Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24

Mailing List Confidential?

Are items sent to the arbcom mailing list confidential? It appears the list is compromised. Spatalker 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The email investigating user:!! was sent to multiple people. Eventually Giano got a copy, and someone also forwarded it to Arbcom-L. Giano posted his copy on wiki. There have been no leaks as far as I know of material sent only to Arbcom-L. Thatcher131 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not accurate. wr/index.php?showtopic=14172 Spatalker 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what is going on here. There are three lists:

Arbcom-L private and confidential for Arbcom business, confidential by Wikipedia and Arbcom policy

WPcyberstalking for discussion of cyberstalking of editors and how to deal with it. Subscription by invitation and private by convention of the participants

WPinvestigations for discussion of sockpuppet investigations. Subscription by invitation and private by consent of the parties.

If someone who is subscribed to the Cyberstalking or Investigations list forwarded messages or a membership list outside of the list, that is the business of the participants in the list. Nothing that originated on Arbcom-L or was sent to Arbcom-L has leaked from Arbcom-L unless the original sender also sent it somewhere else or if it was non-confidential information that was intentionally cc'd. (For example, when I was the only clerk and I proposed the appointment of some additional candidates, I was cc'd on some of the messages in which Arbcom discussed the proposed appointments.) To the best of my knowledge nothing that was meant to be confidential has ever leaked. Thatcher131 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Had the Arbcom as a body seen that evidence before I posted it ANI - yes or no? Giano 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, on wiki-en-l this morning, Kirill Lokshin posted that the Arbcom mailing list received a copy of the blocking post a few hours before you posted it on-wiki, and that it was sent to them by a person "not involved in the dispute." I don't know how to link to that, but perhaps you know how to look that up. Risker 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

bearing in mind the debate here[1] above ref: "kiss my ass" were they able to understand the gravity of the situation? Giano 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The conversation did not go in that direction, to be honest. My own take is that there has been some pretty strong resistance on the part of the community to an activist Arbcom that selects its own cases and develops its own evidence, and the currently sitting Arbcom felt constrained to pursue this case without somebody giving it some form of mandate. Mackensen has referred to their frustration of not having the case brought to them sooner. Ultimately, it was a former member of the Committee, who perhaps had a better understanding of the committee's difficult situation, who filed for consideration of the case. It was a tough call all around. Risker 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand anyone's reluctance to become involved in a case. Giano 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Early this year there was a discussion on one of the noticeboards in which a few of the Arbitrators asked whether they should initiate cases or wait for cases to be brought to them; the majority of responses were that the Committee should not open cases on its own. Hence for several days Arbcom could only watch in frustration, until someone offically filed a request to hear the case. Thatcher131 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin has said they first received the e-mail after the block and four hours before Giano posted it.

Just to clarify, I don't think the e-mail was ever sent to the investigations list. And the version Durova sent to the cyberstalking list is not the same as the version that was leaked. The version that was leaked is the one Durova sent out to people after the block. So I don't believe this leak originated with anyone on the cyberstalking list.

I also want to clarify that no arbitrator responded to Durova's thread when she posted the e-mail to cyberstalking. So there's no suggestion any arbitrator saw it before the block.

The timeline is:

• Nov 3, Durova sends the e-mail to the cyberstalking list. There is no proposal to block !! and no further e-mails in the thread after Nov 3.
• Nov 3-18, Durova said after the block that there had been other private e-mails and chats about !! during this period. Recipients unknown.
• Nov 18, Durova blocks !!
• Nov 18 or thereabouts, after the block, Durova sends a version of her e-mail to at least two other editors, but not the version she sent to cyberstalking.
• Nov 18 22, someone sends the e-mail to the ArbCom.
• Four hours after it's received by ArbCom, according to Kirill Lokshin, Giano posts it. The version posted is not the original version that was sent to cyberstalking.

I'm posting this in response to the suggestion above that it may have been someone from the cyberstalking list who leaked this. Given the different versions, I'm fairly sure no one did. I also think the gap between the Nov 3 posting and the Nov 18 block suggests no involvement on the part of the cyberstalking list. Indeed, had any of us looked at the links, we'd have spotted that !! was known by Giano, so none of this would have happened if Durova had told us she was going to block. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right. This would be more correct:

• Nov 22, someone sends the e-mail to the ArbCom.

There's a four-day gap between the time when this first started and the time any useful information came to us. Kirill 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this again, I'm not sure I have the timestamps right. If I'm reading this correcly, Giano first posted the email on AN/I at 11:59 AM EST on Nov 22, while the Committee received a copy at 2:17 PM EST on Nov 22—two hours after it was already posted. But I'm not entirely certain whether the second timestamp is EST or UTC; if it is the latter, then we received it two hours before it was posted.

In either case, the Committee obviously had no chance to respond in any fashion before Giano posted on AN/I. Kirill 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At least 3 members of the Arbcom had had the mail for days if not weeks. What were they waiting for - me to die of old age? Giano 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to ask them that. The Committee, as a body, was not aware of the circumstances here until about the same time as you were. Kirill 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming they realized that the message in question was one they received 3 weeks earlier on the cyberstalking list, and assuming they saved it. Thatcher131 18:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And again, no arbitrators responded to Durova's thread on cyberstalking, so there's no indication any of them even saw it at the time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What a pity none of these three Wikipedian celebrities feel able to descend from Olympus and speak to us common people themselves, or are you and Thatcher their appointed spokesperson? Giano 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to, but if you mean people on the cyberstalking list it's because there is nothing to say. The e-mail was received, there were few responses, no block proposal, no reason even to read the links. Bear in mind that Durova was trying to show a group of experienced editors how to spot sockpuppets. But we all know how to do that already, plus it's often a high-traffic list. So the e-mail wasn't read carefully, if at all. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"wasn't read carefully, if at all" .. Now that has more implications that I care to expound on. Lsi john 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did Giano get the document from? The timeline makes a leak from the Arbcom-l most likley, no? Given the clear statements being made against off-wiki conspiring, why is only one type of conspiring problematic? Has a definitave list of members of Arbcom-l ever been published? Spatalker 18:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of the subscribers at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing list. Sam Blacketer 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That list is quite long. I suggest the current Committee should spend some time revetting this list, given the 4 hour lapse between information arriving on this list and the same information being widely distributed, vs. the 19 day lapse between initial publication of the information and it's eventual distribution. Spatalker 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it a really good idea to go searching for whoever sent Durova's post to Giano? I'm not sure a leak inquiry would find the culprit, but if it did, then I don't see any reason to start restricting them. Sam Blacketer 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The archives of Arbcom-l have checkuser data in them. Release of checkuser data to third parties is a bad thing. If someone is forwarding documents from Arbcom-l to not-arbcom-l, they should not be authorized to view checkuser data. Spatalker 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I find these insinuations that the Committee leaked material to Giano—out of a nigh-suicidal urge to bring the wrath of the project down on ourselves, presumably?—preposterous and insulting, particularly coming from someone hiding behind a throwaway account. Kirill 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire comittee would not need to agree to leak it. One ex-arbitor would be more than enough. Do you vouch for each and every member of your list personally, or are they responsible for their own conduct? Dosen't it seem possible that message emminated from the arbcom list, given the timing? At the very least, please cease discussing checkuser data on the arbcom mailing list untill it's security can be reviewed. Spatalker 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill. I think the idea that Giano has access to confidental information due to a leak in the Arbitration Committee mailing list is insane. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'll ever know who leaked it. Durova sent it to several people after the block between Nov 18 and 22. They in turn may have sent it to others before it reached Giano. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was me, of course. Who else? I did ask Durova to send me a copy in the hours after the block,[2] but she did not. If she had, I would have considered myself bound by the confidentiality I offered her when I tried to initiate an off-wiki discussion about the block. But she didn't. Someone else sent the text of the e-mail (not the whole thing) to me in the aftermath of the block. See further at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision. -- !! ?? 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So if !! cares to tell us who it was that sent him the email, and so forth, we would presumably eventually find the source of the leak. I doubt that information will be forthcoming, though, as there are asses that need to be covered here. Someone, somewhere abused the trust afforded in them, so I'm not holding my breath for that person to step forward. If there is anything to be learned from this, its perhaps that Wikipedians in general are not very good at keeping private correspondence to themselves. Rockpocket 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me add what I know about this:

