose to use this bold new process, or not. I make no statement as to whether there should be de-sysoppings in this case.

Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

The Bathrobe Cabal (BRC), despite its casual name, is a rather formal group with membership rules which has had a domain name, a Facebook page, a Yahoo group, an IRC channel, and even a recent meetup. Only admins were allowed to join at first and it may have had a dozen or two members in all. At least seven BRC members !voted in support of Law's RfA: LaraLove (who founded the BRC together with The undertow and a third user), GlassCobora, Jayron32, user:Ched Davis, user:Hmwith, user:Iridescent, and user:Pedro. Another member, user:EVula, edited the RfA without voting. Looking back, The undertow !voted to support the RfAs of Hmwith, Pedro, Iridescent, GlassCobra, LaraLove, and Jayron32, and for EVuala's second RfB. Law also !voted in EVula's Oversight election.

The scope of this case is larger than the four people named as parties. I gather that Law has stated that several dozen people knew of his previous identity. It is reasonable to surmise that more members of the Bathrobe Cabal, and more participants in the RFA, knew than just the three who've come forward. Clearly, this is not a band of vandals or POV pushers — these are functionaries, admins, and other valued community members: good people who contribute positively to the project. The ArbCom should seek remedies that address the past problematic behavior without discouraging future participation.   Will Beback  talk  08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:Ched Davis and user:Iridescent have contacted me to say that they have never been members of the BRC, so I've struck through their names. To further clarify, there's no evidence that any of the people who were in the BRC, and who haven't come forward, have done anything wrong. However it is likely that there are more people who were aware of this than the few who have admitted it, and it's possible that some of our most productive editors and respected functionaries were involved.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also #Comment to Willbeback from user:Pedro, above.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by somewhat involved Steven Zhang

The length of this thread has to set records. I first knew the fact that Law = the undertow about 3 weeks ago. I didn't know the circumstances as to how the undertow became Law, or when the Law account started editing. I'm somewhat conflicted here, and can sympathize with both sides of this dispute, and realize the inner conflict, betraying a friend or betraying the trust of the community. Both present a bad result. I'd hate to be in Lara's position, especially as I understand they are rather close.

I don't think a full blown RFAR will generate anything productive, unless drama falls into that category. A motion with admonishment and advice, etc, would suffice. Lara and Glasscobra are open to recall. If you feel it's needed, ask them to resign. I think it would be a net loss to lose them as admins, and I doubt this will happen again. Desysopping isn't needed. That said, arbcom gave handed down punishments that don't fit the crime in the past, so I guess we will see. I just hope this doesn't turn into a 100 subsection thread. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mjroots

From WP:NOTPERFECT

Administrators who ... have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed.

In this case, the admins involved have lost the trust of a section of the community. They should each do the honourable thing and resign their adminship. They may choose not to do so, but in that case there should be a full hearing into the circumstances of this case. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by unbanned sockpuppet Jack Merridew

This is a mess. I don't have much connection to any of the involved editors; just a few minor chats with Lara, whom I believe has the best interests of the projects at heart.

The key thing that happened here was that a shortcut was taken. It's a shortcut I've taken and gotten caught at. About two and a half months before The undertow was banned, I fessed to my past and was banned. I did not sock and I did appeal to the AC. After few bits of dialogue and a brief unban that proved contentious, I was largely put on ignore for months. My editing did not decrease, it rather increased, but on other projects. I have just over 19,000 edits to en:wp in this account, but almost 31,000 to all WMF projects. I'm an admin on Wikisource. After approximately 10,000 edits to other projects, the notion of my return was considered, and after several more months of discussion, en:wp has me back as a street-legal sockpuppet.

I did eight months in BANTOWN and earned a return via the front door. And I intended to seek adminship here. I'm a software developer and I build websites. There are a lot of useful things I can do with tools.

I don't believe there was any improper use of tools here, but Law's adminship was illegitimate. It is possible to return to this site properly, but it is not easy. It's not supposed to be. It is, however, harder than it has to be. Truth is, most banned users should never be allowed back. It is not just a question of waiting out a ban as WP:Standard offer asks. The core thing that I did to get back was not the time and was not the useful edits to other projects, it was earning the trust of people elsewhere and this is primarily accomplished by being straight with them. Rebuilding trust does take time and being useful helps.

Socking is easy. It's a test of a person's commitment to turning over a new leaf. I have given my word that I will never sock again.

Cas Liber is one of my mentors and this mess has cost the community the arb that received the most support in the last election. I have not yet spoken with him about this situation, but my feeling is that he got caught in a bind. This is the real cost of the cheat that occurred here.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 12:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is easy to go down to hell; Night and Day the Gates of Dark Death stand wide; But to climb back up again, to retrace ones steps to the open air, there lies the problem, the difficult task.

— Virgil: The Aeneid

Statement by Dtobias

Of course it's an MMORPG, and the person who started this RFAr is a highly skilled player at it.

