Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Request for clarification: Jayen466 involvement in my ARBSCI appeal

I am concerned that Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is apparently violating an existing topic ban in his repeated comments on my current appeal against the WP:ARBSCI restrictions over on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for amendment#Statement by Jayen466 and passim. He was topic-banned in the case back in 2009 [1] and his restrictions are still in force. Under remedy 3A, "Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth." Jayen466 is not bound by the first clause, as he was not topic-banned from the entire topic area, but as a member of the class of "editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding" he is clearly covered by the second clause, which clearly covers requests for amendment. As a general principle, it's inappropriate for one sanctioned editor to intervene in the appeal of another sanctioned editor; I presume this rationale is what underlies remedy 3A.

I inadvertently violated a similar remedy when I commented on an WP:ARBCC appeal earlier this year; my comments were removed and I was briefly blocked. When I submitted my own ARBCC appeal, SirFozzie wrote in comments that he "will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request." I subsequently expanded my appeal to cover the older ARBSCI case. However, I am very surprised that Jayen466 has made numerous comments over the last few days, blatantly in violation of remedy 3A, with no intervention from the clerks and despite my notice at the outset that topic-banned editors shouldn't intervene. I am concerned at the unequal treatment; I would appreciate a level playing field. I assume this is an oversight; I am not looking for Jayen466 to be blocked, but I request that his comments in violation of the topic ban be removed, as mine were, and that he be reminded of the terms of the topic ban, as I was. Prioryman (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

Prioryman is misreading the remedies. Since WP:ARBSCI, I have taken a Scientology article to GA status and participated in numerous discussion threads on Scientology at BLPN (e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive89#List_of_Scientologists_--_Gloria_Gaynor, which had copious involvement by Jimbo). I was a party in a Scientology-related arbitration case last summer. If Prioryman were right, my participation in that case would have been a violation of my topic ban! It's late, he's stressed, and simply mistaken.

If you want a fuller explanation, no part of remedy 3A applies to me. Remedy 3A is titled "Scope of Scientology topic ban". It explains the meaning of the words in remedies like Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Antaeus_Feldspar_topic-banned:

User X is topic-banned from Scientology.

or Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice_topic-banned_and_restricted:

The following accounts are topic-banned from Scientology and each restricted to one account:

My finding of fact in WP:ARBSCI was Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Jayen466:

17) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic though this has been offset by edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda[2], [3], [4], [5].

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My sole sanction was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Jayen466_topic-banned_from_Rick_Ross_articles:

21.1) Jayen466 is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of a Scientology topic ban whatsoever. I have participated in all types of community processes related to Scientology for the past three years, up to and including RfC/U and arbitration last year, and thus no part of remedy 3A applies. Thanks, --JN466 02:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• The whole point of not allowing topic banned people to comment on amendment requests is to prevent precisely the type of discussions that we can see between Jayen466 and Prioryman on that amendment page. So, perhaps it is besides the point to ask if making comments there is allowed according to the existing restrictions. Count Iblis (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'll put it succinctly: as an editor currently under sanctions in the ARBSCI case, is it permitted for Jayen466 to comment on another editor's appeal under the same case? My understanding is that bans on sanctioned editors participating in such processes are standard practice and have been for some years. Please clarify this point. Prioryman (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Prioryman, you commented at quite extraordinary length about me in a Scientology-related RfC/U and arbitration case only a few months ago. And you did so under a new account and without revealing your new identity to me, even though we have had amicable e-mail contact in the past.
  • Furthermore, you did all that while under substantial restrictions in the ARBSCI topic area, which include a topic ban from all Scientology-related BLPs (to go with a topic ban from all ARBCC BLPs). You clearly did not think 3a)(ii) applied to you (nor did I, as a matter of fact, and nor did a dozen arbitrators watching the proceedings).
  • Now, I am restricted from material related to a single BLP subject, but am otherwise under no restriction in the ARBSCI topic area whatsoever. Yet, to get rid of my clearly unwelcome comments at your amendment request, you somehow manage to persuade yourself that it's a good idea to argue, above, that Jayen466 has for the past three years been in breach of a non-existing Scientology topic ban each time he commented at "any Wikipedia process relating to [Scientology or Scientologists'] articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth". When I have just been to see the arbitrators, and there was no remotely similar finding against me. And this idea occurs to you just as I have commented at your amendment request, expressing concern about the proposed lifting of your BLP sanctions, and asking you to admit or deny that you edited as Helatrobus without informing arbcom. Right? It's absolute, self-serving piffle.
  • Look, I will do you a favour. I will refrain from any further on-wiki comment on your amendment request. I will reiterate here that as far as ARBSCI is concerned, the topic area – especially its BLP sector – is better off with the present status quo, which leaves you free to do non-BLP GA and FA work, and allows you to maintain existing GA and FA articles, but keeps you away from the topic area's BLPs. Unless otherwise instructed, I will link to the comments I have already made, or move them to the appropriate place in the new, separate request you have raised. And I will allow myself here to express my disappointment with you – mostly over your lack of honesty, truthfulness, and straight dealing towards me. Beyond that, good luck. --JN466 08:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• • FYI, there's a discussion at User talk:SirFozzie#Prioryman topic ban? that is of relevance. The key points are that up till now the Arbcom seems to have either taken a lenient view of topic-banned editors participating in processes relating to their arbitration cases or simply wasn't aware of the issue. I had assumed that as others (including you) were participating in such discussions it was OK for me to do so too. I certainly wouldn't have done so if I'd known that it wasn't. SirFozzie rather forcefully made me aware that it wasn't OK when he briefly blocked me. The discussion on his talk page indicates that the Arbcom has decided to take a hard line on the issue. However, there's clearly some confusion in this instance, hence my request for clarification here. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The concern is understandable given that Prioryman was summarily blocked for doing precisely what Jayen466 has done here. But history shows that to expect consistency from Arbcom on this or any other matter is a losing proposition. Advice to Prioryman is simply to let it slide. Continually questioning things -- even when you're right -- only feeds their notion that you're drama-prone. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. It's frustrating, though, that I wanted to avoid the appeal causing "drama" - at the end of my statement I highlighted that topic- and interaction-banned editors weren't permitted to comment. It's deeply regrettable that this hasn't been respected. I'd still like to get some kind of definitive statement on the record about whether editors currently under sanctions are permitted to comment on another editor's appeal under the same case. SirFozzie (and Roger Davies, apparently) seemed to be definitive that the answer was no, so I don't understand why there has been a discrepancy here. Prioryman (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I'm sorry, but Prioryman did not "do exactly what I did" here. Prioryman's discussion with SirFozzie concerned ARBCC. Prioryman is under a full ARBCC topic ban, per Wikipedia:ARBCC#ChrisO_.28remedies.29, to wit:

