Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

This talk page is for discussion related to motions currently being voted on. Discussions not directly related to specific motions under consideration may be removed by an Arbitrator or a Clerk without notice.

For discussion on requests for arbitration, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration.

Current motion regarding Law

Could we please get a clarification of the circumstances surrounding User:Law being an apparent WP:SOCK of User:The undertow? What was undertow banned for (both accounts' talk page has been courtesy deleted, not a good thing for an active behavior case). Why need this be subject to a motion and why is the proposal not an indefinite ban? Establishing an admin account as a sockpuppet of a banned user is pernicious stuff, not an innocent violation. I'm concerned about the nexus between this and the apparent gamesmanship by Law that is the subject of Law's current Arbcom case. Keep in mind that most of the long-term disruptive editors on the Obama articles have turned out to be sockpuppets (I can provide diffs but the probation enforcement log for a start). There are likely more socks. Wikidemon (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have anymore socks and he's not a long-term disruptive editor on the Obama articles. You should retract that baseless claim. Lara 06:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what basis do you have for making those assertions and that odd demand? As an admin you should be more careful about lashing out against people asking questions. I make no claim above so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I am only commenting based on the information available and seeking information that is opaque to nonadmin editors. The comment about "more socks" refers to more socks on the Obama pages, not Undertow / Law (though on the face of it, once caught creating an admin sock, there would normally be no presumption of good faith here). If anyone would care to actually answer the question rather than attacking me for asking it, I would welcome the info. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Simmer down. I'll answer the question you asked of me if you point out where I attacked you. Lara 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just have answered his question from the start? And couldn't he have responded better to your remark anyway? Is there any chance of us having a conversation like grown-ups on this encyclopaedia? Just for once? --192.193.245.15 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They are. "Grown-ups" are generally more immature then kids.--Tznkai (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That was helpful how, fellow functionary? ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to head off a particular line of counterproductive conversation.--Tznkai (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I'd prefer not to be at the receiving end of that - some decorum might also keep us on track. There are facts visible only to Arbcom members and involved parties to The undertow's old case, regarding a newer Arbcom case to which I am a party, so my inquiry is entirely reasonable. Something does not add up and, indeed, there was and still is much to the story that is being withheld. From what I now gather from AN/I the Undertow received a lengthy block (apparently not a ban) from Arbcom last year and voluntarily gave up adminship over events occurring offwiki, via a case handled mostly on the Arbcom mailing list. The circumstances were considered personal and private. The Undertow created a block-evading sock account, Law, and subsequently promoted Law to adminship with the knowledge and support of a number of admins. The connection was just revealed to Arbcom by means unknown, resulting in Law's indefinite block, the current motion that that The undertow not do it again, and a now closed[1] community ban proposal at AN/I for The undertow. Meanwhile, the Obama articles have been subject to long-term, systematic socking, something Arbcom members may not be aware of because that specific issue has not come before Arbcom. It's only reasonable to inquire, and were one able to investigate, whether the new socking incident that touches the Obama articles (wheel warring in support of one party to an Obama-related dispute where the admin seems to have some familiarity with the editor he is unblocking, and himself turns out to be socking) is connected to older socking incidents that disrupted those articles. Looking at AN/I as it exists at the moment, Law engaged in other questionable actions as well - declaring flatly that he does not honor civility or NPA-related blocks. Risker was kind enough to explain at AN/I[2] that there does not seem to be a connection between that and the substance of the Obama arbitration. That's good enough for me for now, so I'll step aside and let others deal with this whole Law / The undertow mess. Just keep in mind that when you hide administrative process from nonadmin users you lose the trust and confidence that comes with transparency. Maybe that's inevitable given the needs for privacy, and to quell drama. But when we nonadmins see smoke pouring into a room we're in at the moment, it's only reasonable to ask what is burning back there. Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that, on the Internet, when there is smoke there is usually someone blowing smoke out of their ass. Most of the time an arbitrator (or the Committee) acts, people are likely to read layers of meaning where things are fairly straightforward (even if not always out in the open). Cigars usually are just cigars. — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. As it turns out there is far more to this than was visible at the surface. Looks like a systemic fail. But not Obama-related as such. Obama socks have not been straightforward either. Just not much of a nexus in this case, apparently. Wikidemon (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the reason User:The undertow is/was banned is a secret? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Found it here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"ID cabal" drama. --NE2 05:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"ID Cabal"? The link given above is for an earlier incident; here's the ArbCom announcement of his ban a month later. Woonpton (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Too lenient, too severe: Disclosure of alternate accounts