• Tuesday Nov 20 14:21 UTC I asked Durova for a copy of her report.
• Tuesday Nov 20 19:42 UTC Durova sent me a copy of her report.
• Tuesday Nov 20 20:23 UTC I asked Durova if she had sent her report to Arbcom-L.
• Wednesday Nov 21 01:51 UTC Durova answers that no she hadn't.
• Thursday Nov 22 18:41 UTC I asked Durova for permission to forward to the Arbcom-L, her latest email to me which contained a copy of her report.
• Thursday Nov 22 18:58 UTC Durova gives her permission
• Thursday Nov 22 19:17 UTC I forwarded a copy of her email to me, to Arbcom-L.

So according to my records, my recollection, and Durova's statement above, the first time I recieved the report was on Tuesday Nov 20 19:42 UTC and the first time the AC mailing list recieved the report was on Thursday Nov 22 19:17 UTC.

Paul August ☎ 22:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: since !! has now said that that he was the person who passed the information to Giano, I can now add a bit more. From a comment !! made to me, I believe that he had access to the "report" prior to Durova sending me a copy. From this I conclude that unless someone other than !! passed this along to Giano, Arbcom-L could not have been the source of the leak. Paul August ☎ 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who leaked the email, the cleanup of ArbCom-l is long overdue

No one is suggesting that the email was leaked by a member of current ArbCom. The list, however, includes a whole lot of people in addition to the ArbCom members. This just makes no sense. There is no reason why anyone but the ArbCom members should have access to the lists. Arbitrators Emeritus (what a term coined by Kelly!) should not be on confidential lists. They are just editors not bound by the implicit arbitrators code of conduct. For instance, they may write and post "statements" to cases and take part in them. Does anyone else see a problem when someone who can listen to the private deliberations of judges can also to take part in the court proceedings?

It took a huge effort to have Kelly ejected from the list overcoming her resistance after she resigned "under cloud" and it was long since obvious that she has no community trust to have access to confidential information. Right now, for instance, subscribers include David Gerard. Was community vetted ever on whether this person is trusted with Confidential info? Mind you, Essjay was on the list too without being even voted on being trusted. Perhaps this incident is a good opportunity to remind to take a long overdue action on formulating a set of rules on who can and who cannot be on the list. --Irpen 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reality check time.

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:27:08 -0500

From: "Kelly Martin" <kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com>

To: arbcom-l-owner@wikimedia.org

Subject: unsubscribe

Delivered-To: kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com

Please unsubscribe me from the arbcom list. I don't remember my password.

Kelly

Note the date. Compare to the date that the resignation of my adminship became effective, according to the log at meta. This discussion may or may not have merit, but it certainly will not have merit if it is driven astray by flatly false claims about the state of reality. Kelly Martin 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Former members of ArbCom and others aren't bound by ArbCom rules. Maybe the list could be limited to only ArbCom members who stand a chance of being able to participate in the decision? John Carter 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious that you ask if David Gerard has ever been vetted for handling confidential information. You are not aware, presumably, that he holds Checkuser and Oversight powers, and in fact was Wikipedia's first checkuser (and for a long time its only one). I would suggest, Irpen, that you're being a little over-ambitious, and although I know little of your history I think I detect a certain animus against the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that David Gerard is on OTRS and Communications Committee. He has access to far more dangerous things than Arbcom private information. I think he's well proven his trust. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No animus at all, Tony! Not against the committee at least but against certain individuals with the history of backroom deals. As far as DG goes, I am well aware of his CU and Oversight powers. But you, perhaps, misread what I wrote. I never said that he has no powers. I said that community was never vetted on giving him those powers. All ArbCom members have those powers too and their election voting page is the proof of the community support for them to have powers and access to sensitive info. There is no such indication for David Gerard, there was none for Essjay. And if we are talking about people getting the sensitive access without vetting for the community trust, here is another recent example.