11.4) Because ChrisO retired from the project and exercised his right to vanish while sanctions were being actively considered against him in this arbitration case, should he wish to resume editing under any account name at a future date, he is instructed to contact this Committee before doing so.

Passed 8 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

11.6) ChrisO is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

where Remedy 3, Wikipedia:ARBCC#Scope_of_topic_bans, says:

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Amended 9 to 0, 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As the boldened parts make clear, he was indeed out of line commenting at AE on matters related to climate change. He was not placed under the equivalent full topic ban in ARBSCI, however, and neither was I. He should not have participated under a new, undisclosed account, but that is another matter. Another thing is that Prioryman tells me on my talk page, "Please correct your claim that I'm under a BLP restriction under ARBCC. That is not and never has been true."

I repeat here the wording of Wikipedia:ARBCC#Scope_of_topic_bans above, with the appropriate parts boldened:

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

I am at a loss to explain how Prioryman can say that he has never been under a BLP restriction in ARBCC. And I do recall that he wanted the editor calling for his restrictions to be listed correctly and in full at WP:RESTRICT banned from commenting on him (and this sanction was not listed there until I added it). The whole matter is unpalatable. --JN466 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. My impression was that ARBSCI had been assigned the same sanctions as ARBCC as part of the committee's recent harmonization of sanctions across most large historical cases, but a further check shows this is not so. My advice to Prioryman stands, however. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the BLP aspect of the ARBCC sanctions (while noting that it was a generic sanction directed against all editors topic-banned in that case, rather than singling me out individually). It doesn't change the fact that as a sanctioned editor Jayen466 shouldn't be intervening. Prioryman (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) Can we all now just let this drop please and, if it must continue, do so on user talk pages? Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Active/non-active arbitrators