A mere admonishment of Jennavicia and GlassCobra all parties as a group would be too lenient. That would send the message do what you want and if you get caught you'll just get a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, de-adminship is effectively a permanent remedy. Could somebody please propose something in the middle, perhaps an X month de-adminship with automatic return of rights if there are no further problems mandatory reconfirmation RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I confess I don't understand your reasoning at all. We are talking about Law and The undertow, aren't we?

Assuming we are: The undertow was indef blocked; the same user created a second account, Law, while the block was in place, thus evading the block; as Law, the user succeeded in becoming an admin. So Law (the account) had no business existing, let alone becoming an admin.

Undertow was neither indeffed nor banned in point of fact.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He was banned for nine months, a ban that was enforced technically via a block. See this section of the banning policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"We hope he will read into this block, that we have not used the normal arbcom ban period of 12 months, nor banned him, and understand we mean it." . At the very least there is some definite confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that statement. Not clear what it means. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The meaning may not have been clear to anyone who had not read the extensive correspondence which passed between individual arbitrators and The undertow, which were discussed on the list at the time, but it would have been clear to The undertow what it meant. In this case the fact that there had been extensive offwiki communication at the time of the block led arbitrators to the certain expectation that The undertow would communicate privately with Arbcom if he felt that he ought to be able to resume editing before the nine months expired. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Which he did in September 2008 (right?) and there was general agreement to accept his request before being forgotten, and it ended up that he was completely ignored, no? Lara 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't understand "de-adminship is effectively a permanent remedy". AFAIK a de-sysopped admin can re-apply at RfA. If the you means the equivalent of "They never come back", I hope it would be difficult for a a de-sysopped admin to become an admin agani - the sysop would have been done because the person behaved ni a way that showed they could not be trusted. --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How many have bounced back from an ArbCom desysop? A mandatory reconfirmation RFA leaves the decision in the community's hands. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Jehochman) I never made any secret of the fact that I very much dislike temporary desysops, though any of my colleagues are free to propose one. But I think you underestimate the importance of an admonishment, it may be a "slap on the wrist" in the short term but when you look at how often the committee has cited such when deciding the severity of sanctions later, it's closer to a yellow card. — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If the users make clear they understand the problem, an admonishment is appropriate. Jennavecia made a non-apology apology, provided lots of rationalizations, and attacked the messenger (me). That's not an indication of somebody who's going to back off due to a warning. I think you should also clarify the position of Jayron32. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 being omitted was an oversight on my part, I've added them to the motions. — Coren ^(talk) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please be sure to treat the three as individuals. Each made their own statement, and each deserves to be judged individually. Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is now the case. Manning (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that desysopping is too harsh. In my view it is the minimum appropriate response. Promoting the candidacy of a friend by deceit shows utter contempt of the community and consensus. The Wikipedia model of decision making by consensus is flawed in various ways. Though what those ways are is rather contentious. But circumventing it by deception is a fundamental breach of trust, completely unacceptable in an administrator. People lacking critical information cannot reach an informed decision, the basis of consensus decision making. Thus, the deliberate suppression of relevant facts strikes at the heart of Wikipedia process. It is, presumptively, true that no direct harm came to the encyclopedia itself as a result of this deception, but by undermining the basis for community decisions the perpetrators have directly weakened the ability of the community to work together to build the encyclopedia. The community has real value, though it is not the end of the project in itself, and attacks against it should not be tolerated. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would find it disheartening should Arbcom act before the scope of the problem is known, deal only with two administrators who knowingly promoted an administrative sockpuppet when others are involved, restrict its attention to the single known case of administrative sockpuppetry when a people have said there are more, and by merely admonishing without affording the community any recourse, avoid dealing meaningfully with the reasonable belief many in the community have based on their own defiant statements that these administrators cannot be trusted to reliably adhere to policies and procedures in the future. Sysop tools are what the community entrusts with some editors so they can help the community maintain the encyclopedia. They are not anything that belongs to an admin, and revoking the tools is not a severe punishment. The focus should be on the community and its trust, and what best helps the community create the encyclopedia, not the entitlement admins may have to a privilege. Requiring admins who lose trust to confirm it through a new RfA is the very least that can reasonably be done. Some at Arbcom also seem to repeat accusations, without any evidence presented, that the strong negative reactions some in the community have to the sockpuppetry are products of vendettas or drama-mongering. Arbitrators should be weighing evidence, not advocating like that. Failing to take meaningful steps would tell me that Arbcom cannot as a group keep house. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to have a whole new page fill up with the same arguments? I think most who want to have made their opinion clear already, on one of the other forums lately dedicated to this topic. The mere fact that something is happening on this project page shouldn't turn this talk page into round three of statement-making. Nathan ^T 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We are commenting here on the new proposed motion. To the extent the policies at stake, facts of the case, and wider implications for Wikipedia come to bear on that, they're fair to discuss. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking generally, this is a case of first impression on an issue that has genuinely divided the community - while I have heard no one outright approving of what Glass Cobra et al. have done, more than a few have made noises of either understanding or acceptance. The committee is free to act, as they always have been, in assessing good judgment or lack thereof in admins. They are less free, in my opinion, in making a statement about the implicit values and ethics in Requests for Administration. Without commenting on the motion's conclusion itself, the frame seems appropriate. I think in general, admins should be held to increasing standards of good judgment across the board.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've split the motions in three to make sure that every one can be voted on separately; I've also copied votes over as appropriate, but may have erred in so doing. Don't hesitate to point it out if I did. — Coren ^(talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think GlassCobra's response was good, as pointed out. The nature of the responses should be noted for each editor as these may justify differing sanctions. See dave souza's comment on the requests page. Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Tznkai is pretty much on target here. I'll go a bit further: the 'community encouraged' bit is exactly the sort of moralizing that steps outside the Committee's remit and which becomes particularly ill-advised under the current circumstances: the Committee itself does not have a high ground; the concept of contributory negligence comes to mind. This episode probably could have been prevented if review requests didn't slip through the cracks for lengthy periods. More via private emails to the Committee than publicly, I've been sounding this note for nearly a year. Durova³²¹ 23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not moralizing, just encouragement. If we had such policies this might now have happened, or if it did, perhaps not to this degree. I'm sure you don't want us to write it ourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not buying into the concept of contributory negligence. If The undertow wanted to be unblocked, they knew how to get attention. In addition to emailing ArbCom, they could have emailed the clerks, emailed the unblock list, or possibly emailed a friendly editor to post a public request. If The undertow had emailed me, I'd have put them in touch with User:Sarah who does great work helping blocked users. At the moment several people are suffering for their bad decisions, but hopefully everyone will recover from their disappointments. The undertow's friends appear to be very disappointed, but they might have prevented some of this pain had they intervened when they discovered that there was sock puppetry going on. Enabling bad behavior is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I certainly agree that more steps could and should have been taken on the part of the petitioner and his supporters. That does not relieve the Committee of its implicit obligation to acknowledge and respond to requests in a timely manner. This instance was not an isolated problem in that regard. Durova³²¹ 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • You're right that the Committee could do better. I've experienced that sort of broken communications channel myself. More than once. Jehochman ^Talk 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tighten up the language

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

One of the primary sources of drama on this project has been vaguely worded statements from the Arbitration Committee. I'm highlighting this particular example above as it contains a number of vague points. (1) "userights" isn't a word; (2) even if it is "user rights," I imagine you're actually talking about user groups, as user rights are routinely added to the user and (all) groups (see Special:ListGroupRights), and no Committee finding can dictate MediaWiki development; (3) it would probably be helpful to clarify if this truly means any and all user groups (and if so, what the justification is); specifically autoreviewer and rollback have never been within the remit of the Arbitration Committee.