Statement on this absurd ridiculousness by ChildofMidnight

We all know that editors contribute on Wikipedia with undisclosed histories. We could have made disclosure part of the RfA process. We chose not to.A clarification that disclosure of actual wrongdoing is required and (perhaps) a clarification of when and how editors returning improperly can and should disclose their pasts is needed, not this torch and pitchfork fest of head hunting. Needless to say the editors that came clean are the ones being punished, not the ones who've remained silent about what they knew. What a complete travesty.

There was no disruption associated with the editors and admins involved in this controversy. Since returning Law was a model editor and admin. So all these punishments serve only to encourage sordid outing campaigns to go after editors personally when a dispute erupts. This is entirely disruptive, divisive and punitive (and was done after a dispute over an article about some Boner. No kidding!). And now, as has been well documented by other editors, this is being used to settle scores and Arbcom is playing along.

If we want to make disclosing what we know about one another a policy then do it. But the crazed calls for severe punishment sought those editing in good faith and another editor who turned over a new leaf and returned to wikipedia with a new identity with which he's made nothing but constructive contributions is absurd. That we're trying to take down other good faith editors and admins for following IAR and keeping quiet to support an editor making nothing but helpful contributions to Wikipedia is totally insane.

It's amazing that Arbcom doesn't encourage reform and promote the best interests of Wikipedia instead of backing those seeking mad vengeance. With all the socking, abusive POV pushing, canvassing, stalking, harassment, cabalism and other nastiness going on here, that our highest body is choosing to go after this distinguished group of Wikipedians demonstrates shockingly poor judgment.

The protocols for blocked and banned editors to get reviews and reprieves is completely broken and unworkable. People are treated like dirt and ignored. Admin abuse is swept under the rug. Instead of fixing these problem we are doubling down on the stupidity and insisting that those with secrets keep them quiet, that was after all Law's failing here was it not??? If he hadn't told anyone who he was then there was no problem. But he made efforts to come clean so we have to wring his neck. Shameful.

That an editor evaded a block or ban (or whatever) to edit constructively after his appeals were ignored is such a non-problem that those seeking sanctions and calling for heads based on it should be ashamed of themselves and are the ones lacking judgment and common sense. Those editors leading the charge are, of course, those with their own problematic histories. And the false accsuations and smears made by WMC, Jehochman, and other editors involved in this witch hunt are far more disturbing and damaging than the good faith efforts of those trying to do good work on Wikipedia despite all the obstacles we've set up to make it difficult for them. The leaders of the mob are the ones that need sanctioning. Give them all wikibreaks.

Statement by Lampman

Up until recently I used to ignore all allegations of Wikipedia as a cabal, closed to outsiders. I thought of this as sour grapes from drive-by editors who had been stopped in their attempts to impose their POV on the project. And then I come across a case like this where people at the highest levels of trust in the organisation not only abuse their power, but remain completely unapologetic about it. Instead we get silly excuses about how this was a productive member of the community, as if that changed anything at all. Try telling that to the new user who's just been reverted, ridiculed or even blocked after only a few edits, simply because he didn't know the right people. This has certainly done much to reduce my trust in the project.

I think it would be good for everyone involved here to remember that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Go to MySpace for that, but focus on creating an encyclopaedia while you're here. As a friendly piece of advice, it might even be worth considering getting a life outside of Wikipedia. Feel free not to, but at least take the consequences of your actions. Lampman (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:BQZip01 says: "I also think it is important for people to recognize that these are people with real friends, real emotions, and real lives outside of the Wikipedia world." I think this is the problem: if these people had realised that their real lives existed outside of Wikipedia, then this might never have happened. This is why WP:MYSPACE is so important, it is in fact a policy! Why don't we try to uphold it, and exclude the people who don't get it? Lampman (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mostlyharmless

There are a lot of people here asking for punishment because the rules were broken. Let us remember that the only function of the rules is to improve the Encyclopedia. I don't think this RFAR is productive to that end, and I think that the heavy application of rules will further damage the Encyclopedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dcoetzee

(Full disclosure: Lara is a friend of mine, but I believe I can give an objective opinion on this matter.)

This is my first time posting at an RfA, because I ran across this issue in the Signpost, hope I'm doing it right. While I agree that Law's ban circumvention was obviously against the rules and sets a problematic precedent, I think it goes too far to punish those who merely failed to turn him in. Moreover, it sets a disturbing precedent to suggest that anyone who votes in favor of a candidate in an RfA must disclose any negative information they have about the candidate, whether or not it's relevant. In this case, it was clear that the voters considered this information irrelevant to Law's suitability as an administrator, whether or not you or I would agree with that assessment; and they should not be expected to anticipate how other people would feel about it.