Howdy all. If this was the wrong place to post this, I apologize. I was reading up on the Rich Farmbrough case and came across this section regarding arbitrator counts. One possibility to lessen the effects of this problem is to, once an arbitration request is made, allow only arbitrators that are active and not recused vote on anything in the case until the case is closed. In my opinion, if an arbitrator is inactive when the request is made, they shouldn't be allowed to jump in partway through a case and start voting. Thoughts?--Rockfang (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the arguments there and what I'm not at all clear about is how a fluctuating number actually prejudices the outcome. After all, arbitrators have always been able to abstain or even recuse on some proposals, which has precisely the same effect. What is perhaps interesting in the present case is the amount of tu quoque rhetoric aimed directly, ad hominem, at arbitrators rather than addressing the issues.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'm mostly bringing this up to potentially lower the confusion regarding how many arbitrators are needed for a majority. More specifically the points Hammersoft brings up in his first two posts in that section. His following comments also appear to be good ideas: "I could see a different system; when the case officially opens, a determination is made of who can be active, along with who is inactive and who is recused. At that time, being inactive or recused for a case is final."--Rockfang (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But there isn't any confusion about the number of arbitrators needed for a majority. It varies from provision to provision: The final decision will consist of all proposed provisions which were passed by an absolute majority. An absolute majority is when the number of votes to support or accept is greater than 50% of the total number of arbitrators, not including any arbitrators who are recused, abstaining, or inactive. Now I agree it's slightly messy, and sometimes a bit fiddly to calculate, (hey this is a Wiki!) but the voting method has stood the test of time.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• The nature of the Committee is that it is made up of part-time volunteers from the community - it is not a branch of the Foundation which has paid full time staff; as such when dealing with cases that can stretch over months these volunteers can be distracted by real life - family matters, health matters, job matters. It is not always possible to predict in advance when a distraction is going to strike, so if we limit participation in a case to only those members who are active at the start, and a significant number become inactive during the case due to real life matters, that could lead to problems, so it would be useful to replenish the numbers with those who are returning to active status. Because of the amount of hours required to study all the evidence in a case, a returning arbiter will make a judgement if they have the time and energy needed to make a useful contribution to the closing decision. I don't see an advantage in presuming that an arbiter is unable to make that judgement themselves. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there are appearance of fairness issues there, especially if the arbitrator who has "come to life" casts the crucial vote. We can't see behind the scenes. We can see that there are sometimes strong feelings. How do we know that there a member of a temporary minority (whether or not voting has begun) isn't canvassing to augment his faction? Is the participation of the additional arbitrator, even if purely above board, worth it?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively you could assume good faith that the arbitrator in question has done their due diligence and read through the evidence and workshop material, has exercised the judgement for which they were elected and is carrying out their duty. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come now—there's never been any evidence that all of the Arbs read all of the evidence and workshop pages of the cases they vote on, let alone the drop-in Arbs who show up at the last minute to swing decisions. If asked point blank, the honest ones will admit this, and the others will give a wishy-washy non-answer. While the workshops could have been (and could still be) a useful and constructive part of Arbitration, right now they're a distracting sideshow: an arena where Arbs can watch the parties bicker, but where the Arbs do not manage or contribute to the process in any meaningful way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from here, Wehwalt, and I know you intend well. The problem with this whole "appearance of" thing (in all its contexts) is that it usually casts even innocent actions in the darkest light. It is also profoundly unWikipedian. The usual rule is "serious allegations require serious evidence" and the automatic assumption of corruption is not only a stretch but also the worst kind of personal attack. Pandering to conspiracy theorists just doesn't seem to me like a very viable option ;) I'm sorry if this piles on from what AlexandrDmitri is saying.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And you see things, with your lengthy tenure, very much from the arb standpoint. As a member of the community at large, perhaps I'm a little more focused on how things look from outside. And I'm a bit skeptical generally about arbcom right now given certain recent decisions, and given a certain editor who I won't name who seems to be asking you guys for help in vain. --Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, though it has to be said that I'm not aware of any instance where an arbitrator has been asked (either by other arbitrators or by a third party) to go active to swing a decision. (Would you like me to look into the specific instance concerning "a certain editor" you mention? If so, just email me with details. I can't promise you action but I can give you an explanation if one is needed.)  Roger Davies ^talk 16:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator activity varies throughout the year, due to periods of real-life busyness, illness, and other factors; to interpret this changing activity as something more sinister strikes me as unjustified. (Also, for every arbitrator who moves from inactive to active on a case, the majority for every proposal will increase, albeit with some rounding down.) Whilst I could understand your concerns if an otherwise-inactive arbitrator moved to active only on one given case, I cannot agree with you with respect to an arbitrator who becomes active again on everything—unless you mean to suggest that the clarifications, amendments, other cases, and other business in which they begin to participate are a smokescreen. I do not think the problem with your comments is so much one of a difference of perspectives as an anecdotal, over-generalised argument. Please explain your concerns with reference to specific arbitrators. AGK [•] 12:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your view, as I am to mine. There is an appearance issue as I said, and I think that rises above assumptions of good faith. i am not referring to specific arbitrators, but to the general discussion thread, of course. It looks bad, it can (in my view) lead to controversy that can undermine the value of a decision (again, in my view), and in my opinion should be avoided. As for problems with specific arbitrators, as an active member of the community I will settle those as I normally do, by voting against the re-election of those I deem not to be the best candidates.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Wehwalt is raising points in good faith. To criticize him of launching a "worst kind of personal attack" is out of line. He raises interesting points about transparency of the process (of which there really is very little) and the appearance of fairness. Objecting to the ArbCom process, as it stands, is not wrong. Raising issues with how the process is managed is not wrong. You owe Wehwalt an apology.