Other motions, esp. the de-sysop motions as noted by Thatcher on the project-space page, do not detail whether users are free to use RFA (and if so, at what point) or if appeal to the Committee is also an option.

Please tighten up the language; as I said, ambiguous or vague statements from the Arbitration Committee have traditionally caused a lot of issues in the past. And there's simply no reason for that to be the case. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The user rights currently include: bot, administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, steward, importer, transwiki importer, oversight, founder, account creator, IP block exempt, rollbacker, confirmed user, autoreviewer, edit filter manager. Are you sure that is what you (the committee) meant?--Tznkai (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Singling out Jayron32 is unacceptable

Not really too much more to say than that. Quite a few administrators knew about Law being the_undertow; singling out one out of many is blatant selective enforcement and should not be tolerated. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the line between Jennavecia Jayron32?--Tznkai (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Knowing is not the issue. The problem is knowing and then putting the sock up for adminship. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 put Law up for adminship? Lara did? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears Jayron32 actively supported the nomination on the RfA page knowing it was their banned/blocked friend's secret alternate account. That's a sin of commission, not a sin of omission. Agreed that we should not single one person out as a scapegoat. If quite a few administrators did that, quite a few administrators may have exercised poor judgment. The test is to read their specific comments at the Law RfA (and perhaps statements and actions elsewhere) to assess, in light of what they knew but did not reveal they knew, whether those statements were deliberately misleading. Also, palling around with an editor who they know to be sockpuppeting, though not as serious, also shows questionable judgment. If it were just one or two that's reasonably understandable - as others have said, not every admin is required in every instance to police every single thing they see. However, the fact that a lot of people knew and nobody did anything is a failure of those administrators as a group. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, GlassCobra did the nomination, and Jayron32 and Jennavecia are both being digned for supporting. Why is Jayron being singled out and not Jennavecia?--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Community trust

I said this my section on the main page, but concerned it's getting lost in the shuffle.

In an RFA (or in a FA process, for that matter) the authority assesses the community consensus, and simply implements it. In this case, the main concern is clearly the trust that the community has in these admins as a result of the situation.

How, then, can ArbCom making its own determination of the appropriate actions address the problem? I think ArbCom is off on the wrong track with the current set of motions. -Pete (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. Gauging the "trust of the community" is a difficult prospect for ArbCom at the far end of their competency but adjudicating if someone's judgment and behavior its outside of acceptable norms is exactly what they are around for.--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, what you say makes sense, but some of the votes of the ArbCom members don't look so good in light of your interpretation. They seem to be discussing whether mere admonishment is sufficient. In considering admonishment vs. de-sysopping, they are taking on a role that is inappropriate to a position (adminship) that is understood to serve at the pleasure/trust of the entire Wikipedia community. If they were to say something like "clearly there is a question of trust, revoking admin tools with recommendation that subjects stand for new RFA in x months," that might be appropriate. But if trust has been shaken, it's not ArbCom doesn't have the authority to say "but an admonishment is good enough to repair the trust." They can't speak to what is good enough to repair the trust, and attempting to do so will undercut their credibility. -Pete (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't the community trust issue implicit in the votes or motions I guess.--Tznkai (talk)

Unless explicitly stated, anyone desysopped by the arbitration committee is free to ask for the admin tools back, either from the committee after an appropriate period and suitable appeal, or through a request for adminship (either immediately, or later). Adminship is not a big deal, and both desysopping and resysopping should be more routine. The community trust point comes when someone returns to the community and asks for the tools back. If they have the trust of the community, or have worked to regain it, then they will get the tools back. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Something that would make all this work much better would be for the community to instruct bureaucrats that the criteria for passing RFA should be a bit lower for long-established users. The longer one hangs around, and the more one participates in contentious matters, as admins often volunteer to do, the harder it is to pass RFA. Administrators frequently comment that they feel they would not pass RFA if they had to go back. This can lead to a bunker mentality if one is accused of wrongdoing; any potential loss of sysop access is feared to be permanent rather than temporary. So people fight all the way to the end, and lobby friends to fight on their behalf. By making return easier, we make exiting easier, and thereby lower the drama levels. Jehochman ^Talk 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, there were significant problems with that very issue last year. There's no other way to express it other than by saying the Committee itself has taken inconsistent actions in that regard, and various well-meaning editors were very frustrated in their efforts to follow instructions (or the absence thereof). This issue went through at least three different requests for clarification regarding two different situations. Durova³²¹ 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pete,

