Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Checkuser practice regarding the association of IP addresses to accounts

Original announcement

It would seem to me that the IP address of a user would qualify as personally identifiable information (privacy policy: "contributor's IP address, and [...] other personal information"), and should only be released under the circumstances underlined here by the privacy policy. It is therefore perhaps incorrect to state that the "practice of declining to publicly link such activities to an account is merely a tradition" (emphasis added). Under some circumstances it is acceptable to link a user account to an IP (e.g. if it's necessary as part of an SPI), however, there are plenty of other cases where doing so would be a violation of privacy, not just a breach of tradition. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"… declining to publicly link such activities to an account is merely a tradition, …" (emphasis mine) – such activities refers to the sentences before, which qualifies them as certain disruptive behaviors that are considered valid reasons per privacy policy.
The tradition is that CUs generally try to avoid linking IPs with named accounts publicly and explicitly even if the privacy policy would allow to do so, and instead often handle them through quiet blocks (by themselves or by proxy). Amalthea 14:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur with your second paragraph, and I am confident that the checkusers on the English wikipedia, yourself included, are highly professional and very aware of privacy (I was somewhat aware of the circumstances of the report that this notice pertains to, and I personally did not see cause for concern). As for your first point, rereading the notice it is clearer that each sentence leads on to the next, and that it only suggests that CU discretion may be exerted within the bounds of the privacy policy; must have been half asleep when I first read it. Apologies for the hassle, kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Surely CUs (if they don't already) should consider what information can be gained by looking up an IP. For example, if you CU'd me, you'd see I edit from an 86... IP. A knowledgable person can tell from the first two digits who my ISP is and in which country I reside, but that's the extent of useful information you'll find from WHOIS etc, so I'd have no issues (on privacy grounds) with my IP being public knowledge, but if somebody edits from work or an educational institution, revealing their IP could very easily reveal where they work or are educated, which is a little more personal than knowing that my ISP is BT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  You are correct; I've seen many instances of CUs taking into account how much information can be determined by revealing the IP, and this being part of their decision making process. Several times the CU has issued a trout slap by telling the offender (either publicly or privately) what sort of information the CU could reveal: an unveiled threat that should the disruption continue, the CU wont be so circumspect next time as policy doesn't constrain them. At least then they have been forewarned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat odd that we have now been told by the Audit Subcommittee that we are allowed to reveal IPs (where allowed by the privacy policy, of course), but we were previously told by the Audit Subcommittee that we should avoid even revealing a person's ISP (which is by definition less personally identifying than their IP). So which is it? Are we to ignore the previous directive? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Deskana, didn't recognise your new signature since it's just a bunch of boxes on my computer. The point that is being made here is that disruptive editors cannot log out to hide behind the privacy policy in order to perpetrate their disruption; there is a specific exclusion in the policy that states that information can be released to protect projects. This does not mean that the IP address(es) of every disruptive user will be confirmed; in almost all cases, CheckUsers will have no reason to directly link the IP with the user, or the user's action will make it obvious that the two are connected. Risker (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling closed

Original announcement

As the administrator submitting the request for arbitration, and as one who has spent countless hours helping with arbitration enforcement, I am very disappointed with the decision. The bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that the Committee is simply not interested in having its decisions enforced effectively, and is not interested in administrators doing their job, that is, preventing the disruption of a collegial and civil editing environment in particularly designated sensitive topic areas.

Even though the decision tells us that AE actions may not be unilaterally overturned, its practical effect is the opposite. That's because if admin A were now to decide on a whim to undo admin B's AE action (because A is certain that their judgment is obviously better than B's), B will not do anything about this, if they have any sense at all. Because doing so, if this case is any indication, will mean that B will have to waste two months of their time to pursue a full arbitration case (which few people have the stomach for in any case), and that after two month of stress, nothing of any consequence happens thanks to A's facile apology at the very outset of the case, while all of B's own minor mistakes are leisurely scrutinized for two months. And then, of course, C comes along and undoes another AE action of B, who then has the option to do nothing or to start the two months cycle all over again.

A clearly communicated rule that is not enforced is not taken seriously, and neither are the people who make the rule. The decision purports to recognize that "the Arbitration Committee appreciates the work performed by [AE] administrators, without whom long-term remedies imposed in our decisions would be meaningless", but does not acknowledge that this (non-)decision has made these decisions substantially more meaningless. Without support from the Committee, administrators cannot give meaning to these decisions. And by support I do not mean blind support of admin actions – these can be just as mistaken as anyone else's, which is why there is an appeals process – but the clear and predictable enforcement of an orderly procedural framework, without which no useful work at all can be done in an atmosphere characterized by, to quote the decision, "bitter long-term editing disputes and involving intractable and strongly opinionated editors". By not enforcing their own procedural rules, the Committee sends the message that they do not value or intend to support the volunteer work done by AE administrators on their behalf. Consequently, as I have already said during the case, I conclude that AE work under this Committee is a waste of time, and will no longer process AE requests. I may still use discretionary sanctions as a matter of convenience to deal with disruption I happen to come across, mainly because they allow for solutions other than blocks, but I am no longer under any illusions as to their authority.