@SilkTork: I agree this is a volunteer project. However, if a person volunteers to be on ArbCom, they should have a reasonable expectation that there will be no hindrances to their participation on the committee. Situations do arise where arbitrators have an expectation they will be available, and then suddenly are not. That's to be expected. What doesn't make sense is for ArbCom to not have a system in place to manage such unexpected absences. This points to the general lack of professionalism endemic to ArbCom as a whole. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: People are fully entitled to raise concerns about process. Whether they (and I am explicitly not talking about Wehwalt here) should speculate wildly and pejoratively at every opportunity in an entirely different matter.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: One of the biggest problems endemic to ArbCom is the burn out rate. This is caused by the demands of the role and the near constant barrage of criticism that is directed at arbitrators. The fact is that ArbCom deals with Wikipedia's nastiest and most entrenched disputes: this means that arbitrators are constantly caught in the cross-fire of warring factions. Recognising that arbitrators are broadly neutral, rarely have a common agenda, and are doing their best to find a solution that will fix the problem, would go a long way to easing the burden.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree that Arbcom is acting unprofessionally I also think Hammersoft and Wehwalt have some good points. IF a case is ongoing over a period of several weeks an arbitrator shouldn't be able to drop into the last 72 hours of the discussion and drop a vote without having uttered one word in the previous multi week discussion. I have no dobt this is done in good faith I think it also leaves it incredibly open to scrutiny and it helps to invalidate Arbcoms abilities by eroding its credibility. Kumioko (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Roger; Wehwalt didn't personally attack anyone or indeed even any group. You owe him apology for his good faith efforts to raise concerns about the ArbCom process. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I never said he did.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps you'd like to explain how your comment in response to him where you said "the automatic assumption of corruption is not only a stretch but also the worst kind of personal attack" is not saying he made a personal attack? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's a general statement about bad faith assumptions based on no evidence. It follows on from the parathetic "(in all its contexts)". To be honest, if I'd thought Wehwalt was making a personal attack (which I didn't), I'd have said so directly.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko: An arbitrator dropping in at the eleventh hour could be improper, but in the majority of cases (and certainly in Rich Farmbrough) that did not happen. For instance, in the most recent case I went active several days before voting—so that I could finish reading the evidence and discussion I missed during my absence—and Risker was even better prepared, having went active something like a month before voting. I cannot recall an arbitrator dropping in at the last minute to change the majority and cast some votes, not least because the enormous amount of reading required to vote competently means that several days' time or a few weeks' time is usually the requisite. I am not sure that there is a specific problem to be solved here, and on that basis I imagine we would all prefer we not institute another layer of bureaucracy into the already-complex system of ArbCom voting. If arbitrators aren't actually coming in to vote "at the last minute" (by a reasonable definition of 'last minute'), I would prefer we try to keep some semblance of adherence to WP:NOTBUREAU. AGK [•] 18:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer. Appearance issues are something I often deal with. I seem to have hit on a touchy issue. That was not my intent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There may not have been any impropriety but it certainly looked a little suspicious for a couple of arbitrators to drop in a vote all of a sudden in the last couple days of a case where votes were very close on several issues. Its very possible the same outcome would have happened but it cast a darkcloud of doubt about the outcome of the case. I also must say that for a process that is inherently and by design all about BUREAU tossing out WP:NOTBUREAU was amusing to me and made me chuckle a bit. Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary you said "I elected to be inactive after I voted to open this case. I'll be inactive in the voting of its proposed decision. [...] AGK [•] 16:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)" Therefore you should not have voted. Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

There was an instance of exactly that in the Abd-WMC arbitration: [6]. In that case an Arb went 'active' and cast a slew of votes (some of which tipped the decision on a significant remedy and caused a desysopping); less than two hours later, another Arb moved to close the case. The Arbitrator in question had been officially inactive for two months, and had not participated on-wiki in the case until that point. I don't know if other instances exist, but it certainly can't be argued that the last-minute drop-in Arb swinging a decision doesn't happen, or won't happen again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, we need a different ArbCom system where these sorts of issues won't come up. There should only be a few Arbs who study all the evidence. You can imagine that when a case is accepted, the Arbs look at who has thew most time available, and then these Arbs divide up the task of studying all the relevant evidence.

When they are done, they write up a report about the relevant problems. The other Arbs then read that report, and then they can discuss about remedies. All the Arbs will then have a rather complete picture about the problems. Of course, some Arbs may take issue with some aspects of the report, but they can then discuss that; the Arbs who wrote the report will likely have good answers to any questions as they studied everything in detail. But in the end, there has to be a report that everyone is going to use for the next discussions on the remedies. Count Iblis (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually like that idea. It's much more how I'm used to working in the real world. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Would the report be made public?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea too, and will point out that it is essentially what happens now: it's called the proposed decision. If it is done well, it does not take long to vote; in particular, if much of it is posted at the workshop page, other arbitrators will have had an opportunity to review and comment on it. Adding another layer into the process between opening a case and posting a proposed decision seems more likely to extend the length of time that a case takes. Risker (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that either 3 or 5 + a spare take the case. They should consider it in detail. An en banc hearing is either a waste of effort, or everyone assumes that someone else is reading it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Question for the Arbs

(I assume WT:AC is a better place for this question than WT:ACN, but feel free to move it if I assumed wrong)

I have been navel-gazing about admin recall and about ways to practically unbundle the admin tools without getting the software changed. Step one was to ask a somewhat similar question at WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Questions for the 'crats. Step two is to ask here. I'd really like to avoid, for now, getting into a discussion of whether having people make such a promise would be a good idea or not, and what all the details would be like, what color the bike shed would be, and all the other stuff that always, without exception, 100% of the time hopelessly bogs down a discussion like this. I'm just after some data from the current Arbs, as I continue to mull the idea over.

If a current admin stated clearly and unambiguously "From now on, I will never block anyone, no matter what the circumstances, and understand that I'll be immediately desysopped if I do, whether or not it was a good block, and understand I can't renege on this promise without going thru a new RFA", would any current Arbs, without requiring a change to current policy, vote to desysop the admin if they blocked someone in the future, assuming when the time came they didn't want to be desysopped, and in spite of the fact you might considered the block a good one?

I'm using blocking as an example, but I assume the answer wouldn't change if "block anyone" was replaced by any other admin action that comes in the bundle.

Please keep in mind the clarity and unambiguity of the promise; this would not require you to make a messy judgment call about whether the infraction was "serious" or not, or whether they're a "good admin", or whether their adminship is a net positive or not, or anything else where people could complain you weren't being reasonable or fair (well, I know, some would say you're being unreasonable or unfair no matter what, but that's why you make the big money). It would be a strict "did they or didn't they" determination, followed by a decision to desysop if they did, by motion.

I'm much more interested in knowing if any of you feel you would currently vote to desysop, if such a thing happened tomorrow, without an RFC or a policy change discussion somewhere to support it.