I am not against ArbCom, Tony. Although I emphatically disagreed with some of its members, I treat their position with respect. They all have gained their positions with a wide community approval and I respect the community approval regardless on whether I agree with the community on those individuals. But I am talking about cases when no community approval was expressed (or sought.) --Irpen 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it's definitely true that someone leaked information about posts I had sent to the ArbCom to Kelly Martin and Cyde. Cyde actually told me himself on one occasion that he knew what I had written to ArbCom. I've raised this issue elsewhere too, and wouldn't have raised it myself in public, because it unfairly smears all the members of the ArbCom who can be trusted with confidential material. But now that someone else has mentioned it, I have to say that I myself would not send anything sensitive to the ArbCom mailing list. That's a great pity, because we need a group of trusted, senior editors we can confide in. The knock-on effect of not having such a group is that Jimbo gets asked to deal with a lot of issues on his own, which isn't fair to him. The bottom line is that the ArbCom does need to get its own house in order. No one expects them to be paragons of virtue, but leaking material to someone who is likely to stick it on her blog — and who has allowed what she thinks is the real name of someone else on the ArbCom mailing list to be published on her blog, without that person's consent — is the height of folly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In total agreement with Slim. We need to restrict access to the sensitive info only to members of the community who are trusted by this community. I am not aware of any better way to gauge this trust than the ArbCom election itself. Those who have never went through it cannot claim to have been trusted. Same applies to "arbitrators emeritus". Trust cannot be eternal. Someone who have been trusted 5 years ago or so (when the vote for that person took place) cannot be guaranteed to have this trust forever. By restricting the ArbCom list to the current members, we would make a huge step to make the privacy of the ArbCom list truly meaningful. This should not be misconstrued as an attack on all the former ArbCom members. I checked their list and I have a huge respect to many of them. But we need clearly spelled out rules and they should be followed. Wikipedia privacy policy needs to be upheld to the highest standards. --Irpen 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds all sensible, Irpen, until I look at what you're actually saying. You're claiming that David Gerard has never been vetted by the community, yet he won the sixth highest number of votes in the December 2004 arbitration committee elections, in a field of 34 candidates. Moreover, the arbitration committee itself decides who is to be a member of the arbitration committee list. If you personally don't trust it and think someone has leaked information, send your evidence, including any mail headers you may have, to the committee. And he comes from a period when checkuser was not widely distributed. He was the only checkuser for a long time. Moreover he is a regular spokesperson for Wikipedia in the UK and Ireland, and even further afield. Trying to kick fellows like that off the commmittee mailing list really isn't sensible. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to focus on individuals here. And what you say about sending emails and headers, Tony, is pointless. That information is obtained confidentially and so obviously it can't be used as evidence. I could forward my email from Cyde but you know as well as I do that the ArbCom wouldn't take it seriously. After all, what can they do with it? It doesn't tell them who the leaker is.

So moving away from particular individuals or examples, what we do know is that someone from the ArbCom is forwarding material to some irresponsible people, who are in turn alluding to it publicly, and spreading it around in e-mails. The question is, what can be done about this, in general terms? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony, there is no reason to believe that someone trusted four years ago retains the trust today. This is why we have term limits. I brought up DG merely by example although, I admit, I was not aware of this ancient (by WP standards) history of 2004 vote. His name in the list caught my eye specifically because I have reasons to consider this specific person untrustworthy due to the incidents that took place onwiki in the open and that may be just me. We can discuss it, Tony, at your (or mine) talk page. Moreover, I tried to get answers to those questions and deafening silence was unsettling. I would me more than happy to receive the answers at any point of time and would happily see the plausible explanation if offered (I cannot come up with any.)

The issue at hand, however, is more important. The rules that regulate the access to sensitive information need to be clearly spelled out and enforced. Those rules should be sensible and meet a wide community consensus. --Irpen 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your suggestion that David Gerard, OTRS, Checkuser, Oversight, Communications Committee, is in any way regarded as untrustworthy by the community quite extraordinary. You're going to have to try harder than this, Irpen. If you have any evidence against him, submit it to the arbitration committee and stop making baseless allegations. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And if someone did have evidence that a former arbitrator is untrustworthy? I don't see how submitting information like that to the arbitraton committee would help if the former arbitrators are subscribers to the arbcom mailing list. --Pixelface (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think you owe both Kelly Martin and David Gerard a good, honest apology, Irpen. Please don't bandy about these loose accusations if you expect your arguments to be taken seriously. --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we instead just focus on the problem? There is a perception (right or wrong) that the ArbCom mailing list can't be trusted. The effect of this is that arbitrators are not being kept in the loop, and that Jimbo is having to deal with certain issues himself. I think everyone can agree that this is a bad state of affairs. So the question is: what can we do about it? Are there any suggestions? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think that we could focus on a problem, but really what I'm seeing is two editors making pretty serious allegations, which they explicitly refuse to support, against members of the arbitration committee mailing list. If you can't be bothered to forward your evidence to the right place, then I can't be bothered to care. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you would find that there is not a consensus that the ArbCom-l list cannot be trusted; in fact, I suspect you will find that the number of people who hold that opinion may be counted without resorting to the removal of footwear. Please, take your paranoia and be gone from here with it; it has become tedious and annoying. Kelly Martin 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's likely to continue being tedious and annoying, so try to get used to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what he was trying to imply was that there are individuals on that list who are not members of ArbCom. Also, at this point, saying that all the members of that mailing list can be completely trusted is kind of like saying that you knew the barn door was locked several hours after all the livestock ran off. I don't myself think that any particular individuals were necessarily specifically mentioned to call those individuals into question, but maybe just to provide examples. However, it does seem clear that at least one person on that mailing list can't be trusted as much as they evidently were. I'd like to apologize to anyone who thought they were individually being singled out for criticism, by me or others, and hope that the discussion can continue about whether the mailing list could be adjusted to maybe ensure greater accountability among those who receive it. And my apologies if my phrasing of any of the above was inappropriate. Diplomatese ain't my strong point. John Carter 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What can be done to ensure accountability, or at least improve it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly and truly baffled that restricting ArbCom mailing list access to standing ArbCom members is controversial or offensive in the least. Vassyana 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I can't see any real objections to that idea myself. Doing so might make it easier to find anyone who does leak information, and would probably make it more likely that, if one of the ArbCom does leak, someone would be willing to name them on the basis of their failure to live up to their obligations. It won't necessarily prevent similar events in the future, but with any luck it might make them less likely. John Carter 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to see this from Jimbo's perspective, I think he likes the idea of having a group of trusted editors he can turn to for advice and feedback. He also likes having some continuity between the old ArbCom and the new, so that more experienced people can advise the more recent ones. The problem with the situation is, in part, that the list is getting ever-larger, and so leaks become more likely. Also, once someone is on the list, they're on it for life, as it were, unless something really egregious is shown against them. And it only takes one to destroy the trust people have in the list.