Even apart from the outcome, the case was not handled competently. Most of the Committee's activity, such as it was, was devoted to drafting elaborate rules for AE, which may even be useful, but would have been more easily developed as codified procedure outside the context of a case. It would have been much better if the Committee had rapidly resolved this incident by motion, desysopping or in some other way substantially sanctioning the administrator who had held their current rules in open contempt, and then they could have worked on new rules at their leisure. The period of two months from the request for arbitration to the final decision, in a case whose facts consisted of a mere handful of edits, adds to my general impression of a body dominated by sloth, factionalism, or both. Three "active" arbitrators – Cool Hand Luke, Elen of the Roads and Iridescent – even took the liberty to simply ignore the case, even though they were otherwise active on Wikipedia. The fact that Ludwigs2 is now both "cautioned" and "reminded" (both of which remedies are of course equally pointless) makes the remedies appear even more random and meaningless. Additionally, because the scope of the case was never made clear, the participants in the underlying pseudoscience-related feuds happily junked up the case pages with what must be megabytes of irrelevant petty insults aimed at one another, without little if any intervention from clerks or arbitrators. The Committee therefore kindly provided a forum for just the kind of disruption that the decision I attempted to enforce was intended to prevent.

I deeply regret that the many individually competent people on the Committee have, in this instance, not met by far the expectations I (and probably others) had in them as a body.  Sandstein  22:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you disagree so strongly with the Committee's decision in this matter, but you can have the consolation that your input throughout the case was carefully considered. What happened here was that you imposed an arbitration-enforcement sanction, and it was reversed by another administrator based on comments by several editors who disagreed with your sanction, coupled with the other admin's own view of the situation. This, as we have reaffirmed, was not a sufficient basis for overturning an AE sanction, which we have emphasized requires a consensus of uninvolved administrators, not a few passing comments on a noticeboard. But I thought, and my colleagues agreed, that we had sufficiently emphasized the point that AE sanctions may not be overturned unilaterally by obtaining an assurance that the administrator in question would not repeat his action (which he has not), by admonishing him, and by reaffirming the principle.

I understand your belief that only a desysopping would have been a sufficient response, but I don't agree with you that the way we have responded devalues the work of administrators on AE, nor that it will encourage a raft of unilateral overturnings (it's been several weeks since it became pretty clear that this case would end without a desysopping, and I don't see that our forebearance has had any negative effects at all). In that context, I thought that desysopping Dreadstar for a single, now acknowledged mistake would have been an overreaction that would have deprived the project of a competent, active administrator while yielding only a symbolic benefit that very few editors, other than yourself, seem to have believed was necessary.

With regard to the scope of the case, it sometimes is quite difficult to determine precisely what the scope of a decision will be until the evidence is finished. You are probably right, however, that we could have done a better job of defining the parameters of what subjects were likely to be considered, at some stage of the proceedings.

I do agree that the case took longer than it should have to be resolved. We are making concerted efforts to move cases more quickly. One issue here was that the decision was literally written "by committee," with several different arbitrators contributing portions. I think recent experiences are leading me to the conclusion that a single strong lead drafter is needed for efficiency's sake in most cases, although of course that does not mean that any other arbitrator is not also free to add additional proposals.

Thanks for your candid input and for your past participation in AE. As discussed on another page recently, your plan to take a break from this area may be for the best at this point, and I look forward to seeing your work on other areas of the project. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Newyorkbrad, for your explanation, which I understand, even though I do not agree with it. Although I proposed a desyop, which I think would have been appropriate, I did also say that some other sort of tangible sanction, such as a restriction on unblocks, would equally have sufficed to send the message that the Committee takes AE seriously. But this message was not sent. Consequently, the bottom line for administrators working in AE is, your actions can now without consequence be undone on a whim and with no communication, and if you do not like this, you can spend a ridiculous two months litigating an arbitration case to arrive at the very same non-result. This is what every admin in AE now needs to be ready to repeat if they take any AE action. I'm not ready to waste another two months on this, so I'm leaving this area of admin activity. Good luck dealing with these people yourself.  Sandstein  05:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Cool Hand Luke and Elen of the Roads, but I explicitly didn't take part in this case. I was inactive at the time the case opened so didn't post a formal recusal at the time, but explained the decision to the other Arbs; I felt that I'd had enough acrimonious discussions with various parties in the case, that I could reasonably be considered non-neutral by an impartial observer. – iridescent 01:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, looking at the workshop and proposed decision pages, it appears Cool Hand Luke was active for the case. It seems a party who was knocked off his pedestal is unhappy so he has started to make unjustified accusations about the people who dared to advise him to take a walk. (For example, shortly after writing the essay above, Sandstein proceeded to file a frivolous AE request against an editor who presented evidence against him during the case). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, don't you cover ArbCom issues for the Signpost? If so, shouldn't you try to maintain some publicly reserved distance from giving opinions about cases? Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is Decadent and Depraved? Archaeo (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If only... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone (or most everyone) appreciates the Committee's clarification of best enforcement practices. Brad, I've noticed in several instances that you refer to Dreadstar's unblock as an isolated incident. Could you explain why the evidence I presented about Dreadstar's involvement in fringe topics and his prior misuse of tools in this area was apparently overlooked? In particular, I believed that Dreadstar's creation of this article and his later use of delete and revdel on said article represented, at a minimum, poor administrative judgement and a clear statement of opinion in the area of fringe topics. Skinwalker (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

With apologies for answering a question I was not asked, it seems reasonable to AGF here. One assumes that the evidence was not overlooked, but that ArbCom didn't agree with it, or didn't think it justified further sanctions. I notice that Dreadstar is on the list of admins open to recall if you feel that strongly about it. But it might be perceived as unseemly, if not completely out-of-process and pointy, to start that process so soon after this case closed.