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to stray to far off task and I hope you don't mind me dropping my comments here too and I am going to use myself as an example of where this suggestion would be great but I don't know if it would or should be done without limiting the recipients abilities with the tools. Call it unbundling, Admin light or whatever. Most Admins don't use the full scope of the tools so in many cases the extra option just goes to waste. For example one admin might specialize in Blocking vandals while another specializes in deletion discussions and content cleanup. Neither typically stray into the others swim lane but both have an important task. Many of these tasks would be made much easier if more had the abilities without having to run the Admin gauntlet. However, I do think that simply granting someone the admin bit on their word is a stretch. Unless I misunderstand the intent to this. Kumioko (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Without getting bogged down in details, I think you may have misunderstood the intent, which is to be able to go on more than someone's word. This has multiple uses. One is unbundling of tools. Say there's a candidate who only wanted to be able to edit protected templates. Currently, if they go thru RFA, people tend to want to see evidence of all kinds of experience, because once the bit is flipped on, it's nearly impossible to flip it off, and no one could prevent them from blocking people. Right now, the candidate has to give his word that he will only edit templates, and people either have to take him at his word, or oppose. As a result, such requests are few and far between; I can only think of two offhand. If you could give this promise teeth, by making it enforecable, then more people would more easily be able to get through the "gauntlet". Obviously a policy change would have to be made if we wanted a new non-RFA process for this type of unbundled tools (this isn't an end run around policy to abolish RFA), but I don't think any policy change is needed to get ArbCom to enforce a clearly worded promise made in an RFA.

Another use is voluntary, but enforceable, recall. Right now, my own recall process says that if I refuse to follow the process when push comes to shove, I should be desysopped. But that's toothless, because no 'crat will desysop me for worming out of a recall. I'm suggesting if I worded it more strongly, and people knew that it could be enforced, people would have more faith in the process. Obviously a policy change would have to be made to force admins to make that promise (this isn't an end run around policy to get mandatory recall), but I don't think any policy change is needed to get ArbCom to enforce a voluntary promise.

But first I need to find out if Arbs would even be willing to enforce such a promise made by an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok I see. I do agree 100% that there is utility in unbundling some of the tools and in allowing an admin to be open to recall. Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal thoughts, off-the-cuff (and speaking as someone who has VERY light standards for recall, with two recall requests having not met the low bar for recall, (see User:SirFozzie/Accountability) , is that while there's no legally-enforceable way to enforce such promises (unless part of a sanction, either placed by the community or the Committee itself, it would weigh very heavily in any such decision that was before me, as one of the criteria I personally use to determine whether I would vote for a removal of administrative tools is whether someone had lost the community's trust, and explicitly breaking a promise made to the community would be something that in just about all cases would mean that I would believe that the person had lost the trust of the community. If the community wishes to GIVE us that ability to enforce such promises, that would be one thing, but I don't think it's something we can TAKE on our own. SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, SF. So am I right that you're saying you don't believe ArbCom currently has the ability to enforce even a clear and airtight promise, but the proposal below, if accepted by the community, is one way that it could be added? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Com

I'm saying that it would be very hard for us to make the case to remove the tools in such a situation as it currently stands. We have the right to remove the tools from someone for misconduct, there's nothing in policy currently that states "breaking a voluntary promise regarding recall" is misconduct specifically. It would be a factor in any decision I make REGARDING the misconduct, but I think as it stands people would be concerned that the Committee would be stepping outside its mandate if we removed the tools for breaking a voluntary recall promise SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Section break for Sir Fozzie's proposal

To answer the question immediately below this, Floquenbeam doesn't mind at all, but he has taken the liberty of splitting this discussion off into a new section, as he still hopes for a couple of other Arbs to answer the question above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I hope Floquenbeam doesn't mind me using his section here, as this dovetails rather nicely to what a few arbitrators had been musing about in private.. right now, other then voluntary recalls (which of course, is voluntary) and the morass of an arbitration case (except in extreme cases (Either multiple, or compromised accounts, or in a few cases, indications of issues which meant they could not use the tools in a way compatible expected with the norms and policies of Wikipedia)). This is not optimal, for several reasons. A) It means we go from one extreme "Perfectly ok" to "No, your tools are gone" in one fell swoop, B) The fact that it's so hard to remove tools have made passing a RFA so very much harder then when I got the tools (editcountitis, the fact that we simultaneously need our admin candidates to be involved with every area that an Administrator would need to be familiar with, while simultaneously staying out of drama enough to not cause a wave of enemies that is sure to sink a RfAdmin).

I had been reading the musings on the ArbCom mailing list, and I had thought a possible suggestion would be an Administrator Review Panel, similar to what the Committee already runs (The Ban Appeals Sub-Committee to deal with the review of community and Committee Bans, and the Audit Sub-Committee (for complaints dealing with advanced permissions such as checkuser and oversight). I was thinking either a 50/50 split between the general community and Arbitrators (For example, 3 arbitrators, and 3 members of the Community) or slightly favoring the community (a 4-2). They would not require RfC's and the like, but if someone wants a quick review of an administrator's action, they could bring it to the ARP, who would recommend one of the following:

A)Endorsing the administrator's actions

B)Warning/Reminding/Admonishing the administrator for minor mistakes.missteps made by the administrator

C)Ordering a RfC to be held on the Administrator's actions (with option of a full RfArb case at the RfC's conclusion)

D)Ordering an Arbitration Case to be held on the administrator's actions, but not necessarily endorsing removal of tools

E)Recommending to the Committee that the Administrator be sanctioned, up to and including having his administrative tools revoked for misconduct.