What I'd like to see instead, if Jimbo wants a group of people to turn to for advice, is that he set up such a group -- chosen by him, not elected -- of people who can be trusted absolutely not to forward information to people who will post it on blogs, hand it to attack sites etc. It's never possible to trust someone 100 percent in every regard. But there are lots of experienced editors on this website that I know would never hand confidential information to someone who might publish it, or forward it to someone who might harm the subject of it. Jimbo should choose a group of people that he feels he can say that of, and leave the ArbCom to discuss cases that are brought before it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. The vagaries of elections can be unpredictable, and longstanding familiarity with an individual volunteer (which everyone here is) is probably a better predictor of character. And, considering that the list isn't necessarily directly tied to "official" wikipedia, those individuals could be just "drafted" onto the list. It might help to give those individuals some sort of quasi-official status, though, somehow, to prevent future aspersions of elitism. John Carter 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The current situation leaves Jimbo in a position where he has to choose arbitrators from an elected list, which may consist of people he has absolutely no knowledge of. All he can see is they're willing to give their real names (and we have no way of checking that), and that the community seems not to mind them. None of that tells you whether someone can be trusted. You need quite a substantial amount of interaction with someone before you get to know their quirks, and start to get instincts about "I can trust them regarding this type of thing, but not regarding that type of thing." When it comes to deciding who should handle very sensitive information, it's that level of prior interaction that is needed, and which the current system can't deliver. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've said there actually reads like an argument against giving the current AC confidential information. I thought you were arguing for the community-selected group - David Gerard 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's clear someone on the ArbCom or its mailing list has leaked information to someone who couldn't be trusted with it. I'm also saying I think this is inevitable where you have a situation of people being elected who may have interacted with Jimbo only sporadically or not at all, and that it's therefore likely to get worse, not better. So I was suggesting separating the advice role of the ArbCom, which Jimbo likes, from its main role of dispute resolution. Elect a small group of people to do dispute resolution, and Jimbo can appoint a larger group of people he actually knows to act as a confidential sounding board, if he feels he needs one. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the worst idea I have ever heard mooted on Wikipedia. Giano 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Slim, Jimbo is a big boy. He can have as many mailing lists as he wants, on and off Wikipedia, to receive advice and banter with various people. I don't think there is a single person in the project who believes the only people he talks with or listens to are members of the Arbcom mailing list; and if he is relying only on the people he "knows" then he's missing out on an awful lot. The mailing list under discussion is primarily for the use of the Arbcom members, it reportedly has an akashic record, and frankly if they want to kick someone who is a non-serving Arb off the list, they can. If you or anyone else have a concern about privacy violations, please advise the Ombudsman[3]. Risker 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason is for institutional memory and advice. Presumably Jimbo and the AC will continue to maintain the list as is useful to him and them - David Gerard 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like what might be being proposed here is potentially making ArbCom at least somewhat "officially" tied to Wikimedia. That might not be a bad idea. Would there be any way to make the ArbCom a bit more "officially" tied to the Foundation? John Carter 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Institutional memory is a good thing, but when people won't send the ArbCom confidential material because they don't trust it to remain confidential, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be solved. No point in ignoring it, and David, this is not a matter for the ArbCom itself. It's a matter for the entire community if the body they're electing representatives to has a problem as fundamental as that. Sometimes people are required to interact with the ArbCom. Therefore, we have a right to know that it's fundamentally trustworthy. It's in the ArbCom's interests to sort it out too, because it means you're not being told things that it might be quite useful for you to know. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Where in hades did this come from, Sarah? The former members are on the list for the purposes of institutional memory, and providing some non-binding advice to the incumbents. I can safely say, as one arbitrator emeritus on that list, that the former arbitrators there have, on numerous occasions, talked current arbitrators over the years out of making some pretty bad decisions - put another way, without that private advice there, I think public perception of the arbitration committee would be a whole lot lower. The email that Giano posted had, by my guess based on the information posted above, probably been through the inboxes of about fifty different people by the time it got to him. Anyone could have leaked that email, and frankly, I could care less who it was. There is simply no evidence to suggest that anyone has leaked anything from arbcom-l at all, much less to attack sites or blogs. Sarah, I've regularly agreed with you in the past, but you seem to be really jumping at straws lately. This allegation that arbcom-l is leaking has been dreamed up out of nowhere, and has zero substance behind it. Rebecca 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, I know this is a long thread, but Sarah stated above that an email she sent to Arbcom-L was leaked to Kelly Martin and Cyde. You should probably ask her privately if you want to know the details. Thatcher131 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, first of all, I'm not implying I think the ArbCom leaked the e-mail to Giano. Secondly, Kelly Martin has just confirmed by e-mail that someone has, indeed, kept her informed of ArbCom business from time to time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I also seem to remember something about e-mails being leaked to SV, no? Still, I see no reason to assume that the leaks are former arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 14:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Institutional memory is a good thing, but it doesn't require all former members to be on the list. The ArbComm already has three tranches. So one possibility is just having the current members on the list - they provide institutional memory. This (or any alternative) could be supplemented with an former-arbcomm list that the current arbcomm can ask questions of should a case from before their time. There are early resignations and inactivity, so another possibility is having the current and prior year's members on the list. Another could be a rule that anyone who loses or resigns any bits in controversial circumstances also is removed from the list - at least some of those we have specific reason to doubt the community trusts them would be removed that way. Another alternative is to automatically prune anyone who is a party to an accepted case, and restore after the case only if no sanctions are proposed against them on the proposed decision pages. There are lots of ways to keep institutional memory available while pruning out members who have lost the community's trust, provided the committee chooses to use them. The choice of whether and which is the committees. GRBerry 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

One other point. There are two related issues here, each of which deserves consideration. The first if that there are people on the list who are not actually trustworthy, then things sent to the list will leak. It is stated above by SlimVirgin that this has happened. Even if everybody on the list is actually trustworthy, the second issue still exists. The second is that if there are people on the list who a significant portion of the community does not trust then material that could be important won't be sent to the list in the first place. Regardless of jayjg's trustworthiness, can we really say that his presence on the list won't tend to prevent pro-arabic editors from sending material about the perrenial middle eastern disputes to the list? If we are honest with ourselves, we know that a lot of them think he is a problematic editor. That example was obvious from glancing at the list, and those disputes are likely to last beyond the tenure of the members we are electing next month; but any other issue where an Arbitrator or former Arbitrator has/had to recuse has the potential to be similar. GRBerry 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An important clarification: not all leaks are bad. Leaks are neutral. What is done with a leak is another matter, but leaks are both inevitable and ethically neutral. They occur because the leaker believes either that the project or he himself will gain by the leak. If the former, it can be good or bad. If the latter, it's almost surely bad in the case of someone who is an arbitrator. Remember: Dick Cheney insists that everything that has been on his desk is secret. This is problematic, because he is asserting the right to determine all laws and all rights. When courts eventually get around to considering the matter, they will undoubtedly disagree. A project like Wikipedia would disagree from its very founding principles. Therefore, if someone leaks a "secret," like "the US has invaded Cambodia" or "the President sent missiles to Iran in exchange for money to circumvent a law forbidding funding the Contras" or "it is a secret that Congressional pages are complaining about being hit on by Mark Folley," then the betrayal of the "secrecy" is valid, because the matter could not be properly secret. It is not untrustworthiness, but trustworthiness that a soldier refuses an illegal order and that a person outs material that should not be secret. Where Wikipedia falls down is that it has no idea except agreement on what should and should not be "classified."