Moreover, while we all have personal relationships with other Wikipedians that may compromise our judgment in specific disputes, I do not believe the day-to-day impact is significant enough to outweigh the substantial detriment to the project caused by the revocation of the tools of an effective administrator. I would only make an exception for the exceptional case where an administrator went out of their way to actively aid and abet destructive actions by their friends.

I believe a more appropriate corrective action is to admonish Lara to recuse herself from any discussion of action regarding the_undertow in the future, in light of her conflict of interest. If she can do this, her judgment is otherwise not a concern. I can't speak for the others. Dcoetzee 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Beetstra

(I have started to type this now 4 or 5 times, changing my mind again and again)

While I was pretty upset and disappointed by the actions of Law, Jennavecia, and GlassCobra first, I also realised ArbCom's role in this early on. As I said, I wrote this 4 or 5 times over the last couple of days, and I notice that my position to Jennavecia and GlassCobra has mellowed, however, my (already existing) criticism of the Arbitration process has only gotten worse. A bit disappointment in those admins who, here, knew this is left, but I know that there are many actions and statements from ArbCom that I do not support, and I would fully support the reversal of numerous of their actions, and rewrites of others. I don't say I would go as far as actively violating our policies for that, but the idea is the same.

My interpretation of this situation:

ArbCom bans the undertow. That banning is performed because the undertow pushed it too far, they was damaging trust, they was damaging the Wikipedia, whatever ArbCom deemed to be the reason (I did not read into it, I hope you understand why later). That was an ArbCom solution to the problem, it is not (necessarily!) a community solution to the problem. Yes, we chose ArbCom to do the work for us, but I don't believe that (generally) the community chose, or endorses, the solutions that the ArbCom implements (vide infra). We abide by them.

Banning a user damages that user in a bad way, it is very difficult to regain trust. Same goes for de-adminning a sysop. I know for both cases there are examples that it can be done, but most fail because there has been an ArbCom decision against them. And similar situations exist for findings or principles. If they are not complete, or are not exhaustively researched, or are not in touch with the reality, that breaks trust, and may result in productive users and admins embittering, losing trust, or even walking away. And we have seen that. Losing editors because of that is a loss, and it should not happen, like, ever!

Therefore:

Dear members of the Arbitration Committee: These actions should be a last measure, they should come after either really (really!!) serious matters, generally require multiple cases against a user, other solutions which have been tried and not found sufficient, and require significant input from the community that the community indeed thinks that those are the only viable solutions, not after one case and a few mistakes.

(and when such drastic measures are necessary, then please make sure that the community agrees, and that you enforce that, check up on it, and know what is happening after a case). Same goes for Principles and Findings of Fact, they should be complete, well researched, as also those have their effect (vide supra). There can be mistakes or incomplete things, mistakes are made, but then it is your task to, pro-actively, resolve that. It should not be the community that has to moan first.

For me, this is a clear example of the community not endorsing an ArbCom measure. A user get banned (of whom I suspect that they was a productive and trusted member, a (former?) sysop!), starts a sock who does good work, and regains their admin bit. That to me (even if 10 support !voters knew (which I don't believe, less than 10), it is 91:23:4; still a wide and significant support in an RfA, with what the editor likely would have passed as well) shows that banning here was not a proper solution, ArbCom, I don't believe you did significantly consider other solutions, you did not significantly consider the communities ideas and feelings about this, and you did not consider the effects this has on the banned user, or even the community.

The process is seriously broken. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Physchim62

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should either be awarded a barnstar for opening discussion on a difficult point, or sentenced to 100 hours community service for unnecessarily provoking WikiDrama. Who many troll–admins do we have? At least a dozen, on various different estimates! How many sockpuppet –admins do we have? Far more than simply Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and that has been known for years. The problem is at WP:RFA, and it is one for the community to resolve.

ArbCom should not lower itself into the smellier realms of Wikipedia politics, it should concentrate on enabling users to create a free encyclopedia. I say "smellier", because it is perfectly acceptable (according to a previous ArbCom) for an administrator to characterize another editor's arguments as "a big steaming pile of shit" without any admonishment, simply because he had friends on the Committee who refused to recuse themselves.

ArbCom should reject this request forthwith, in order to avoid lowering itself further into ridicule, and so that some of its pronouncements, at least, might be acted upon by the Community. If not, ArbCom will simply be ignored, as it was by Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and those who knew of his alternate username. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Daniel Case

Since everybody else is saying something, I feel that I should too, otherwise my claim to be a member in good standing of the cabal is in question :-).

This is, frankly, the worst scandal to come out of a successful RfA since Archtransit. And this is probably worse, since at least in that case no one knew he was a sockmaster except him, as far as we know.

Looking over the motions that have been filed, I would support most of them. The administrators who allowed Law to go on without disclosing what they knew, something the community would have needed to know to judge their trustworthiness, have by doing so called their own trustworthiness into question.