• Actions subject to this request are bad. Admonishments prove that;
• I could have supported desysops but we have no precedent here;
• There's no community consensus per se here. There are allegations against the filer of the request for having covered an admin sockpuppetry himself;
• Your suggestions have been noted and introduced implicitly through motions 5.1 and 6;
• There are probably users who would not object to ArbCom writing policy but at the absence of a mandate ArbCom just can not.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What happens if the_undertow is banned?

Hi, I'm not usually much for posting in these pages, but I'm trying to understand some of the reasoning here. I see that there are some motions to ban or block (or whatever, I've never been terribly entertained by the use of the difference between those as a shibboleth to judge who can wikilawyer the best) the_undertow for 3 months or 6 months. My question is: How does that help the project? I understand that you don't want to encourage banned users to simply create a new account and start over, but I also see signs that, as a community, we try to recognize that the important thing is whether people are willing to contribute positive and constructively to the encyclopedia. That's the underlying sentiment in a bunch of BIG BOLD WORDS that people use to quote policy, like AGF and such. If the_undertow seeks to appeal such a ban, and promises that he'll contribute positively, would he be unblocked? What would be the argument against removing such a ban? That he had previously evaded a ban?

I guess my question really is, especially for the arbitrators, (though I'm sure there are plenty of other people who will be more than willing to give their opinion here as is the custom,) this: When this is all done, will this have helped the encyclopedia? I ask not to dissuade from or encourage any particular course of action, but in search of an understanding of underlying motivations.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I want to know too, especially considering the discussions that took place the day before this broke, the ones that led to the original motion that said he could continue to edit as the_undertow. It has already been revealed that his September 2008 appeal was looking as though it was going to be approved. Yet he never received a response. He created Law that same month and proved that the nine month ban was excessive and unnecessary. ArbCom dropped the ball and now they want to hand out a punitive ban. And don't call it a block, nor the original nine month ban. Just because it wasn't a year-long doesn't mean it wasn't a ban. If it were a block, he wouldn't have had to appeal to the committee. If this motion were for a block, any admin could undo it. It's a ban. Lara 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32: Clarification of my comments

This exchange: [3] where I stated that the_undertow would have my support if he re-applied for adminship has been cited in the motion page. To clarify my remark; I had assumed at the time that given that the block had expired on the_undertow account, that the Law account would be abandoned. I did not realize that the person running these accounts would be maintaining the sock account instead of his original account. I made comments before Law was ever nominated, and my intent was to indicate that I would support adminship reinstatement for the_undertow account. It was not my intent to suggest that the Law account should have been nominated for adminship. Of course, this may be moot since I did end up voting support for that account anyways, but it was done in good faith under the belief that the person running that account would make a good administrator. I just wanted to clarify that I did not suggest or intend to suggest that the Law account would be nominated for adminship, only that I felt that the person in question was, and would again be, a good administrator. I am not stating this to avoid any consequences that may be coming my way, and I accept the full weight of the Committee's decision, whatever that may be. However, I did feel it appropriate to at least explain what those comments were intended to say, since it appears they may have been misinterpreted on the motion page. As an aside, I use the phrase "the person running these accounts" in respect to WP:OUTING. I know his name, and I consider him a personal friend, but to avoid using his personal name, I had to use this rather unfortunately cumbersome identifier. --Jayron32 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you got sent away for breaking the law... Good to see you are now out of jail. You were certainly missed! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

zomg its teh undertoes. Law shall be restored now, eh? GlassCobra 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Law - the RFA page drafted on March 29 and accepted on April 2 by Law