I don't have any relevant comments about Sandstein's essay, but for what little it's worth, I think the committee made the right choice to show a bit of leniency to all those involved. Archaeo (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Skinwalker's evidence was archaic and unconvincing in context. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's let this go, shall we? NW (Talk) 07:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for a recall here. Archaeo (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(responding to Skinwalker) To be clear, I wasn't saying that the incident that led to this case was isolated in the sense of being the only questionable administrator action that Dreadstar ever took; I meant simply that it was the only instance in which he had improperly reversed an AE sanction, and I don't think anyone has disputed that. With regard to your broader evidence, I didn't think we needed to get into it to resolve this case, in part because (as noted above) many of the incidents you refer to occurred some time ago. I do hope, and expect, that Dreadstar has considered all the points you made and will bear them in mind going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Brad. I will drop the matter for now, but I may bring it up in the future if Dreadstar uses administrative privileges in a fringe dispute. To others, I don't think recall is a good idea at this point for a number of reasons. If you actually read my statements in the case, I never asked for or advocated a specific sanction for Dreadstar. Skinwalker (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was I think the first Arb to support taking the case, and fully intended to take part. However an accident in the family required pretty much my full attention from 9-18 April (and was moved to inactive or should have been), and I was only at home 4 days out of seven for the following weeks. I knew I couldn't devote the time necessary to fully evaluate all the discussion, so remained inactive.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• What a total fucking joke. Did ArbCom actually listen to a single word that wasposted in the evidence or the workshop? Because it looks to me like you couldn't be arsed to come up with proper dispute resolution and so thought you'd go for a five-minute hatchet job. Two months to change nothing? No mention of reducing discretionary sanctions, only a passing mention of the burden they place on admins and token support for the small group of admins who voluntarily devote hours of their time to cleaning up your mess? You should all be collectively ashamed of yourselves. Although my presence there will not be missed nearly as much as Sandstein's (whose loss is something AE will very quickly come to lament), I will also be parting company with arbitration enforcement and I would urge other over-worked admins to let ArbCom clean up the mess their pontificating creates. I have the utmost respect for the dozen individuals who heard this case, but they have collectively dropped the ball and I have no confidence in the ability of the current ArbCom to do what it was elected for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, HJ, did you expect something else? The principles seem pretty clear on the best practices in this area, the committee promised to be clearer, etc. Anything else would've required a bit more agreement within the committee that wasn't there. Archaeo (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What principles are pretty clear? Is there any statement about what would happen if another Dreadstar situation arose (first admin makes what they claim is an AE block, and second admin unblocks and declines to reblock even after the meaning and implications of an AE block are explained, and with no clear consensus for an unblock in a central discussion)? My reading of the decision is that people should try harder to be nice to everyone, however we need ArbCom to stop community bickering, not to tell us the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If they are stating the obvious, the fact that this series of missteps occurred anyway is a reflection that it is not obvious enough. All admins have therefore been put on notice; this case gives the warning/incentive to stop letting this sort of situation arise, and it also provides guidance on how to stop letting it arise (which I presume you term as 'the obvious'). That is, if it does arise, it reflects poorly on ALL involved; not just a single party. (1) When asking the Community for assistance on a given issue at a noticeboard, avoid inappropriate remarks. In the event this was not avoided sufficiently for whatever reason, then use clear communication and have the comments redacted, (which was incidentally, the step Dreadstar took immediately after the unblock - unfortunately, that happened too late in the piece, because discretionary sanctions were invoked). To avoid invoking discretionary sanctions unnecessarily, admins need to remember: (2) Discretionary sanctions must be used with caution where the Community is already dealing with the specific issue; seek input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether there is no pressing need for a given sanction. (3) Warnings and notices must be clearly communicated. (4) When actions are overturned, don't take it as a personal rebuke; learn from experience and feedback, and try to appreciate why someone felt it was necessary. When an admin is finding ways to unnecessarily escalate issues as much as possible, it is not helpful to either the Community, AC, or the project. Supposing an admin did not heed these principles and applied AE sanctions anyway, then (5) Remember that longstanding principle on reversing sanctions still applies. Supposing an admin overturned something without the requisite permission or consensus, then whatever action taken is unlikely to excuse the out of process action. Reblocking and/or desysopping would not stop bickering in this case because punitive measures are not endorsed by the Community (Newyorkbrad has also explained why desysop was not taken). At the end of the day, AE sanctions (as intended by the Committee rather than as intended by any single admin) are to supplement the Community's processes and DR; they are not to be used just because your actions are unlikely to be reversed when taken under that scheme. All of that is clear from the principles, Fofs and remedies; that's not the problem.

It is my understanding that HJM's frustration is with a situation where no formal indication has been given by ArbCom to reduce the reliance on discretionary sanctions and to come up with a more effective appeal process (particularly for short blocks). I don't think it was possible for this case to come up with such a process on the spot; that would require work outside of the case. However, only arbitrators can respond to the anticipated questions which lead on from that: Are AC going to reduce reliance on DS, and if they are, why was no formal indication given in the case? If they aren't, why not? Does AC plan on doing work on an appeals process for DS (particularly short blocks like those found in this case, and shorter ones than that), if they are, why was no formal indication given in the case (or if they are, is such a process actually going to be worked on)? If they aren't, why not? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If an admin makes a good faith judgment that an AE block is needed, the community or ArbCom can deal with it. Except for obvious stuff like a possibly compromised admin account issuing an AE block to Jimbo, endorsing a decision to reverse an AE block is a one-way street to bedlam. The decision appears to say that a second admin can overrule an AE block providing they issue an apology when it's all over. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If they could deal with it, we would neither have an unblock, a case, or a need to comment here. I think the decision says it was the totality of the circumstances which prompted this ruling; the apology was merely one of those circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the things that gets me, the assumption that Dreadstar "got away" with his unblock only because he apologized. The decision is awfully clear: undoing an AE block is a Bad Idea. It continues to be a Bad Idea despite the fact that no one lost their bit over it this time around. I fail to see how ArbCom is "endorsing a decision to reverse an AE block," but perhaps I'm missing something. Archaeo (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