I could possibly go so far as seeing that this Panel could request to the Committee, for example, in Floquenbeam's example above, recommending to the Committee that the Administrator who failed to abide by his voluntary recall terms have his administrative tools revoked. While the Committee would not be REQUIRED to endorse the ARP's actions, the committee should take suce requests from the ARP as strong recommendations (Ie, to endorse them unless they have a really good reason not to, and in such cases be ready to explain WHY). I would also suggest that such requests be limited SOLELY to the direct parties involved (and ideally, for the avoidance of drama and/or using it as a weapon in a content dispute, privately via email). One problem with RfC's and Arbitration Cases is.. EVERYONE wants to have their say. That's a major factor in why these things take so long, because there is just so much to go through, and so much back and forth. I envision ARP actions as "Person A makes complaint. Panel reviews, and asks Admin B for statement. Panel reviews both complaint and response, and issues decision". I'm sure there's a million holes in my argument above, but I'm interested in what people think. SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds pretty good, but I was unclear on proposed scope of the committee's mandate. Would the committee examine the Admin's history, past complaints, RFC/Us, etc and attempt to determine whether evidence suggests the community has already lost faith in the admin, or would the committee act as a surrogate for the community as a whole, and make their own decision, in a representative capacity, about whether the admin deserves to have the bit removed? (Put another way, would the committee determine consensus, or form its own) Monty₈₄₅ 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That part can be decided. In general, my thoughts were that they can consider past warnings/admonishments/sanctions etcetera, but remember, we don't want to bog it down in re-fighting wars that have long since been settled. I would suggest that the ARP review the evidence before them, and then come to a quick consensus of their own. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying if someone passed RFA hypothetically being nominated with "[Badmin] has stated in the past that she likes the idea of the admin recall system, and plans to place herself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall," and then commented "Just as I've said in my previous RfA attempts, I completely support it, and will definitely add my own name to the category. I've liked the idea even before I started thinking about becoming an admin -- I think it's a classy way to handle things," and further commented "My standards will be pretty straightforward. If six editors in good standing post to my talkpage and ask me to step down, I will immediately resign my adminship." and passed by a very slim margin, with at least 8 "support" votes that explicitly mentioned recall and 4 of the "oppose" votes being heckled with "but she'll be open to recall," and then six editors in good standing posted on their talk page asking them to step down, and then they said well, let's just link to it - [7], that you'd make a motion to strip their admin tools? Do so. Hipocrite (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm saying the opposite, as it stands, recall is incumbent on administrators living up to their terms and voluntarily relinquishing their tools, because the Committee doesn't have the mandate AS THE RULES STAND currently to enforce these terms (we could remove the tools for misconduct, but policy does not currently state that breaking recall terms is sanctionable misconduct) I am not familiar with the situation you reference, so I cannot state one way or the other about whether it's misconduct, and if so, it's worthy of a motion to de-sysop, I'm just saying that currently, the Committee does not have the mandate to enforce such voluntary processes. SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure it does. The Committee has repeatedly held (in keeping with policy) that admins are expected to lead by example, act with integrity, and avoid disruptive behaviors like gaming the system. Those principles would form a reasonable basis for sanctioning admins who make campaign promises and then violate them. If I squeaked through RfA on the strength of promising to be open to recall, and then went back on that promise when called on it, and then accused anyone trying to hold me accountable of malicious or nefarious motivations, that sounds an awful lot like gaming the system. MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with MastCell, that is admins are supposed to act reasonably, and if a hypothetical admin used the tools unwisely, and then refused a recall, the lack of willingness to honor the recall petition could be taken into account. Otherwise, I won't comment in regard to Hipocrite's post beyond saying that I'd have to recuse as I signed Elonka's recall petition. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to re-fight that particular battle, as it's stale and not worth dredging up. As a general principle going forward, though, I think ArbCom has the authority to hold admins accountable for these sorts of concrete campaign promises, and should exercise it. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I really like the general idea, enough so that I don't want to discuss how we can use it to re-fight old already-lost battles, and risk derailing it. Some way of having more admin accountability short of the endless morass of an AC case or even an almost always unproductive 30+ day RFC is desperately needed, but I think having some kind of "Votes by ANI Regulars for Desysop" on ANI or someplace would swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. A committee like you describe would seem to fit the bill, as long as it actually saved bureaucracy by deciding the clear issues using Options A, B, or E (otherwise, it's just an extra triage procedure that would bog things down more). I hope my pessimism about the inertia against a change like this is misplaced, but that pessimism is the main reason I was trying, in the section above, to get at least a little something going without a policy change. But if this type of admin conduct review committee could actually be shepherded thru the sausage factory, I'm all for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• You all remember that Tony1 tried to start an Admin review board for this very purpose? Why doesn't the Committee set-up such a board, to which any WP editor can ask for review of the conduct of any admin, including admins, Elonka being the most famous example, who refused to honor their recall pledge? If the board determined that the admin should be desysopped, they could make this recommendation to ArbCom to act on. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The committee does not have a mandate to set up such a board. It will need to go through an RFC, but I would urge everyone to be cautious about rushing to start such an RFC, for it to have any chance of avoiding a crippling derail, a well thought out proposal needs to serve as the starting point for the RFC. Monty₈₄₅ 23:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If ArbCom already have formal authority over desysopping and admin conduct, why would they need community mandate to set up such a sub-committee? Doesn't ArbCom have the authority to delegate matters over which they already have formally established authority? Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