In Jennavecia's case, I regretfully believe that there should be no question about a desysopping. This incident brought into clearer focus a hot-tempered streak that has been evident for some time. Full disclosure: she started a thread on Wikipedia Review which I have not been able to locate concerning my recreation of a deleted BLP on another wiki I have access to (I was particularly annoyed in that incident since it seemed not to have occurred to her to discuss her concerns with me either publicly or privately. But, in the interests of all of us getting along amicably, I decided to let it go and, to be honest, I have had no further personal issues with her).

It wasn't the first time, however. Back in her early days she reported a user (Sixstring1965, now blocked indef as a sockmaster) to AIV, or one of the noticeboards, I can't remember which (I was a relatively new admin at the time, as well, I should say) over some edit warring on May Pang. It led to some of the first sockpuppetry blocks on that account. SixString was ruder, but I felt Jenna (then LaraLove) and the other editor involved were a little too in-your-face about it, not only making the reports but rubbing it in (After giving warnings to SixString every time one was deserved, she did this, which I thought was a little excessive). So I admonished her about this, and got this response.

I let these things go because, well, she was a relatively new editor at the time. But I remained a little troubled by what was, to me, a tendency toward a sort of relativism where wrongdoing was concerned, as well as the comin'-right-back-at-ya attitude. She got an adminship (without my vote either way) and continued to distinguish herself as an editor. She changed her username, resigned the adminship briefly, then got it back, and a few months ago stood as a candidate for oversight, as I myself had a few months earlier.

She had supported me, but I felt that I needed to ask her some questions about how she'd use oversight if she had it based on situations similar to those I've encountered. I didn't find her answers that objectionable, but then the same "wrongs elsewhere negate this" philosophy cropped up in this response to one of my questions.

I didn't get to vote on her because time ran out before I was able to return from a busy weekend, but I probably would have supported her for oversight because a) I felt it was probably good to have someone so active in BLP issues on the OS team and b) I really didn't see her attitude as a problem, partly because a lot of it seems to come from her public defenses of her public actions, and she is hardly alone in her awareness of the vast audience out there for this. Nevertheless, her candidacy failed because of enough other users having serious trust issues with her not in the least because of her activity on WR.

But after this there is no way I could support her for that (or checkuser FTM). "He's my friend, get over it" ... that's the same Lara/Jenna I've seen all along. After this the things she does out of community sight will be legitimately subject to question and she will not have that trust. And the level of distrust present now calls her fitness for the administrative tools in question as well.

Let's face it, any real-world elected official who behaved as these admins did would be hounded by calls for their resignation, or impeached or otherwise removed from office. The stakes of community trust and its betrayal at Wikipedia are admittedly a lot lower than they are in real life, but that's a distinction without a difference here. Action is needed, and promptly, to preserve the community's trust in its administrators and functionaries. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mattisse

Please take this case and determine, once and for all, whether Wikipedia has some firm rules and ethics or whether it is essentially lawless per WP:IAR, with joke ethics, joke blocks and joke sockpuppets available for the chosen few. It is very difficult for an outsider to determine what is and what is not permissible, or even what is reality in the case of the jokes. There should be some way to find out, other than being threatened by a block or with banishment, post hoc.

I would hope that if the outcome is expected to be a professional-level encyclopedia, that the folks who control the day-to-day writing of it, the administrators, can abide by a level of professionalism. If the ethos is that this is "just a website" then we should not pretend that we are writing an encyclopedia that is meant to be taken seriously.

Whatever the outcome here, it will be a model for the rest of us to measure our behavior by. If the outcome is an admonishment only, with no block or ban, then all less severe behavior warrants a lesser punishment, especially if by a non-administrator who, by definition, holds a lesser level of community trust. Currently, it appears to be very much the other way around to me.

Statement by uninvolved BQZip01

I read through all of this and find myself disappointed in Wikipedia as a whole for the matter. Here's my interpretation of the facts. Since the same rules should apply to everyone, the names are unimportant. Given some of the ArbCom member comments, I'm not sure whether the user in question was blocked or banned, but, terminology aside, the person wasn't supposed to be editing Wikipedia and I will simply refer to it as a block.

1. A user was blocked for 9 months
2. The same user evaded that block by creating a new account
3. With the support of admins who knew full well of the previous block and evasion of said block, that user became an admin
4. This same user was brought to another ArbCom hearing for admin

I don't think these issues are in dispute.

I also think it is important for people to recognize that these are people with real friends, real emotions, and real lives outside of the Wikipedia world.

But the question remains, what to do about this?

I think it is clear that a large percentage of people find this support of admins for block evasion inexcusable. I agree. If we are to have punishments to correct behavior, those punishments have to have meaning. Blocks shouldn't be meaningless if your friends are admins. I think the ban/block for the user should be reinstated and restarted. Additional time should be tacked on to the original 9-month block and I leave it to the ArbCom to decide the length. We simply cannot allow such evasion. If we do, blocks become meaningless.