Did you know... that this is getting out of hand. But srsly, Law has been a net positive to the project, and I think we can only benefit from having another set of hands here as an admin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your explanation sounds very convincing.--Caspian blue 03:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I knew he was Law the whole time. I have admitted to that already, that is old news. My clarification was only to state that, when I made the comment that I would support a re-application for adminship for the undertow, it was made at the time under the belief that the Law account would be abandoned. As I stated, I have not denied my knowledge of the matter, nor am I attempting to ammeliorate any consequences coming my way. However, it has been implied on the motion page that when I stated that I would support the_undertow for adminship, it somehow made me culpable in GlassCobra's nomination of Law for adminship. That was not the case. At the time I made the statement that I would support the_undertow for adminship, it meant exactly that. Of course, in the end I did support Law anyways, so it is all rather moot, but I thought that the committee should know my intention on that one statement, since it had come up and appeared to have been misinterpreted. --Jayron32 03:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why arbitrators differentiate GlassCobra from you and the other for blaming the deceptive RFA. I'm very disappointed at you, Jayron32. Your reply to Jehochman is just appalling.[4] You basically said that "gaming the system" for obtaining the admin bits is allowed and justified.--Caspian blue 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your feelings are yours, and I am not here to deny them to you. I understand and accept your disappointment. You have every right to be disappointed. You should be appalled. This is a giant mess, and for my part in it, there is really nothing I can say that will undo my past actions. I will abide and stand by any decision that arbcom has on this, and I fully accept your admonishment, Caspian Blue. You are justified in feeling the way that you do. --Jayron32 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been helped out several times by you from block-evading sockpuppeters' persistent harassment, so my shock is because your high standard on morality and your perception on sock policy could be simply blind for your friend.--Caspian blue 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion at your talk page. --Jayron32 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm done talking about your statement.--Caspian blue 03:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Frog in boiling water

Given evidence of corrupt administrators arranging undeserved privileges for their friend, all you can do is issue warnings? Several editors told me I underestimated the amount of corruption at Wikipedia, that this kind of stuff is tolerated as business as usual. I guess so. Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is accurate. As I've said a couple of times, I can't sanction someone without a precedent unless it is a very serious violation. It is still a serious violation for me but it is not something clear to many people in the community. I am also bound by the "don't write policy mr arbitrator". What I am doing is to guide the community to fix that hole in the policy because the actions in question are bad.