They have authority to consider admin conduct as part of a full arbitration case, and to trigger an arbitration case on the basis of specific admin conduct it takes some pretty serious misconduct. The point of such a committee would be to allow the review of admin conduct without such a big initial hurdle of getting an arbitration case started. That would be a substantial expansion of Arbcom authority if it decided it didn't require a case to investigate an admin's conduct. Monty₈₄₅ 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom seem to be busy amending their own rules without community input elsewhere. I think they beleive they have authority to do exactly as they please. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

So, my thoughts for this would include a couple of points that I didn't see brought up above:

• Composition would be 3 arbs, 2 admins, and 2 non-admin, non-arb community members or some similar ratio: So that both admins and non-admin non-arbs have a voice, which together weighs more heavily than the arbitrators... who are actually responsible for the outcome.
• Allegations of outright misuse, compromised accounts, emergency desysops, etc. are retained to the arbitration committee itself, as are any issues involving off-wiki conduct or private information.
• The "review board" or whatever would be chartered to recognize both good and not-so-good conduct. It would issue barnstars publicly for e.g., milestones of good work, longevity and activity, and particularly good closes of complicated RfC's, XfD's, and other discussions. Its reprimand function would be focused, private coaching, with a goal of administrator performance improvement. A lot of times, I've seen admins who really just needed someone to tell them "you need a break" or "you're seeming to lose perspective in this area". Failures of such coaching would be recommended to ArbCom for action, much like the Audit Subcommittee does.

At any rate, those are some of my ideas. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that all arbs are also admins if your intent is to balance them. Also reserving seats for non-admins would create an interesting precedent that would almost certainly come up again for WP:ACE2012. Also, something that hasn't been brought up, would the arb members be required to recuse if the case is referred, or would they be considered uninvolved as acting in their official arb capacity as a member of the board? Monty₈₄₅ 05:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, all the current arbs are admins, but we've established that that's not actually necessary, such that a non-admin arb could be seated upon identification to the Foundation. For my part, one I got over the "Oh... wow." part of seeing the non-public part of the committee's business, I never really have functioned as an "admin" in anything other than an occasional capacity. The vast majority of my Wikipedia time is now ArbCom related... a with a smattering of GA's and AfD discussions in which I function as "just" an editor. So, given that arbitrators are the subset of admins currently assigned to policing admins, I don't think there's a huge disconnect here, at least for using this as a starting point. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the best idea I've seen so far, to be honest. There's a lot of details to be discussed, but so far it's good. --Rschen7754 06:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• We lack an actual procedure for 'disciplining' administrators, and have insufficient community involvement in an aspect of our project that most needs non-arbitrator (and non-administrator) perspectives. I do not think it is terribly helpful to cite precedent of administrator misconduct, but I do think the success of the Audit Subcommittee (which gives the community a role in the scrutiny of advanced functions) can be easily mirrored in the similar scrutiny of administrator actions. My preference is for an independent subcommittee (like the AUSC is) as opposed to a stand-alone committee that does not have the authority of ARBPOL and the ArbCom. There remain unresolved questions about any such subcommittee, like would non-administrator members be given the sysop tools (and if so, would this be established as a new user flag), but on the whole I would prefer that to be dealt with in a more focussed discussion and not on this page: we tend to get caught up in the specifics, and thereby derail otherwise productive meta-discussion. If there continues to be considerable appetite on this page for such a sub-committee, I hope we can look at a proper community RFC to hash out the details. AGK [•] 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support opening a RfC on this issue. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think JClemen's idea of having the subcommittee be responsible for issuing kudos as well as corrective action is a good one, because positive reinforcement is just as important as the opposite. One question, however, is that are you sure it's a good idea having two arbitrators on the committee? I can think of two reasons not to: (1) Arb workload is already really high, and (2) if there are no arbitrators on the "admin review sub-committee", it gives the sub-committee independence to draw its own conclusions and it gives the ArbCom independence in deciding whether to accept the sub-committee's recommendations or not. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the relevant clause of the ArbPol lists the third of ArbCom's responsibilities as "To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools". In my mind, that makes ArbCom ultimately responsible for processes which would end in desysoping, and while the goal of corrective/coaching efforts would be avoiding such, there are likely to be a minority (and hopefully a tiny one) of admins who fail to take such coaching appropriately. To respond to your specific questions...

  (1) Yes, the workload is high... but this needs doing. If we can identify better roles and delineate them for arbitrators (x for AUSC, x for BASC, x for case management, X for Administrator Review...) I think the community may be persuaded to raise the size of the committee again. Right now, we have a "committee of the whole" problem, but I think by dividing responsibilities and rotating them appropriately, we can reduce backlog and serve the community better.