As for the admins, I think the trust that the community had in them has been severly maligned by their own actions. While I recognize that these are real people with real lives outside this Wikipedia world, I don't trust their actions anymore and neither do a large percentage of people. I believe that their support has fallen dramatically. That said, their previous tenure as admins and their unrelated work should not be ignored. They should be desysoped and be permitted to submit a proposal for RfA at any time in the future. No blocks should be made against these admins given their significant contributions to Wikipedia. We all make mistakes and they shouldn't be held against us indefinitely.

As for the comment that other admins have suddenly reversed themselves on the same topic, I don't care. If they are guilty of the same thing, then they should also be brought to ArbCom or recalled. If Thief 1, while stealing something, points out Thief 2 stealing something, it doesn't excuse the actions of Thief 1 or Thief 2.

It should also be noted, that I had a sockpuppet of an indef blocked contact me and say he wanted my support for coming back and gave me a new user name I told him that I did not support his sockpuppetry and, unless he abided by the block, I would report such actions to the admin board. All actions from that account ceased and I've never heard from him again. What if this user were permitted to continue his contributions because a few admins were friends of his? We cannot have unequal actions by admins toward their friends. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Guest9999

"Its [sic] only the most oppressive communities such as Stalin's Russia that demand total loyalty regardless of friendship" - I'm pretty sure it's only the most corrupt - and often oppressive - regimes which tolerate those in positions of authority breaking the laws of the land to help out a friend or ally. Doing so in a modern liberal democratic system usually causes a lot of controversy. Guest9999 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I would like to see how knowing someone was a banned user is an abuse of tools." - Clearly this was not an abuse of tools, none of the tools appear to have been used inappropriately - or at all. It was an abuse of trust that the community had in them that lead to the tools being granted. Guest9999 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user bwrs

To undermine the integrity of a vote should not be tolerated, but Wikipedia voting processes are not strictly analogous to real-world elections. Still, for an administrator knowingly to support a sockpuppet user in a WP:RFA is a breach of trust. I think that penalties such as these might be commensurate with this breach. Bwrs (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Coffee

This is rather a rather ridiculous request in my opinion. I would like to see how knowing someone was a banned user is an abuse of tools. It doesn't even remotely have to do with having the tools, it's a request by Jehochman to try to punish these administrators. He isn't trying to help Wikipedia out in any way by this. If I remember correctly the whole reason behind any decisions like this is to protect the site.

I don't see how anyone who knew would have possibly abused the tools by knowing that a banned user had a sock, and supporting them at RFA. A regular user could have done the same thing. This request should be dismissed. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ceranthor

All I can do is echo the above. Cas exhibited extremely well-thought-out reasoning, and it is a total net loss for the community that he's resigned from the committee. ceranthor 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will actually put some effort into stopping drama, because this has gone far enough. Wikipedia is a cluocracy, right? Arbitrators, use your heads, please. If we lose Lara and GlassCobra as admins, there will be a severe net loss. Precedents are nice and all, but arbitration should be taken on a case-by-base basis. All I ask for is some common sense and reasoning. ceranthor 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Rd232

Given the kind of reasons which lead to rejection at WP:RFA, it seems ludicrous to suggest that knowingly and deliberately supporting a banned user in becoming an admin is something which should not lead to desysopping forthwith. If the community decides the lapse in judgement was temporary or mitigated by circumstance, a re-confirmation RFA may succeed. If not, there are many useful things no-longer-admins can continue to do.

I understand from skimming the acres of comments here that the ban on the main undertow account was perhaps excessive (9 months!), and debate on it perhaps stalled; but that in no way justifies supporting socking: it should have prompted more concerted attempts to re-open that issue. Finally, outright statements that friendship comes before policy and community decision are so outrageous that words fail me. Wikipedia cannot work that way. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by John Carter

And here's another case that makes me so very happy that I am not arbitrator material. Do people in the real world tend to favor their friends for choice assignments and promotions at work? Of course they do. Ae they supposed to? Sometimes, sometimes not. In many cases, they will say something to the effect of this party shares my goals and plans for the company, I think mine are, so I think his are. Nothing new there. This case is complicated by the fact that there is another party involved who seems to have been disqualified for "promotion" on the basis of what many seem to consider a judicial overreaction. Have we had similar people and situations in the "real world" in the same situation. Oh, yeah. Hillary Clinton's committee's health care proposal could not be submitted to the Congress as the opinion of the committee because of some violations of the terms of the committee. So what happened? Her husband put it forward as his proposal, so far as I can recall not changing a single bloody word. Was that controversial? Oh yeah. The Clintons' enemies called them crooks because of it, their supporters praised them for it. Anyone wanna guess whether that will happen here as well?

There are other mitigating circumstances. The supporters of the case being taken point to admins using socks, which we aren't supposed to do, and knowing someone else asking to be an admin was sanctioned for socks, and supported his adminship anyway.