AE blocks are infrequent, and reversals of them are rare so we may never clearly see a connection between this decision and future events. Nevertheless, the precedent is now set that a second admin can decide on the weakest of grounds (a preliminary community discussion with some disquiet but no consensus to unblock) that they can overrule an AE block. A third admin reversing the unblock is almost assured of a desysop for wheel warring, but the second admin merely has to offer an apology when it's all over. People seem to be factoring in a belief that Sandstein's warning, or block, or claim of an AE block, were faulty. However, there was no emergency, and if Sandstein was in error, a consensus would have arisen to unblock, and the precedent is now established that an AE block is no different from any other (except that reversing an AE block might lead to a reminder). Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sandstein should change the following sentence in his case request statement from "I therefore respectfully ask the Committee to take the steps it considers appropriate"

to "steps I consider appropriate" 31.166.57.231 (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• (responding to various comments above) I expected that ArbCom might show some indication that they listened to ahything that has been said in the last two months. It took me three hours to write up my comments on the evidence page and another two or three to come up with my proposed decisions in the workshop. I'm not naive enough to believe that ArbCom were going to be hanging on my every word begging to impliment my proposals, but I expected they might at least take them into consideration. If the result was going to be a bit of a bollocking for the two admins involved and no change to anything, then they should have done that two months ago.

  Allowing the names of two excellent admins to be dragged through the mud for two months while they watch from upon high is not an acceptable way to handle things. Nor is a complete failure to give more than token recognition to the admins who spend many hours of their time cleaning up ArbCom's mess and nor is allowing an admin who so clearly violated their own precious ruling to get off scot free (I'm not advocating a desysop, but something more than "oh, that wasn't great, don't do it again because if you do we'll be cross"). ArbCom have failed to take action against someone who vioalted their own ruling, they have failed miserably at resolving the dispute and they have wasted many hours of the valuable time of dozens of editors. So, given that, how can any AE admin expect their block to stand up now and how can editors have any confidence in the current ArbCom? Can I make a motion of no confidence in ArbCom? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The following response is specifically limited to the part of your comment which starts from "nor is allowing an admin....". I think that by pushing a view that an admin got off scot free, you are giving a very different reason for many admins to continue staying away from AE (and it has nothing to do with whether rulings are being "violated", but everything to do with the unfortunate attitude and values that some admins who work in that area appear to have developed). ArbCom are given the same message from the Community that you as admins are given: do not impose punitive measures and do not do so to make a point. You are here to help the Community and the project in achieving its ultimate purpose; not to focus on your own purposes or priorities which can conflict with the ultimate purpose. Your work is meant to supplement, not unnecessarily disrupt, tarnish or choke. ArbCom is expected to treat each user on the basis of the evidence and the circumstances; users are not mere symbolic pawn pieces to be played or gambled or to be used to make points. Most cases, like this one, are distinct. It is only after informal and other attempts are not working that formal and increasingly blunt measures are required. Here it worked fine, because based on the evidence, circumstances and communications which were submitted, including those generally between Dreadstar and ArbCom, a reminder was the only formal thing left to do for this user. Of course, you may have some other evidence about this particular individual, or you may have decided to make an unpleasant assumption about him; that's in your court. But I don't think one is justified in saying that a dispute is resolved only after the most harshest warning to the individual is used. If you genuinely believe that you are only going to be reminded if you do something like what he did (or what 2 other admins thought was OK to ignore in the past), you have the ability to test that theory by gambling with your reconfirmation (though I would specifically not encourage it, least of all, after people have suggested it was a waste of time in your case, and generally, I have a lot of respect for what you say/do so I don't want to see you go down the wrong route). Again, making no comment on the questions about reliance on DS or appeals, which is probably the more important point which got lost in the noise again; responses to those questions might be able to sort some of this out (well, hopefully anyway). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I hope no one minds me commenting here. HJ, one thing that I think is getting overlooked here, is that a significant part of the Committee disagrees with a fundamental part of your comment, that Sandstein's actions was a valid Arbitration Enforcement action. Coming from that direction, it follows to those people that Dreadstar's unblock was just a normal administrative action (albeit still with some controversy). I can tell you that I personally tried to read as much as I could in regards to the Evidence, Workshop, etcetera. As for your proposals, I'm all ears on how to tone down the use of Discretionary Sanctions as a panacea or cure-all, while still giving administrators and the community a way to handle problematic topic areas and editors without requiring month-long (or longer) arbitration cases constantly. I think the idea of Discretionary Sanctions are a good way to provide administrators the flexibility they need in some areas, but if there are better ideas out there, I'm certainly willing to hear them.
    • As for the idea that not sanctioning Dreadstar further will weaken the ability of AE admins to make tough decisions, as Brad said, first off, we haven't seen anything like that, and de-sysopping Dreadstar has not been on the table for quite a while... and I would personally add that while it falls short of having your mop taken away from you, I think the hubbub that happened here would in itself be a deterrent.. I think that having to go through a Arbitration Committee hearing admitting from the first that your behavior was not optimal (apologizing), and that everyone would spend the next two months calling for your (theoretical) head anyway.. I almost think an instant "Take my mop away please" would be preferred. SirFozzie (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's presupposing that the admin whose action is reversed is feeling like initiating such a hearing in the first place and ready for "everyone [spending] the next two months calling for [their] (theoretical) head" as well. T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie, thank you for your response, but (you knew there was going to be abut, but what precedes it is sincere) the validity or otherwise of Sandstein's action is wholly irrelevant. It couldn't have been clearer marked as being made pursuant to an active arbitration remedy (and those who read my evidence will know that I believe Sandstein's action was not a good one, regardless of its validity as an AE block). As for Dreadstar, I was among the first uninvolved editors to advocate against a desysop, but I agree with Sandstein that some sort of sanction or at least "or you will lose your bit" should have been appended to "don't do that again". What people have to bear in mind is that admins do not block editors (aside from vandals, who are fair game) lightly, and do so even less lightly under AE rules precisely because of how difficult it is to overturn an AE block. All that aside, though, what gets me hot under the collar is that you (ArbCom collectively, not you personally) took two months to come out with this non-decision. You would have wasted a lot less of people's time if you'd just declined the case or resolved it by motion. There is no excuse for this case taking as long as it did when the result is just a lot of hot air. I'll briefly address the discretionary sanctions point by saying that ArbCom should spend a few weeks enforcing its own decisions, becuase I think those of you with AE experience have forgotten what it's like "in the field", so to speak and because you will quickly realise that it's impossible for 18 very busy people to keep up with the demand. I'll just add that discretionary sanctions most certainly have their uses, but they seem to have become a substitute for, rather than a supplement to, meaningful dispute resolution, and now I'll pipe down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for disagreeing, HJ, but when you say "admins do not block editors [...] lightly, and do so even less lightly under AE rules" you are contradicting the evidence in this case. The block I got was useless, unnecessary, hasty, apparently punitive, and in all ways ill-considered. Not even Sandstein has argued that there was a functional purpose to it - he's focused his arguments on the technical point that it was his right to make that block at his discretion, regardless of the value of it. Good admins screw things up from time to time, that's not a problem, but I think the point of this ruling is to say that admins should not to be careless with powerful tools like AEDS in the first place (particularly when their actions are at a questionable edge of a ruling), and if they screw something up somewhere they should be sensitive and open to the fact that they erred, and not stick to their guns on technicalities till the whole durned ship sinks around them.