Bear in mind that if any sanction called for would also apply to you if found guilty after verifying the FT2 allegations "Observation out of disgust by uninvolved FT2". Would it be fair to treat the same thing differently? I really haven't seen you providing a serious answer to FT2's statement. So, instead of sanctioning a dozen of people I prefer fixing holes. And, no I am not condoning any bad actions and I am sure that any new occurrence by anyone would result in a natural desysop because at that time we'll be having a basis and precedent for it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the evidence FT2 posted about you? I don't understand where you get off trying to take any moral high ground here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the moral high ground is that I don't promote admin socks, and I don't make excuses for people who do. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? What's this about: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CygnetSaIad? Please, Jehochman, stop digging a deeper hole for yourself. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently User:Alison invited that page to be deleted to protect the user's privacy, so I did. Other than that, I don't even remember the matter. I have run lots of checkusers and don't remember them all. Are you suggesting something? If so, spell it out. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom, if you would like to promote integrity why don't you ask these folks to submit for reconfirmation RfAs after the ruckus dies down? That's been proposed several times, but we've heard nothing back from you except dead air. If you think that's a bad idea, you could explain why rather than just ignoring all of us who keep making the request. If these admins were still trustworthy, they would pass, right? Why do you feel the need to protect them from community judgment? Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Jennavecia, GlassCobra, Jayron32: I'd really like to let people off the hook. Everybody makes mistakes, and making a mistake in a misguided attempt to help your friend isn't the worst thing you could do. The problem I have is that I had to go through a lot of [irrelevant criticism] to get this case looked at, and there are a lot of editors who feel outraged at the corruption that you seem not to have recognized. Some of the people who've been rude to me include Tznkai, MZMcBride, Jennavecia, and FT2. That sort of hardens my position. If you had just come out and said, yeah we got carried away and screwed up, what were we thinking, we won't do it again, I wouldn't have even filed the request for arbitration. Now that we're here, and people are still digging in, refusing to accept full responsibility, and either throwing [irrelevant criticism] at me or watching their friends throw [it], that doesn't make me feel like dropping the matter. If you happen to get off with mere warnings, do you think you're going to be well respected in the community, or do you think a substantial number of people are going to distrust you? Is that the future you want for yourselves at Wikipedia? If you want to come clean, really come clean, go do a reconfirmation RFA. I'll respect you more and so will everybody else, no matter what the result. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, what you say makes sense but it should be applied consistently. Sending everyone to reconfirm their RfA is not a bad idea at all; the problem is that how many people would we send? Also, would you accept reconfirming your RfA in the light of FT2 allegations? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if there is actual evidence that the community has lost faith in an administrator, send send them for a reconfirmation RFA. This should not be something that happens every day, or else it will encourage gaming and disruption. FT2's allegations are inscrutable. You should not send administrators back to RFA just because one editor trumps up bogus accusations based on assumptions of bad faith. I don't even understand what wrongdoing he has accused me of. He seems to have a theory that I helped cover up Geogre == Utgard Loki. I did not know that at all until it was publicly revealed by ArbCom. There has to be a threshhold of credibility and evidence before you order a reconfirmation RFA. As Coren puts it, these three were right on the border of being desysopped, and he even supported desysop, as did FloNight. When it's that close a judgment call, why not let the community decide? Jehochman ^Talk 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Below you say that people have to set some standards and come to an agreement and here you are asking ArbCom to desysop. ArbCom is stating that the actions in question are bad and rejects the notion of friendship. I personally say that I can't desysop without a precedent. You are asking ArbCom something that you can do while still not giving it a mandate to create policy. Don't ask me to sanction without precedents. Give me explicit policy to act upon or give me a mandate. So of course I've been asking you to decide. Does this makes some sense? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you deny the allegations FT2 made against you? Lara 04:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see my talk page history. There were also other discussions on his talk page and KillerChihuahua's. Jehochman ^Talk 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall being rude to you Jehochman, although I will admit to arguing you have (along with other admins) shown poor judgment in the Law/The undertow et al. dispute. While not as sexy as the supposed subversion of democracy, I think the the conduct I pointed out was every bit as questionable, especially the meanspirited comments and looks like grave dancing (to be clear, I am not talking about Jehochman here). I however said my piece and even though my particular complaints on substandard admin behavior was not discussed or brought up in motion, I have not gotten worked up about it. If however, we are going to demand that heads roll and rally to the banner of purging the admin corps of questionable candidates, let the start with all of us who participated in this dispute.--Tznkai (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You shut down an ANI discussion where I raised my concerns. It's rude to dismiss a fellow administrator when they raise a concern. There's no need for a purge, but we have to set some standards and come to an agreement. If the people I'm concerned about would focus on repairing problems instead of attacking me, that would really help. Jehochman ^Talk 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