My opinion? We've lost one of our good arbitrators already because of this fiasco, and there weren't enough of you arbirators as it is before this. I've seen regular complaints that there aren't enough admins as is, and now we would have to consider getting rid of three of them. That's stupid.

I can and do think that there is an issue to be addressed here, but I do not necessarily think that ArbCom is the way to address it. Creating or revising existing policies and guidelines should be enough, in my opinion, to address this matter. If you must take the case, do so to address that. But I sincerely hope that we don't wind up making ourselves all that much worse off by reducing the number of people who have workloads already too big. I don't see how that makes any real sense whatever. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SYSS Mouse

I honestly hate seeing an uninvolved admin impeaching another admin for such conduct. Yet I see that this is necessary, regardless the outcome. Nominating and supporting the user involved, knowingly that user was under blocking and evading such block is a blatant abuse of trust.

Lara, you are a sociology student (per your user page), you should know why you are considered of being desysoped. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Alexfusco5

I don't do much on Wikipedia anymore, but this entire request for Arbitration is such complete bullshit that I feel that I have to say something. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not revealing Law's identity as a sock. There is absolutely no reason to remove their adminship. They didn't do anything wrong, its not like they were asked specifically "is he a sock of anyone?" or said "They never had any other accounts". If they lied, it would've been different but where I live withholding facts is in no way a crime and people do it all the time. I recommend just declining this request and moving on 'cause the user that did something wrong has already been dealt with. If you want to reveal everything you know about a person, fine, but don't force that on other people. Also, this is completely unnecessary as none of us would even have known that they knew he was a sock if they didn't say anything. Alexfusco⁵ 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk note - threaded discussion removed. Please comment in your own section. Manning (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify the second statement, I meant if you saw your friend rob a store (or any other crime it really doesn't matter) and you don't immediately have to go to the police and turn him/her in. People do stuff like that all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. In my example, you didn't help them, you just kept your mouth shut. So, if in real life there is absolutely nothing wrong with not saying anything why should it be a problem. (Also, voting support is not helping them commit any violation of policy. They didn't suggest to create a sock or to violate policy in any other say) Alexfusco⁵ 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk note - threaded discussion removed. Please comment in your own section. Manning (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not according to the law, that may be the moral thing to do but it isn't legally required. And there is a huge difference between helping someone commit a crime (which in that case, you are just as guilty according to law) and not saying anything if you saw it. While I personally would have turned my friend in I understand there is nothing legally wrong with it. And in the Wikipedia case, while I personally would have said they were socks there is nothing wrong with not doing it. As for helping them get adminship, its not as if they lied to anyone to help them get there. This isn't in any way about morals as many immoral things are not illegal and what they did while you may find it immoral is not against policy. Alexfusco⁵ 01:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by uninvolved User:Jtrainor

Every admin who knew about this and did nothing should be desysopped. Wikipedia has an ongoing ethics problem as it is, and it is incidents like this that further the accusations of cronyism and favoritism so common amongst Wikipedia's opponents.

I could care less that this guy was a friend of certain people. That's nice. It's not the job of an admin to do favors for friends.

Wikipedia is not a South American style democracy. Jtrainor (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin Fabrictramp

I generally tend to stay away from Wikidrama because it distracts me from the real reason I'm here, to improve a great encyclopedia. But I keep coming back to this incident, and I feel I need to speak up about it.

First, we have the issue of more than one person who had the community's trust actively aiding someone in getting around having been de-sysoped. (Note to Alexfusco5: this is different than just knowing about a sock and not telling anyone.) In reading the statements made by those involved, I get a strong sense that although they aren't saying it in so many words, they felt this was a case of IAR; they felt the encyclopedia would be better off with Law/the_undertow back, and would be better off if he was an admin again. (More on that below). As in all cases of IAR, if you ignore the rules, you must be prepared for consequences, one of which is losing the trust of the community. When an admin loses the community's trust, they really need to step down.

Was Law/the_undertow's a net benefit to Wikipedia? Given the circumstances, I'd say not. No matter how judiciously and helpfully he used the tools, this is exactly the kind of incident that adds fuel to the claims that admins are all one cabal who have one set of rules for themselves and another for anyone who doesn't suck up enough. Personally, I try very hard, within my limitations as a human, to have one set of rules for everyone. But when this kind of thing gets thrown in my face by an admin-basher, how on earth can I defend myself? I'm tarred with the same brush, and nothing I do or say can change that. (And we wonder why admins get burned out.) And it's not just the on-wiki bashers who will use this. I stay far away from dedicated wiki-bashing sites, but I still run in to wiki-bashers here and there. And I'm sure I'll see this incident brought up again and again.

So then we come to arbcom's handling of this. I implore arbcom (or some other body that can enforce a decision) to handle this. I realize that a number of arbcom members will need to recuse themselves for being involved. (And this will give ammo to the arbcom-bashers, who are legion). But ultimately, something needs to be done. As you can see from the number of passionate comments, the community feels strongly about this.