If an arb says, on the list, "I've got the flu, so I'm not really feeling up to this case" and another arb quotes that, it's obviously not something we care about. If one says, "This document, showing that the Foundation is about to accept advertising, is a matter for all Wikipedians to know, and I don't think it should be secret," then we're closer to legitimate. If one says, "Oh, user:Bobo is using Verizon Wireless for editing, and Checkuser says it resolves to Bahamas," then we're in deep doo-doo.

We can't treat all information as "properly secret" and all whistle blowing as bad unless we have standards for what should be held confidential first. Geogre 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Amusing anecdote: a close friend of mine graduated tops in his class at one of the US military academies. He was sent to MIT, then to a nuke school. He told me that they got a classification notice saying that everything they did in that class was Classified. Since the beginning of the class was "review," he said he could neither confirm nor deny Ohm's Law. Once you do "everything here is classified, and if you breathe a word, we'll prosecute," you're setting up for absurdity, if not atrocity. Geogre 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who leaked the email, the cleanup of ArbCom-l is long overdue (section break)

1. The very only thing I will say about this subject is that I have believed and stated publicly that "former arbitrators" should not be on the mailing list. This is simply because the usefulness of the list is in discussions of the current cases, and those who do not sit on current cases need not be there, and so long as "former" arbs are on the list, confidence in it is shaken. Since a few former arbs have lost the trust of the community, the mailing list's privacy gets harder to respect when they retain discussion on current decisions.
2. This said, I know that many, if not all, of the "former arbs" on the mailing list have been quite useful and helpful. However, they can still be sought. It is still possible, if the mailing list were purged, for a subscribed member to send a digest to a former arbitrator, seek an opinion, and post it to the list. Subscribed members seek clarification and information from outsiders under their own names and accounts, as they should, but if the list has a seal of privacy about it, then that seal cannot be respected with former arbitrators having full access.
3. Finally, this mailing list is a point, but it is not as important a point as the "reform" sought in general. When discussions of changing arbitration committee procedures can be stymied by extraneous votes from "former" and "respected" arbitrators, the ArbCom will not be able to adapt and respond to the needs shown by a crisis. It also will not be able to maladapt and show its worst face. The presence of all who came before on the decision making process makes change all but impossible, and this is good and bad. I think it is generally bad.
4. For those shining a light on this issue and those worried about privacy, the arb-l list has always leaked like a Swiss cheese canoe. It will continue to do so. Myself, I take this as a sign of good. I take this as testimony to the arbitrators having enough humility to look for input (and yet they're cosseted by position and "secrecy" so that they have to pretend otherwise), enough pettiness to seek to play to the audience (and yet get the smug and dirty pleasure of saying that all is private), enough outrage to protest an abuse by leaking (and yet being tied down so that they cannot confirm or deny the abuse's existence). "Former arbs" should not be on the mailing list, in my own opinion, as regular recipients, although getting a digest would possibly be fine (dang... I try not to offer practical advice), but arbitrators would be well advised to try to reform their reform process. I say this only as a friend. Geogre 12:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But leaks to someone likely to use it to harm people, or post it on her blog, are completely unacceptable. That can't be classified as "seeking input." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the ex-arbs really don't have a vote (per your point 3). We can most strongly advise (as in "I feel I must point out to you that you are approaching the edge of this cliff at this speed and will land this hard in this many pieces, so you probably don't want to do that. Really really"), but ultimately the current arbitrators are always in the hot seat. If Jimbo and the current arbs want things to work a particular way, they get them that way.

I might also note (as a somewhat interested observer) that this entire present call for reform appears to be chasing phantoms. I note a severe lack of actual verifiable backing for the claimed need - David Gerard 15:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this is the appropriate place to provide "actual verifiable backing"? --Pixelface (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Kelly Martin just confirmed it, albeit only in general terms. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, at the risk of repitition of myself, I wonder if it might be possible to change the existing nature of the ArbCom from it's current structure as being primarily elected by editors to a semi-official "function" of the foundation itself. I'm not myself aware as to how active ArbComs are in other Wikimedia entities, but it might make most sense to create a single ArbCom for the entire foundation, with its members perhaps nominated by editors of the various entities but actually selected by the Bureaucrats, Jimbo, or some other party or parties, to perhaps function across all wikimedia entities. And, in any event, while I personally have no objections whatsoever to having individuals sent copies of e-mails from the ArbCom list by other editors on the list, the fact that such already happens could be seen as being yet another indicator that they don't need to necessarily receive all of them as part of the regular mailing list, and that it might even make most sense, if this is even remotely possible, to encrypt the ArbCom mailing list in such a way as only a few can decode it, those being the sitting members, although any member of the committee could ask a clerk to send a copy to someone else, at the risk of that request being recorded somewhere. I don't know if such encryption is really a viable option, though. John Carter 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't learn the history, then I predict that no matter how valuable your ideas, you won't be on the path to convincing any of the people who could change this of the value of them - David Gerard 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are the people who could change this? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That'll be the first time you believed something because Kelly said it, then - David Gerard 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're denying it, given how obvious it is from her blog, and given she has now confirmed it herself. Why are you so prickly about the idea that someone is telling her what's being discussed? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard, you are helping neither yourself nor your cause when you smugly say, "Where's the evidence?" When you then insult a newer user by saying that he hasn't learned the history and so won't be listened to, you ironically beg people like me to point out the history of this issue. Remember the fun you had with the brouhaha over IRC? "Where is the proof there was bad talk? I demand you show it! If you show it, I will block you, because it's private! If you do not show it, there is none! I say there is none, and I demand that you be blocked for saying there is!" Even a pre-teen could see the childishness of this double standard. You're inviting a wider discussion when you fall back to that tired and logically vacuous position.