With respect to your other point, as I said below that's really the fault of improper rules and procedures. Let one person dump a little raw sewage into the stream, and next thing you know everyone's dumping raw sewage in, and the stream gets choked. After that, getting what you need out of the stream is an unpleasant, time-consuming task. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside Ludwigs's comment, HJ, several of us made clear that only extenuating circumstances (the nature of the block and the fact that he did apologize) prevented a probable majority to remove the administrative tools, and again, many of us made clear in our statements in the workshop and the decision that if it DID happen again, we wouldn't even need a case, the removing of the tools would be by motion. It may not say that in the actual findings, but I hope that it is sufficiently clear to all. SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and dealing with one of your other points.. I think that I'm not airing any Committee dirty laundry to state that the Committee was divided on how to view (and thus, how to handle) this request. Everyone has a vision of ArbCom being a vast monolithic entity (The way it got put to me by an interested onlooker was "There is fifteen Arbitrators, but everyone assumes you speak with one voice").. when the truth of the matter is, like any other group of editors, there's no groupthink (at risk of stirring up long dead memories, ArbCom is not a hivemind). We see problems differently, we think of different solutions for problems, we have different visions for the project (in the details, at least). Sometimes we disagree with each other as to handle a case, so then we have a case decided by the committee, which in general will not please everyone, and sometimes anyone, but it's the least worst thing that we can all collectively accept. SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs, I suppose what I should have said is that admins don't generally do this kind of thing lightly. I think the block that started this mess was an error in what is usally unimpeachable judgement by Sandstein. Certainly I don't make AE blocks lightly, and I've made my fair share.

@Fozzie, I can see that the Committee was divided, but you all seem to so rigidly adhere to cabinet collective responsibility that that it's difficult to know what you really think. Obviously, it's necessary to an extent so you can all have confidence in each other, but it creates the impression of a "monolitihic entity" rather than a group of human beings. Leaving aside everything else, surely you and ArbCom must acknowledge that taking two months to leave us basically back where we started is not a satisfactory outcome from anybody's perspective? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie, thanks for the explanation. It is very disconcerting to hear that the (non-)decision depended substantially on "part of the Committee" disagreeing that my block "was a valid Arbitration Enforcement action". This is of course an opinion that people may hold in good faith, even though I disagree with it, but it should not have affected the outcome:

• If the AE block was ultra vires or otherwise wrong in some way, this argument should have been made in the context of an orderly appeal, as prescribed by the instant decision, and if there had been consensus that the block was an invalid AE action, it would have been undone by me, or overturned by someone else with no objection from me.
• The bottom line now seems to be that AE blocks may be be unilaterally undone in cases where enough arbitrators happen to agree afterwards that the block was wrong (because, as here, such unblocks are not sanctioned). This is inconsistent with the instant decision, which purports to recognize that AE blocks may not be unilaterally undone. It is also inconsistent with the discretion (in the sense of independent judgment) AE administrators are supposed to exercise. Furthermore, it greatly complicates the resolution of disagreements about the block, since the question of whether the block was wrong is then automatically shifted to an arbitration case rather than to a simple appeal discussion. Finally, it introduces great uncertainty, because it makes the decision of whether or not to desysop the unblocker dependent on whether the original block is deemed correct or not, which is something that people can in good faith disagree about, rather than on the much more easily answered question of whether a block was undone without consensus.
• Even if one were to agree that the validity of the block ought to be relevant for the purpose of the decision, the failure of the Committee to arrive at a clear decision is still a failure of leadership and organization on the part of all arbitrators. If you think that it matters whether my block was valid or not, you should have held an open vote on this issue, and then sanctioned either me (for making an invalid AE block) or Dreadstar (for overturning a valid one), depending on whether the block was deemed valid or not. What you should not have done was passing a substantially meaningless "lowest common denominator" decision merely for the sake of superficial unanimity.
• Ultimately, the decision illustrates that "discretionary sanctions" are meaningless under this Committee, because arbitrators are unwilling, contrary to the text of the remedies, to let administrators actually exercise the discretion to determine which measures are best suited to stop disruption. Even worse, the message seems to be: go ahead, do the dirty work for us, risk your reputation, become stressed out by arguing with rabidly argumentative Truth-bearers and generally make yourself unpopular so that we won't have to (because angering so many vested contributors would compromise our chances of re-election) – but should we ever happen to disagree with what you do, we won't support you in any way, and instead we will spend two months criticizing you. Even if adopted unconsciously, this is a deceptive and thoroughly disloyal attitude on the part of the Committee, and another reason why I decline to do the dirty work for them any more.  Sandstein  23:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• While it's nice to know I'm not the only one frustrated by this decision, the validity of the block as an AE block is not something that should be litigated on at all when it comes to deciding matters related to it's reversal. Whether or not it was a valid AE block, it was marked as being pursuant to a active arbitration remedy. My understanding was that that means it's treated as an AE block until consensus says it's invalid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem with that (as I have pointed out numerous times) is that you're basically asserting that an admin should be able to use AEDS to block an editor for any reason whatsoever so long as s/he can somehow establish some remote connection to some arbitration case, so that the editor is question is effectively screwed - unable to edit and forced to waste time and effort going through an extended process to get the sanction removed, even if the editor did nothing really sanctionable. 3rd world police tactics extended to Wikipedia - wunnerful. The only people who would benefit by this extreme license would be admins who are intending to abuse the system; any admin who is trying to apply DS judiciously and thoughtfully would never get into a situation where there was any meaningful question about the validity of the sanction. --Ludwigs2 00:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Not my position, mate, it's ArbCom's. I've always thought it daft that one admin is not allowed to reverse what another did just because the first called it an AE block. My understanding of the Trusilver ruling and subsequent discussions, clarifications, etc is that you have to get consensus that the block was ultra vires before you can overturn it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, then we agree it's daft. I guess the only real difference in our positions, then, is that you want to rationalize the daftness, and I just want the daftness to go away. Different roads to the same end... --Ludwigs2 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on procedures