E/c - I reworded what I said after Jehochman made this reply.--Tznkai (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to dance. I'd hurt myself. Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My point in general, is that if anyone is going to demand that ArbCom act more decisively than they are against any one party, they should remember there is a lot of recent and topical admin misbehavior to go around, and I'm not talking about the lot of us yapping at eachother.--Tznkai (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So we come back to the start of this thread. We have a high hill to climb to improve standards of administrator behavior. Things must be worse in general than I perceived them to be. Okay, so the point I am getting is that this incident here is medium average, and that we shouldn't throw the book at these admins because others have (and continue to do) substantially worse. The goal now is to strengthen policy and process. Very well. It looks like we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Efforts to encourage reform of the block and ban review system for editors wanting to contribute in good faith. It's easy and often unilateral to take away privileges, so there's no excuse for making it so difficult to have them restored. It's outrageous that editors trying to take the high rode and who are willing to be open about their histories are being pushed into a difficult choices with crappy options that make pacts of secrecy the most logical choice. That the Arbs are complicit in creating this environment where telling the truth and trying to come clean is a treated as a high crime is particularly unfortunate. They've compounded this stupidity by encouraging disruptive witch hunts and enranged mobs holding pitchforks and torches with shrill and deranged calls for blood and heads to roll. Many of the pack leaders are those looking to settle old scores, which is especially sordid. Some day (hopefully sooner rather than later) we will establish a more enlightened and civil approach that treats those who have made mistakes with dignity and respect and gives them reasonable opportunities to return openly and to contribute constructively in the best interests of our project (you know, the one that involves working up an encyclopedia?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  The UnderLaw was open about his history at the Law RfA? I missed that, and so did everyone else. He cheated, gamed the system, skipped the step of developing as an editor, and seems intent on his course. You posted soon after my statement, so I expect you saw it. I've developed as an editor. I came in the front door. Several times in the last few weeks I've been told 'well said' and I was pleased to see my statement mentioned by an arb in the vote on the motions. So, there are ways of returning openly with dignity and respect. This, however, was not an example of that. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, but he was open about it in his repeated e-mails requesting Arb assistance. And he was open about it with numerous admins and editors. If the standard expected is perfection and people aren't allowed to make mistakes then it's no wonder we have so many problems. What worked for you may not work for everyone else. We need sensible reforms not televangelists. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  That's not openness and it sure didn't work well for him and others. If 'televangelists' was a reference to me, well, you don't seem to know me ;) nb: you may have missed my follow-up^diff to an earlier comment of yours. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  An interesting sermon, but not very scientific. If Law wasn't here to edit construcively how do you explain his edit history and successful RfA? I stand by my previous response: "So we make it tough on known accounts to come back to editing after agreeing to mentoring and reform. But if they come back surreptitiously, avoid disrupting (at least enough not to get caught) they have our blessing? Surreal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)" Am I healed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  So per your use of 'sermon' I'm the televangelist? And 'scientific' has nothing to do with any of this. I've not much looked at his edit history. See Vassyana's comment:

  Gaining the tools deceptively cements this for me. With all due respect to those insisting that he passed RfA on good contributions, I instead see him passing RfA with a paint-by-numbers approach to building an account for an easy RfA pass. Those characteristics were pointed out by some editors during the RfA and it's something we've known for some time that people do to collect the flags and/or push sock accounts through.^diff

  re your 'previous response' — bunk; it's a false conclusion. Not having been caught is not receipt of blessing, it's just successful evasion. *That's* what can't be tolerated and can't be given blessing. By coming back as a sock, he showed disdain and judging by his statement, he's made little progress. Your lucky they're not talking of restoring your month-long block he lifted. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

*watches the flies circle around a bit of a dent in the lawn.* I suspect a horse was once here? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"The community is encouraged to develop guidelines to avoid any misconception of impartiality."

Would said guidelines apply to Jimbo? (I know the answer, but one can hope for change...) --NE2 05:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you know the answer then it would be great to share it with us. After all, this is a collaborative project and sharing information is good. Ironically, we are dealing with a case of a cover-up. So please be open ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I only ask because I'm Jimbo's sock, and if anyone blocks me for it heads will roll. --NE2 07:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Option in between warning and desysop: ask the community at RFA

The severe telling off option (ie, a slap on wrist, carry on as you were) seems to be getting support as some arbs feel desysop for a long term abuse the communities trust and disregard of arbcom sanctions doesn't warrant and actual action. So here is a halfway-house proposal, which I feel would gain support for Lara and GC: Start a new RfA to asses whether the community still has faith in these admins continuing in their role. This opens it up to the community, who are best placed to decide where their trust lies. They can remain admins unless they fail the RfA. They can present arguments and refer to their record, and answer questions about their behaviour. As doing nothing is a failure (the "admonishment"), while you have desysoped people for much less than this you seem unable to commit in this case as you're not sure the community has lost faith. The best way to find out would be to ask the community, and we already have a procedure for this. Ask the community in the usual way, at RFA Verbal chat 12:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So, force the users to undergo RFA? Who closes it? An Arb, or a Bureaucrat? What is the threshold for "failure" of a RecFA of this nature?

Isn't a desysop with the option to seek RFA immediately essentially the same without forcing the RFA upon the user? –xeno^talk 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)