The mailing list has no privacy. It may have trust, but not privacy. It has leaked for good, and it has leaked for bad. Slim is right on the mark, but she is hardly the only one to be "gossiped" about with sensitive material. Material from the list (presumably) or CU has magically gone into blogs, attack sites, and coalitions of attacks on-Wikipedia. I blame the "secrecy," myself, and this bad cess of "tee hee, this is super sekret" when there is no actual trustworthiness to the content, the recipients, or a limitation to it. Of course I also have no hesitation in expressing personal distrust of several people with access to that list, but I'm just some dude. Geogre 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"If you show it, I will block you, because it's private! If you do not show it, there is none!" - if you're going to put that in quotes, you could perhaps produce a waffer-thin diff with said meaning, or withdraw it thanks. My statement about learning history is that the present discussion strikes me as unlikely to convince either Jimbo or the AC that they are wrong (see comments in next section from current arbs), though of course I could be wrong about this - David Gerard 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

However, if I offer a diff, am I not disrupting by bringing back an old argument and re-introducing a time when you really showed yourself ill? The quotation was, of course, of the argument. I can explain direct and indirect discourse, if you're unclear on what they are. Also, you probably intended "withdraw it. Thanks." The ploy, though, of demanding quotations of "private" material to disprove an implicated party's statement that there are none, and then a prosecution on the issue of showing "private" material, is obvious. It is beneath any adult to take it seriously. Please take that into consideration when you demand proofs. HTH HAND. Geogre 15:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, you used to be more clueful than this - David Gerard 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a little footnote

The list of members of the list has been published for all to see on the page describing the Committee for six months now. I just updated it yesterday. If there are individuals in whom Slim (or anyone else) has doubts of the probity, please contact me (or whomever) and we will consider your request. James F. (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever passed information about me to Kelly Martin, James? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have ever passed privileged information about you to anyone. In short, "no", of course not.

James F. (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You qualified your answer with "privileged," so let me rephrase. Have you ever gossiped about me to Kelly Martin, and do you think you may have done so in a way that alluded to information sent to the ArbCom? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of clarity, it might help to indicate what particular reason you might have to ask such questions, so that anybody else who isn't familiar with the subject will have at least a clue why you ask such questions. John Carter 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me for answering the question I thought you had asked, given the context. :-)

I have not "gossiped" about you, either, though as that is a prejudicial term in this line of enquiry, and evaluation against it is subjective, our judgement on that may differ. Certainly, I have discussed you (along with countless other members of the community) with fellow members, both former and current, of the Arbitration Committee in the course of my duties there, both in cases and in the larger stewardship of issues. The general flavour of these discussions have been the expression of frustration that you and I do not work together more productively; if this is, to your eyes, "gossip", then I am sorry if you have felt in any way slighted, betrayed, or under-mined. I have certainly not leaked information about you, nor given any further information relating to you which is otherwise inappropriate; it would be fundamentally wrong of me so to do.

Sadly, given that you've been insinuating that this is not the case for over a year now - that, indeed, I have violated the trust placed in me, and have since lied about it several times, both to you and others - I doubt that you will ever believe me. As well as creating "political" difficulties for me, this is something I regret on a personal level. However, after many attempts to discuss this, I don't see much point in yet again re-igniting the stale embers. After all, discussion is a two-way process requiring good faith.

James F. (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that qualifies as a response to the question I asked above. Thank you. John Carter 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder which sitting arbitrator Kelly was referring to then, in her e-mail. I can't think of any other arbitrator who would give her information. The problem with passing gossip to gossips, James, is that gossips gossip. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone who is not a reigning Arb to be on that list! Giano 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't necessarily disagree, as I have stated above. The down side is so far as I can tell ArbCom itself doesn't necessarily decide who's on the list. That could be somewhat problematic. John Carter 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I find former Arbitrators' input to be highly useful, particularly in the field of the very privileged information to which some object to them having access. For example, David and Dominic are very active in the area of CheckUser; Jay, Rebecca, and Sean keep us grounded in the editing community, from which some of us (me in particular!) are somewhat disconnected.