Speaking clinically for a moment, the main difficulty in this case - which is a difficulty everywhere on project, but particularly in ArbCom cases where bad feelings are already running rampant - is that there are almost no controls on discussions. Anyone in my academic field will tell you that there is a profound difference between talking and communication, and any practical, real-world venue for pubic hearings (from courtrooms to town-hall meetings to governmental hearings from the smallest town council to national congresses or parliaments) have strong and heavily enforced rules about the kinds of evidence that are considered acceptable, the kinds of statements that are proper, the kinds of behaviors that are allowable. In the US, for instance, everyone who speaks to Congress or a court is technically legally required to stay narrowly focused on the topic at hand and observe strict standards of decorum, because doing otherwise is viewed as contempt for the system itself and is potentially subject to hefty fines and jail time. Had the interaction that occurred on the case page been seen in a US courtroom, almost everyone involved would have spent a month or so in jail.

Put simply, Wikipedia allows people to run on at the mouth, and it destroys the discussion process. People just aren't good at formal communication. Left to their own devices, most people in the world will:

• indulge petty grudges
• get indignant over about minor perceived insults
• declaim self-righteous opinions
• militantly oppose imagined threats
• expose scandals, personal details, and engage in other forms of tabloid reasoning with salacious glee

And what's worse, these kinds of behaviors breed: someone indulging a petty grudge or exposing some supposed scandal will cause someone else to register an indignant complaint, which will lead to self-righteous claims on both sides, which will mobilize outsiders who see the conflict as a threat to their positions... We need structures to keep ourselves in line, because so very few of us have the capacity to keep ourselves in line by ourselves, and if we are just allowed to talk our own emotional incontinence will never allow us to actually communicate effectively or meaningfully.

If you want my advice, ArbCom needs to seriously tighten procedures. That would mean (at least in part):

• creating clear rules of evidence, so that people aren't allowed to say any old thing that comes into their head.
  • basically limit people to strict relevance, narrowly defined, and prevent fishing expeditions int unrelated areas
• creating an 'evidence introduction' process
  • editors are required to formally request that a particular line of discussion be introduced into evidence before presenting anything on it, giving arbiters the opportunity to deny or limit what gets said before it gets poured all over the page and stirs up trouble
• establishing clear and stringent rules of decorum
  • in AC cases it's better to err on the side of over-enforcing politeness, even if it constricts freedom of speech
• giving the clerks the right and responsibility of redacting improperly presented evidence and behavior that doesn't conform to standards of decorum, and seeing to it that they do so diligently, fairly, and evenly.
  • of course this would mean that there would have to be an appeals process as well, where people could request that their comment (or a modified version) be reinstated.

Had this kind of tightened procedure been in place prior to this particular case, more than half of the evidence would never have been entered into evidence because it was so thoroughly off the topics that the committee wanted to deal with; 80% of the material on the workshop and talk page would have been redacted by the clerks because it failed rules of evidence or decorum; tremendous amounts of bruised egos and bad feelings would have been avoided; and people would be much more satisfied with the ruling because they never would have been under the delusion that their emotional venting might be taken seriously by the committee.

If the committee works out these kinds of tightened procedures, they will find that AC cases progress far more smoothly, far more civilly, and far more quickly than they currently do, with far less negative fallout at the end. It requires more effort at the front of a case of course, from ruling on the applicability of particular lines of evidence, and will increase the workload on clerks as they monitor discussions more heavily. But if the rules are defined clearly, the extra effort should be minimal, and the result will be greater peace of mind for the participants, quicker and cleaner discussions, and greater respectability for the process. --Ludwigs2 14:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is good, especially the "evidence introduction" part. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Effectively replacing inter-party sniping/conflict etc. with the clerk-party equivalent would come with its own friction. The largely pugnacious sort of Wikipedians who end up in arbitration don't react well to perceived busybodies^[a] telling them their input is unacceptable, as the free-flowing nature of discussion in the rest of the project has created a cultural expectation of the right to speak one's mind. The existing regime has already seen significant conflict between clerks and parties (Climate change, anyone?), and this would likely be amplified. I expect a narrative of ArbCom as a discerning elitist body which will hear only what it wants to hear^[a] would quickly come to the fore. Relevance of evidence aside, more stringent standards of "decorum" would in all likliehood be highly contentious, given the widespread contempt of the civlity policy as it stands.