Additionally, arbcom needs to look at itself long and hard. One factor cited by Jennavecia was a lack of responsiveness by arbcom. I fully realize the members of arbcom are all volunteers, just as I am. But I am frankly shocked that no one even bothered to reply to the_undertow with a simple "we got your message, real life is demanding all our time right now, but we really will get to you." This isn't the first time I've heard this complaint, but I truly hope it will be the last.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin Lid

The greatest conflict apparent in this long and repetitious discussion is not that of the facts of the case strangely enough, but of two arguments with wider reaching consequences - what wikipedia is and what wikipedia should be. This conflict is rooted in the two camps - those that argue for the progressive formalised wikipedia which functions as as, for lack of better terms, a state with a codified system of laws/policies. The other camp is those that, though a derisive comment but an applicable umbrella, view wikipedia as something akin to an MMORPG community - loosely held together save for bonds of friendship.

ArbCom is trapped in the middle of these two schools, schizophrenically trying to decide what it is trying to be. On one hand ArbCom is the de facto highest court to interpret policy and dispute but has evolved into covering questions of communal decision making. Some people above have argued that this is a gross misappropriation of the purpose of ArbCom as it takes powers from the community in effect to leave ultimate decisions of behaviour to a select few. However this is where the second school of community hits its wall - we have a situation in which communal relations are put ahead of the pillars this community was built upon.

We have people arguing that these methods will "lose" us great editors, and that may be so, and that the energy being used here is horribly misappropriated when there are more damaging vandals at loose so why have such an emphasis on this case. The reason that this argument is weak is that, if we were to stick to it, we fail at undertaking one of the foundations of law - all people are equal under the law irrelevant of place, status or wealth. We may lose good editors in this case, but that is the price that is to be paid so that we are not hypocrites.

The parties involved violated key foundations of their roles, and while their argument is correct that if they were to reveal Law was the_undertow his role as admin would've been unlikely let me remind us of one simple fact - adminship is not an award. We are not a video game where we isolate editors to be made admins, give them a pat on the back, and then send them off to an upper tier of retirement from wikipedia. It's purpose is to give editors powers unavailable to baic users to maintain order. Some people are arguing, emotionally, that ommitting Law was undertow was an "insult" to the community, whom they would be countered by saying the people would know undertow whom would know he would not misuse Law, but this argument is unnecessary - by arguing about insults the argument is another attachment to wikipedia as a social club rather than an encyclopedia.

Until wikipedia can figure out whether it is going to codify its pillars and policies into a system of laws or stick with its current system of community I am left with concluding that as ArbCom is the de facto issuer of these decisions of the highest level of wikipedia that they accept the case, realise the policies they have put in place to deal with situations like this, and act accordingly. Don't get caught up in questions of "oh but I like them" or "but they are such a benefit to the community" as by doing so we get stuck in a circle of slaps on the wrist for the immortality that is admin friendship. Editors are editors, some just have more options than others, and they should all receive the same edicts whether they are an anonymous IP or a member of the wikimedia committee. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by [insert User name]

Clerk notes

Requests to clerks

The posts [32][33] by Ottava Rima are outright trolling/revenge taking/personal attacks and I request that a clerk remove them and take appropriate measures to preserve decorum. Jehochman ^Talk 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. I find them wholly accurate and appropriate. Majorly talk 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The questioned comment is not so heinous and beyond the the standards of civilized decency as to require clerk removal. I do wish to remind all parties to only comment in their own sections and leave it to the clerks to remove improperly positioned comments. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we maybe not have everyone's prior disputes boil over into this? We know there are long-running disputes between a variety of users here. That doesn't mean that we need to personalize those disputes or automatically presume to connect those disputes with prior issues. Let's try to act with a bit more maturity, ok? And to be clear, that's a very general request not aimed at any specific user. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. It should be unnecessary to know half of a bunch of intertwined Wikilifestories and a family tree of their alliances and nemeses to figure out why someone might be commenting in a particular way or taking excessive interest at a particular place about someone or some issue. (This is not aimed at the parties or even particular to this case - I've seen it a lot in my 3½ years here.) Orderinchaos 07:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have removed a number of threaded discussions, and would ask that the other clerks be vigilant for editors posting out with their own sections. AGK 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recusals

• Due to friendships with both Lara and GC, I am not going participate in this case. hmwith☮ 00:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Recusing myself as a clerk as well, obviously. GlassCobra 00:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/3/3/3) (accept/decline/motion/recuse/undecided)