Also, we don't "reign", but "serve". But that's very minor. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't think what made me think of reigning! The list does leak, we all know that and it has to stop. Let's not have an inquisition just work out ways of tightening it from now on, restoring confidence and moving on. Giano 22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But we can't be sure whether the leaks don't come from sitting members of the ArbCom itself, and that is a bit of a problem. Would there be any objections to just limiting the general list to only active ArbCom members, with them having the option to request a clerk to forward certain notices to select non-members? That might be one of the few reasonable compromises available here. John Carter 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By "active", do you mean "current"? Or "active"? If it's the latter, it's a non-starter; we're not going to remove people from the list because they want to take a few weeks vacation; but even the former isn't really going to fly. Having former members of the Committee on the list is extremely useful for the current members; we're not likely to cut off our nose to spite our face here. Kirill 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no reason why former members cannot be consulted, in confidence, in specific instances when they have a specialist knowledge of a particular subject. However these instances should be logged and recorded. A former Arb upon expiry of office shoule once again become an ordinary editor. The position is not pensionable. Giano 22:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another reason why former arbs should not be on the list is that former arbitrators may take part in cases, launch them, be defendants, comment, etc. Their being able to do that knowing what goes on inside the chambers puts them into a whole different league of users with respect to cases they choose (or are forced to) to take part as involved parties. No way case participants are allowed to go in and out of jury room in RL and there are good reasons for that. --Irpen 22:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that sitting Arbitrators may also be parties to cases, yes? Kirill 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, just a curiosity.. are those members then removed from the list for the duration of their involvement as a 'party'? Or are they left on the list with access to more than the average editor? Lsi john 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kirill of course, but my recollection is that access to the list is retained, but information concerning the specific case is communicated to uninvolved arbiters (who are not a party to the case) through means other than the list (I assumed email). R. Baley 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They are left on the list with the understanding that they will not take part in discussions related to that case, if any. Removing them would unacceptably impede our other work (the case to which an Arbitrator is a party is typically one of many that we're dealing with at any point); and, in any case, Arbitrators are trusted to act with the proper discretion and decorum in such matters. Kirill 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Lsi john 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Current", sorry. And by having the mailings made available at request to any other editors, potentially including trusted editors who were never part of ArbCom, and having such requests "logged", it might help address some of the concerns about knowing where any future leaks might come from, within ArbCom or otherwise, and there seems to be some real concern that the leaks might be come from non-current members of ArbCom. Having never been on the group myself, I don't know how difficult it would be to edit the ArbCom notices, but I would think that if any current ArbCom member had a standing request that party X receive notice, then that person would still receive notices, but at least there might be a bit more of a belief that the individuals receiving the mailings are actively trusted, and I think that the automatic reception of the current mailing list by some parties might be one of the concerns here. John Carter 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out that, even reduced to current arbitrators only, the arbcom list would consist of 15 people. If we rather conservatively assume that there is a 10% chance that any given arbitrator will, at some point during the year, mention something that is happening on the list to one of their friends (remembering that we do not discourage Wikipedians from becoming friends) then there is, even with just the current arbitrators, an 80% chance that there will be a leak. And that 10% is pretty conservative. I would, in practice, guess that the certainty of arbcom list leaks is around 100% assuming that there is actually a mailing list of arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not discussing arbitrators talking to their friends, so long as they know their friends won't pass it further; we don't expect people to be paragons of virtue. We're talking about an arbitrator passing information to someone who has tried to out a fellow arbitrator on her blog, among other things, and who has published information from the ArbCom before. To continue to keep that person informed is incredibly irresponsible. If one or more members of the ArbCom mailing list are so friendly with Kelly that they're unable to act responsibly, that's fine. No one is saying don't have friends. But please resign if you're not willing to stop passing confidential material to her. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if anyone is to resign at this point, it should probably be you. Your aggressive mudslinging is serving no benefit to this encyclopedia and its community other than tearing it to shreds. --krimpet⟲ 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can sense how frustrating it is to suspect that people are having conversations about you behind your back and behind closed doors, imagine how !! must feel. He still doesn't know who said what about him, who was told what, who agreed with what, and whether the sleuths will continue. Let him among us who hasn't engaged in such clandestine discussions cast the first stone. --Alecmconroy 06:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alecmcconroy, in Sarah's defence, neither does anyone else. The only person who seems to know who these mysterious "five sleuths" (or anyone else who actually supported this block) are is Durova, and since she's refusing to tell anyone who they actually are, I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that she made them up, and blamed the mailing lists to confuse matters. Rebecca 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a possibility. I should clarify, I don't mean to accuse SV, I was just pointing out that however mad SV is, !! must feel that times a billion. --Alecmconroy 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that only person publicly accused of leaking information is James. I find that accusation to be without merit, and as a foundation for this discussion rather silly, given that James was and remains a sitting arbitrator! If this is some effort to take the fallout from someone else's list going to pieces and blow it back towards ArbCom, I'm unimpressed. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, that really isn't worthy of you. This is a discussion about how some members of the community (perhaps foolishly, but there you go) have no trust in the ArbCom, because someone from the committee has passed, or continues to pass, information to Kelly Martin and Cyde. Now, if I were on the committee, I'd want to do something about it, rather than post dismissive replies to the people raising the concern. At the very least, I'd want to make clear to my colleagues that it must never happen again. Do you at least agree that, if it has been happening, it must stop? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if I believed that there was a "leak" from arbcom-l of any substance, and that leak contained information of a privileged nature, and said leak had a negative impact, I would be concerned. I would move to do something about it. I would not start by publicly questioning the integrity of respected users without any evidence, and by rehashing old allegations that have never been sustained. I can't help but be suspicious of the timing, either, and you must grant that your timing in raising this matter is unfortunate. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask whether you've taken any of these steps in response to the material Kelly has already published on her blog? And I did not raise the issue, Mackensen — someone else did, and I responded, so the timing is immaterial. I fail to see the connection anyway. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Steps? Should I circulate an email, inquiring if any is leaking negative information about one third party to another third party? Based on hearsay, some of it over a year old, and all of it unproven? Someone is leaking confidential material--what if it's an arbitrator? Then we've ejected other trustworthy minds out of paranoia! I won't go down that road. Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, get over yourself. I don't see how I'm relevant in this at all. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't really actively done anything on-wiki in over a month. You making up nonsense about me, on the other hand, might persuade to get involved again. --Cyde Weys 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note to all participants. This thread is full of personal attacks and of allegations of privacy breaches directed against specific individuals. There's obviously a lot of bad blood here, but really this is shameful. All the allegations here are unsubstantiated and probably unsubstantiatable (is that a word?). Parties accused here cannot possibly clear their names, and insinuations without details are unacceptable. Whatever the truth, (and IANAL) this thread is bordering on the legally actionable. I strongly advise all parties to take the discussion away from a public forum, unless they can publicly substantiate their accusations. This is frankly contemptible.--Doc^g 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc, in response to an e-mail I received from Kelly Martin this morning, I asked James a straightforward question, and he was unable to give a straightforward answer. It is something that needs to be discussed. Someone has been leaking confidential information to a woman who has been publishing serious personal attacks on Wikipedians; and it's a complete mystery to me why she's allowed to continue editing after that behavior. We ban people for a lot less all the time.

It really doesn't matter who the leaker is; that person clearly doesn't have the courage to step forward. What is clear is that reform of some kind is needed, because the community has very little faith in the arbitration committee because of this kind of thing. Reform is in everyone's interests. This is a situation where the interests of the community and the majority of the arbitrators identical. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I have no idea. But you can't substantiate any of that, and those you are accusing can't refute it. By all means ask JamesF - but do it privately. Or report the matter to the Foundation. This is not the way to go. You cannot hide behind a pseudonym and make actionable accusations about identifiable people - that's what our BLP policy is all about. Now take this elsewhere - or I will delete this page per WP:BLP.--Doc^g 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as if James' answer above lacks anything in straightforwardness. He has explicitly said that he has not shared privileged (i.e. confidential) information obtained from the arbcom list with her or anyone else not on the list. What more are you asking for? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Matthew! You don't think it lacks straightforwardness? It had qualifications and equivocations. Now me, I believe Kelly Martin about as much as I believe Dick Cheney, but I don't think there is anything 100 miles of BLP going on here. Within the context of the general discussion, "The list leaks, so what?" we have SlimVirgin offering a gigantic "so what."

I have no hopes at all that my view will gain traction -- that members of arbs-l will adopt limitations of their own privacy to their discussions, and I have little hopes that my general point -- that Wikipedians work a policy where we acknowledge that matters used for Wikipedia actions affecting other users abrogate their seals of privacy. However, we have leaks for good and ill. The good, I think, is like the leak of the Durovagate portfolio (and I really think many arbs would agree that the leak of the information was not a problem, even if they think that Giano's posting of it was a policy violation) or the leaks previously of irc logs showing personal attacks and plans to "kill" users. The leaks for undoubted ill would be ones like this.

If leaks can't be stopped (and no government has ever eliminated them... even the dictatorships), then reasons for leaks and consequences for leaks and methods for handling inappropriately classified material have to be in place. One step in that direction is finding out who leaks for ill. If Kelly is telling the truth, then that's some serious stuff. Geogre 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've posted a reflection on this calling for the shredding of the archive and restructuring of the lists. It is on wikien1 and a copy here--Doc^g 12:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerem43 deleted Akhilleus' comments?