Having said that, I do think the basic contention that the culture of arbitration pages can and should be changed is valid. The move from more-or-less free-for-all aticle talkpages to ones where comments will routinely and without substantial opposition be removed on grounds of WP:FORUM and WP:BLP show this is possible, although I expect it would be more difficult in this case. A more muscular (and numerous) clerk presence, where parties are given notice to refactor irrelevant evidence as well as overly-long statements (as is the case now) could work. It's worth documenting expected standards of behaviour and trying out their enforcement in some of the more minor cases to come before the Committee in future.

I would also recommend making clear what the Committee wishes to investigate when it accepts a case, so as to discourage contributions on irrelevant topics. Granted, hints are given in the accepted list of parties and the name adopted, but I'd say there were more than a few editors surprised that this particular case focused almost entirely on Sandstein/Dreadstar and not Ludwigs2/QuackGuru.

^{^} Not my perceptions, you understand. Skomorokh 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I utterly disagree with "in AC cases it's better to err on the side of over-enforcing politeness, even if it constricts freedom of speech". AC cases are exactly where we should be giving people the benefit of the doubt unless they're clearly intending to be offensive. Wikipedia editors don't come from a single cultural background; what seems a polite formality to one editor can seem to be abusive passive-aggressiveness to another, what seems necessary bluntness to one editor can seem a personal attack to another, what seems a friendly attempt to lighten the mood to one editor can seem a vicious belittling of beliefs or culture to another. – iridescent 18:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion on the clerks' mailing list a couple of months ago about the limitations on the role of the clerks. We had been asked by an arbitrator to vet some evidence for suitability and relevance to the locus of the dispute, but I, and most of the other clerks, were distinctly uncomfortable with being asked to do so. (There was then general agreement with the argument that the request in question would be outside of the scope of the clerks' role, and I think that the full implications of the request were perhaps not realised at the beginning of the discussion. That is to say, I don't think that there was some attempt at subverting the limitations on the role of the clerks.) The role of the clerks is precisely clerical. Enforcing conduct standards is perhaps the most adventurous thing we do today. It may be that, as a clerk who joined the office some years ago and under a very different Committee, I am a little 'old-fashioned' in my views; but I would not accept any evidence-vetting by the clerks. A sounder model might be forming another sub-committee, or another internal team, to vet evidence. AGK [•] 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than bothering with new subcommittees or internal teams, wouldn't it be much more expedient to simply ask the committee to guide the process a bit more than they've generally done in the past? This case didn't occur in a vacuum; once someone is listed as a party to an arbitration, the knives come out, always. Perhaps it might work better to flip things around. Have an initial voting round where the committee decides what the scope of the case will be, with principles, and then ask the parties to show evidence related to those principles?

Of course, like I mentioned in the case pages, just as the Enforcement case wasn't going to "solve" AE, I doubt we're going to "solve" ArbCom here, either. Of course, it's amusing to think that anyone will fix it at all; if the committee changes its process by fiat, there'll be a riot, while if we wait for an RfC to finish that describes a new process, well, by then, I might have enough edits to run for ArbCom myself. Archaeo (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The one clerk active on the case did a fine job. ArbCom cases are primarily about conduct, so Iridescent's remarks are very relevant. If ArbCom had indicated earlier that there was no interest in discussing QuackGuru or any related issues, that would have considerably shortened the case (and some of the case pages). The Noleander case, in comparison, was expertly managed and quickly dispatched; there was surprisingly little ill-feeling between those presenting evidence from differing points of view. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it is generally not possible to determine a priori whether some avenues of inquiries will end up being relevant or not before the extent of the evidence is seen. — Coren ^(talk) 22:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, while you're here, I'm curious as to why QuackGuru wasn't addressed. Was it because the committee thinks he doesn't need addressing, or was there some other reason? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.... well, I want to make it clear that I'm not indulging in whimsical thinking here: every deliberative body that deals with significant public input, everywhere in the world, has rules of this sort. Some do it better, some do it worse, but they all do it because they have to do it. Can you imagine what would happen at the US Supreme Court if they allowed random citizens to stand up and say whatever came to their mind at whatever length they desired? Let's see them tackle an abortion ruling under those conditions... Wikipedia can no longer afford to act like it's still a small group of computer geeks puttering away in some unseen corner of the internet; The project has to adapt to the fact that it has global scope, and that means growing up a bit and making respectable institutions that keep things on an even keel.

A large part of the respect and dignity of a deliberative body comes from the fact that limitations are placed on speech and behavior. When I look over the case and read the masses of irrelevant vituperative tripe that got passed of as meaningful discussion (some of which I passed off as meaningful myself, sad to say), the first thought that comes into my head is (no offense to anyone) "What's wrong with these [...] arbs that they would allow this kind of bull to go on under their very noses?" Yes, people will get annoyed if you tell them that they cannot say something that they *want* to say (because everyone believes that what they *want* to say is oh-so-desperately important, always), but in general people cope with strong-but-fair restrictions far better than they cope with open mic night at the crap-fest.