• Recuse based on prior issues and interaction with The_undertow. For the record, I did not know that Law was the same individual until within the past couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Awaiting further comments — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I don't know if it is appropriate to declare here that I've skipped a few statements above just after reading the first two or three sentences. I've done it because those kind of statements add nothing concrete but instead they prove once again that some users use to personalize issues and forget about rationalism. I am 100% sure that if this case gets accepted the workshop would become just another venue for extending the feuds, bullying the clerks and accusing ArbCom for all the horrible things. So, if you are here to point fingers at each other then I must say "sorry, no". And if you are here to discuss the concept of friendship vs Wikipedia professionalism then I believe ArbCom can be helpful in giving its opinion. That said, I personally won't sanction someone for any violation without precedent unless it concerns a very serious violation. I'd suggest a motion along the lines that professionalism comes first because believing that my friend's actions are positive and how everyone measures them remains something subjective while professionalism is not. If ArbCom members are happy with the motion then I believe it would become a basis for future community dealings. Now, I'd be happy to read comments on this. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Responding to Jehochman. I suggest a motion (along the lines discussed above) which would help the community update wp:admin and... we are done! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Responding to JoshuaZ. Hearing from Lara and GlassCobra would be great. I'd like to hear about their opinion on the issue here. Let me get this clear... Friendship is a very noble thing but that is totally different in the context of encyclopedia debates because at the end we end up using that same friendship to violate wp:battle. It is a pity and a shame that after 8 years of existence we are still using "me/you and my/your friends" in debates. That is very divisive creating disunity and harms the concept of collaboration; something which goes against the wp:5P. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are three proposed texts of a motion so far. We have this of Jehochman, this of SirFozzie and the Pete Forsyth's edits to Sir Fozzie's motion. I urge people to take that to the talk page and discuss them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Noting my general and strong agreement with Fayssal's comments. Waiting on statements from GC and Lara. However, I will note that implications and explicit statements indicating that a personal sense of right and wrong trumps community norms and policies is deeply concerning. Also, I sympathetic to the statements of Durova and others regarding the lack of dispute resolution, failure to address such situations through normal policy/process development, and related points. Vassyana (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment My observations: 1) The behind the scene discussions (dating back to mid 2008) between ArbCom members and the undertow (and other people) likely played a role in the way the situation played out. 2) Because of the variety of opinions expressed and the harshness of the wording stated in various comments on this page, I'm not convinced that user conduct RFCs are going to give meaningful feedback to the involved parties now. 3) ArbCom can desysop admins or pass motions related to their use of their tools, power, and status without a case. Given these factors, I not inclined to take a case. Instead, I think that a statement by ArbCom possibly accompanied by motions is the way to go. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Decline/hold to deal with by motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Recuse per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Apology from John Vandenberg --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This case involves a Wikipedia Review regular, therefore I recuse, but I have some comments.
  1. I was not aware of The_undertow's undisclosed return to this site before John Vandenburg forwarded the IRC logs less than 3.5 days ago.
  2. There are assertions that ArbCom and/or Jimmy Wales might have known about The_undertow's return. It appears that The_undertow/Law tried to create this impression himself. First, I've searched arbcom-l for all hits of "undertow," and I find no hint of The_undertow's return in any message before 3.5 days ago. Any arbitrators who knew about it must learned about it through other means. Second, Jimmy Wales was asked whether he knew, and he has told ArbCom that he did not. Given the circumstances of The_undertow's ban last year, I think it's highly unlikely that any participants from that era would have consented to him returning while undisclosed—and certainly not running for adminship. Third, The_undertow/Law is not above directly lying to protect himself and his friends. I sincerely hope that his friends are not so deceitful. I praise Casliber for his candor in this matter.
  3. There is a urban legend that the ban of The_undertow was somehow not a bona fide act of ArbCom. A look at the archives shows me that this rumor is simply untrue. On Jun 16 15:05, an arbitrator asked the committee what should be done about The_undertow situation, which had escalated with a stubbornly unwithdrawn legal threat, increasingly erratic missives, and an utterly reprehensible WP:POINTy BLP about one of our editor volunteers. An earlier move to block The_undertow divided the Committee, but within 25 minutes of the first inquiry, five other then-sitting arbitrators had weighed in favoring a block, including those who were previously opposed or uncertain. This was an astonishingly decisive, unanimous, and rapid response. Granted, the block was far from best practices—a former arbitrator implemented it before discussion was complete. That said, I cannot doubt that it was fully ratified as a block under the authority of ArbCom. The_undertow was unjustified in socking.

  Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Accept to deal with by motion - it's taken me a few days to both get round to this request and to read all the statements above. There are certainly grounds here to deal with this by motion (either requiring individual admin recall processes to be initiated, or for immediate desysoppings). There may be grounds for a full case. A statement from Jennavecia would help. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hold; in abeyance until some motions can be put forth. While the matter is clearly divisive and causes a great deal of disruption (out of scale with the actual gravity of the matter, in my opinion), there is little to nothing a full case can achieve: there is no significant evidence to find, and workshopping will lead to little but repetition of the flurry of ad hominem attacks and calls for vengeance we have seen in the past several days. — Coren ^(talk) 11:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motions

Motions have been posted here. — Coren ^(talk) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]