I think Jerem43 made a mistake when correcting something in a recent revision and deleted a statement by Akhilleus... Can someone look at the edit history and see if I'm right about this? [4] I put a note at his talk page, but the text is still missing. futurebird 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, futurebird--I restored my comment, I'm sure Jerem43 just made a mistake. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That was confusing. futurebird 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously sorry about that. I didn't realize that I had made the error. - Jeremy (Jerem43 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

No problem, it's an easy mistake to make, and an easy mistake to fix. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Flow

Could this page be arranged the same way than some others, where every case is on its subpage which is shown here? Would help with the watchlist, I had difficulties when I was watching this and comments get coming so that nothing in the edit summary indicated which case it was about. Then it's possible to watch only the conversation which you are commenting, and see also new added cases. Calejenden 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cases that are accepted and opened have their own subpages. Requests that have not yet been accepted do not have subpages. There has been discussion about this in the past (see the archives of this page); such a system has bad points as well as good points. You might ask again after the new Arbitrators take office in January. Thatcher131 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, thank you, I saw some earlier comments. Calejenden 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee remedy on Community Bans

Regarding the recent Arbitration Committee remedy, I have started a discussion of community bans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans. Please discuss there. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A new rule?

In light of the recent extraordinary proceedings in certain cases, I'd like to do two things. 1) Urge the committee to at least consider taking a breath before moving to voting and closing and 2) to institute this as a notion that requires explicit suspension. That is to say, I'd like to suggest the following addition to arbitration policy (please no-one refer me to the backwater down the hall):

Unless the committee passes a motion to the contrary, no remedies will be formally proposed for a period of 7 days from the case opening.

The committee then has the ability to pass a specific motion in cases of emergency that they will proceed to business right now. But really, the silly situation at work in the Hoffman case, where one could literally have slept through the evidence phase, and the unseemly scramble of the proceedings of the Durova case have got to stop. Since I sense somethings simmering in the committee, I'd like to invite them to give themselves a 'due restraint' protocol. Nothing is lost in most cases, and given the usual lead time of arbitration, this would only make a difference in relatively few cases - which is precisely my intention. Splash - tk 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NB: Talking about 'decisions' rather than 'remedies' would be better and more precise. Splash - tk 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We're being criticized for dealing with cases too quickly now? I sense that our flying porcine friends will soon be opening a ski resort in Malebolge. ;-)

For what it's worth, I've generally tried to allow at least a week for parties to present evidence; if I recall correctly, that's what I asked the clerks to specify in the case opening notifications. Obviously, other members of the Committee may desire a shorter lead time. Kirill 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A week seems reasonable to me. Paul August ☎ 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable. The way AC sped through the Durova RfAr was a disgrace. Will ^(talk) 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. As a Clerk, I had to notify an editor today that he is mentioned in a proposed decision written yesterday in a case that opened yesterday, and that if he wants to make an additional statement or submit any evidence, he had best do it quickly. To be sure, even if one arbitrator writes up a proposed decision, nothing will happen unless several other arbitrators agree with it, so the others can slow down the pace by "abstaining for now pending further opportunity for the parties to be heard" or by withholding their votes until more time has elapsed. Note also that in some cases, parties agree that they are ready for the case to proceed. But Kirill recently asked the Clerks to amend the evidence page template to request that the parties submit their evidence within one week of the case opening, and the counterpart might well be that there be a presumption that drafting a decision should wait that long except in emergencies. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by the Committee" has been part of the Arbitration policy for at least 2 years. I think it is unfortunate that several recent cases have moved to proposed decision before that time. Editors who file cases should be prepared to present evidence in a timely fashion; however a week does not seem like too long a time to allow due consideration. Thatcher131 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is there, though affirming it more clearly would, imo, serve as a useful brake for when things just get that bit too quick - which is prone to happening on the most electric disputes, which are often those that split open deeper fissures than can be quickly stitched together. On those occasions when this would risk prolonging a dispute, the ability to pass an 'activating motion' is always there. Splash - tk 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've just arrived here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Case suspended. I agree with the above that moving to the proposed decision phase too quickly is bad, but also sympathise with those wanting to see cases moving through more quickly. When the Hoffman case opened, it was at that point that I started preparing my evidence. Another editor told me he had been preparing evidence in draft form already for a few days. Could that be encouraged more? Oh, and can anyone remember whether a proposal to suspend a case has ever happened before? Especially one that says "If no motion is offered, the case will close without a decision."? Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, many questions. (a) I'm not sure encouraging people to gather evidence against each other when acceptance of the case is up in the air is a terribly good idea (although many do). Better I think to ask the Arbitrators to stick to the 7-day minimum period after the case opens to allow evidence presentations before moving to a decision. (2) A small number of past cases have been put on hold pending mediation or some such, with variable results. (III) The "close without decision" clause (which has already been rejected) was my attempt to not leave things hanging up in the air indefinitely. If the Arbitrators were to decide that Adam had made a satisfactory response to an RFC, would there be a reason to pass some common sense principles and some findings of fact that were obsoleted by the RfC? Anyway, that was my thinking. Thatcher131 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370 desysoped

I see that User:Zscout370 has been desysoped by the arbcom. In cases like this I suggest that a note of explanation be placed at WP:AN, not only as a courtesy to the community but to help prevent others from repeating mistakes that led to this action. Thank you. --Duk 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, over one restoration, an admin gets desysopped. I'm in a little shock here, what's happening guys? Couldn't this have waited for a case to be filed rather than an emergency desysop? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

His sysop bit has been returned. The reason given "i misinterpreted the situation". 1 != 2 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's one big misinterpretation.... Ryan Postlethwaite 21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is hard to determine without knowing what information was being interpreted. 1 != 2 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading timestamps correctly, Zscout was deadminned for something around five or six hours. He tells me that he has received no explanation from anyone on or representing the arbitration committee, in public or in private. Not even the simple courtesy of mentioning his access has been revoked, much less explaining why. Clearly the committee went to a lot of bother to get the stewards into play, why didn't any one of the involved persons think to spend even 30 seconds to inform the former admin? I would say I "insist" on some extremely basic courtesy for an esteemed editor with years of dedicated service to Wikimedia projects, but that would imply I have the power to do so; I would say I "humbly beg" for the same, but that implies I am willing to be humble and patient. I will instead say that I find this lack of apparent care both alarming and offensive. Am I missing something, or did you just spit on somebody? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he has it back already. [5] but I think he should have been informed, definitely, and what was the emergency. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I first learned that this action had been taken on "Wikipedia Review." That is not the place where I would like to think administrators would need to consult for incident reports. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)