Again, the purpose here would be for arbiters to preclude material that they (and common sense) determine is off-topic, inappropriate, unnecessary, and/or just plain pointlessly crapulent. Everyone will obviously have the opportunity to make a case for being heard - e.g. "I think it's important I talk about X because..." - but it should be the Arbiters' prerogative to say that it is not important and preclude it. Everyone will obviously be entitled to make necessary criticisms of other editors as they arise relevant to the case, but it should be the Arbiters' prerogative to determine what is and isn't relevant and where valid criticism should be blue-penciled out so it doesn't inflame tempers and start to reflect badly on the system as a whole. Remember, polisci 101: placing restrictions on what people can do is the only way to ensure people have real freedom. Free speech is worse than meaningless if people decide it means they have an inalienable right to continuously shout profanities at the top of their lungs. --Ludwigs2 02:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia is on the down side of the editing and editorship curve, so that if WP survived where it was 3 years ago it can survive indefinitely without doing much different? It seems like wikis are out of favor in general, and WP is no longer a very happening place. LOL :P What you say may be true if WP is growing or somehow changing in a way which would make it more necessary to have rules... BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

lol - well, the 'everyone' was poetic license. I'm sure enough people read it to be, err... - annoyed, dismayed, repulsed; what is the correct word here? - by it, and hope that many people had enough common sense to ignore it completely. The point is that they should never have been put in the position of having to ignore it in the first place.

with respect to the other point: Wikipedia may be growing or shrinking (I don't know, and don't care much), but the point is that it is so far outside of the 'small, homogeneous, easy to navigate community' realm that acting as though that were still the case is borderline delusional. Now it may be that Wikipedia is headed down the path where it will become just another usenet-style site (where each individual dons his/her helm of self-righteousness and sword of petulance and sallies forth to do meaningless battle with the forces of perspectival darkness and ignorance - essentially World of Warcraft without the graphics, and where no one thinks it's a game). But one hopes that's not the case, and if Wikipedia is to avoid that fate it needs to set itself above and beyond that kind of behavior. I'm not making a judgement, mind you, I'm just noting (as a professional in this particular discipline) that the project is sooner or later going to have to choose to manifest and institutionalize its own ideals, because if it doesn't do so its ideals won't be worth spit, and the choice will be made for it by people who could care less about ideals. I dislike Hobbes on principle, but one thing that Hobbes was quite correct about is that in the absence of defined structures people are worse than animals, because animals have natural self-restraint.

take it as you will. I'm fascinated by the potential inherent in Wikipedia for a really properly liberal-democratic system, but in the long run if it decays I'll shrug and see if I can get a few published papers out of it. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

True that. I'm not sure what you mean by liberal-democratic, WP is already a monarchy with elements of representative democracy, bureaucracy, and gangs/mobs. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

wp:CONSENSUS, wp:NPOV, and wp:CIV are liberal-democratic ideals. The first implies equal footing in decision making for all, the second reaches for balanced, multi-positional relativism, and the third largely revolves around mutual respect. It's not a monarchy of any sort because there's no sovereign. As I said, it's a tribal system: a loosely organized collectivity, where individual members are largely independent within kith and clan groups of various strength, and which has a weak decentralized authority structure administered by knowledgable, trusted elders (who operate largely independently, but adhere to a common passed-down ideology). --Ludwigs2 21:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Very astute, though you're missing (IMO) the very strong flavor of Chinese scholar-official bureaucracy that permeates much of our process (in principle, administrators are mandarins selected on merit through an examination and higher functionaries taken from their ranks as experience and skill warrant). I actually had a talk on that subject in Gdańsk.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 21:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... If there's a transcript of that talk or paper associated with it could you post a link? I'd be interested in taking a look at it. It may just be my relative inexperience with procedures, but I have a hard time seeing the mandarinism. As best I can tell, admins are chosen through a combination of experiential acumen and popular approval (i.e. they've been around for a while, learned the practice and the philosophy primarily by digging in and participating rather than by studying, and earned respect from a broad range of others in the process); that fits better in my mind with a tribal modality than a more sophisticated bureaucracy. Plus -pragmatically - in a real mandarin-style bureaucracy the political tactics I consistently see used on project wouldn't work; there'd be an entirely different set of political games in play. Although, I suppose that given the nature of the project as an encyclopedia, there's a natural scholarship link; people with scholarly interests are more likely to participate and more likely to want to be admins...

Eh, dunno if we want to get sucked into this kind of political maundering here, much as I enjoy it. --Ludwigs2 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Jimbo count as a monarch? He can ban anyone unilaterally. What about the board of directors? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Russavia-Biophys

Original announcement

Committee procedures relating to Ban appeals and to Discretionary sanctions

Original announcement

The following pages should perhaps be updated with or cross-referenced to the new measures:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Banning policy (specifically Bans by administrators under Arbcom delegation)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Directory/Ban appeal

Cheers, Skomorokh 13:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The last page is not in use. The top page is cross-referenced from the actual procedure. The middle one also should be updated, yeah… ;) AGK [•] 13:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Then it and its associates should probably be dispensed with or tagged as such

2) Needs to be clear from the other end too; the "Discretionary sanctions" page should have or at least link to all the relevant info on its topic

3) And that's why we have clerks!

Seriously, AC procedures are intricate and spread over enough pages as is, the least that can be done for the despairing searcher is to make it consistent and signposted. Appreciate your work, Skomorokh 13:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions to ensure that all the pages relating to discretionary sanctions are tied up in one place. Things are a now lot less confusing and disparate with the current iteration of the page. Could you take a look and see if that's better, and indicate what else would be helpful? Note that I've asked Roger Davies to check my work to ensure that it's agreeable and I'm waiting on him getting back to me, so things aren't finalised yet. AGK [•] 18:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes in Checkuser/Oversight Personnel

Original announcement

I don't really want a make too big of a deal about this, but isn't there another OS user who got in at the same time I did who has never used the tool? OS is something to be used, not put on the trophy shelf. Such a user can still peep at suppressed sensitive information despite not contributing anything to the team. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)