  (2) I don't mind recusing when appropriate if there's a good probability we can improve our customer service AND head-off cases before they happen. Since it's the committee's responsibility, I'd rather the committee was involved in partnership with appropriately trusted and selected community members, much like the Audit Subcommittee process has proven successful to date. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious

That there is a lot of excusing arbs from putting in the required work going on. "when dealing with cases that can stretch over months these volunteers can be distracted by real life - family matters, health matters, job matters."

One would think that common decency and respect would mean Arbs would understand that the persucted prosecuted also have other commitments, and should be able to ask for an adjournment.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Checkuser

Which Arbs are checkusers? And shouldn't the two roles be completely separate? Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Whoa!

• AGK
• Casliber
• Courcelles
• David Fuchs
• Elen of the Roads
• Hersfold
• Jclemens
• Kirill Lokshin
• Newyorkbrad
• PhilKnight
• Risker
• Roger Davies
• SilkTork
• SirFozzie
• Xeno

and clerk

• Salvio giuliano

Is this a clean sweep? Arbs should not have check-user power, nor should clerks, separation of powers is vital. Where's the accountability? Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I have to admit that I don't personally think that there shouldn't be some arbs with checkuser but this does seem to be stacking the deck a bit. If all the arbs are busy who's doing checkuser? Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There are other checkusers. But the reason that Arbs should not have checkuser is the temptation to go on fishing trips. We have seen them manufacture their own evidence already. If they think there is grounds for a checkuser, they should request it, clearly and above board, and what is more, be prepared to be turned down by a principled checkuser. According to leaked ArbCom mailing list mails this is how it used to work. It's basic checks and balances. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I'd encourage you to go read up on the history of the privilege, how it's granted, and who is responsible to the WMF and the community for its appropriate use. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Those with power seldom want to relinquish it. I tend to agree with Rich although I could see some of the committee having it. It does seem to be a bit of a COI. Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is too great an overlap between Arbs and Checkusers. The heart of the problem is that the checkusers are explicitly bound to the WMF privacy policy with respect the private data they obtain in the role of Checkuser, and the Arbs are not bound explicitly. Indeed, the arbs are proven leaky. Does this mean that arbcom is a leaky hole into Checkuser business? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: ArbCom dish out the privilege. Mainly to themselves and clerks. The log is available only to people appointed by Arbcom - i.e. zero oversight. Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Mainly? Who else has it? Jimbo aside, there are a few others who have it too, for umm, "historical reasons", right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Alison is of course the famous checkuser, Amalthea I'd trust with anything, and there's some other long-serving names. I note that Salvio is listed as Audit subcommittee which seems incompatible with clerking. My head hurts there's so much wrong here. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC).Note:Salvio resigned his clerkship in March.

The question is, was there some community discussion that concluded that checkuser should be allocated in this way? If not, should we be asking Jimbo why this is the case, not asking here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "it seemed like a good idea at the time". I've found the stats (and also that Fluffernutter is an over sighter which explains his agency capture, recently showing up in RFA) There are clearly far too many checkusers going on (4-5000 per month), and probably too many oversights (4-500). Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

WHAT?!? Please tell me that's a typo. If there were twenty people with checkuser ability, they would need to be doing around ten checkusers per day, each, to reach those figures. Considering plenty of arbs are inactive for most of the time, this indicates some of the people with checkuser are doing several dozen per day - every single day! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of checkuser queries per day! There's no way that so many are being watched. And are the results being recorded? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a log, but only checkusers can see it. Rich Farmbrough, 04:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I sure hope thats a typo cause thats a scary number. Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The logs on checkuser use take a query everytime you pull a little more data. As an example, having identified an account suspected of being serial sockmaster A, I pull the account's IP addresses. There are four. I pull edits from those. Seeing suspicious activity on three, I pull the user report for those IP's, which doesn't tell me anything new, it is just easier to read. I find five potential sleepers,so pull their IP's, and if any new IP's come up, pull the edits from those IP's. I may also pull data on a range, to check if hardblocking ti is possible, or would make a mess. This would be bog standard for just one sockpuppet; between 13 and 20 logged checks, all separate log entries. If it was a moderately complicated SPI, running 30 to 50 logged checks wouldn't be difficult or uncommon. I don't know the number of checks ran a month, but 4,000 would hardly imply 4,000 separate trips into the checkuser interface. A good example might be deleting a PROD'ed article with a talk page and a dozen redirects pointing there, all with talk page redirects. Cleaning it up will require 26 logged deletions, but only one actual "decision", the rest are just log clutter to get the job done. Courcelles 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Let's get some facts on the page here, please. First off, the English wikipedia checkuser policy is derived directly from the global checkuser policy, which specifically dictates that Arbcoms are the appointing bodies on projects that have an Arbcom. Secondly, arbitrators are shown on the list of checkusers because the nature of their duties require them to sometimes *see* checkuser data, whether or not they actively do checks themselves; users have the right to know who could potentially access this information. It is rather sad how many cases involve allegations of sockpuppetry; and the vast majority of unblock/unban requests that Arbcom deals with also involve allegations of socking. Some members of the committee also sit on the Audit Subcommittee and thus need access to the tool (they cannot see logs or verify results without access), and the community representatives on the AUSC also have the same level of access. The Committee, as the appointing body, has a fiduciary duty to monitor the use of the tools, and thus the arbitrators who are tasked to that function also need access. And like any tool, it requires experience to develop the necessary skill level to be able to teach the full range of skills to others. You will note in the regularly updated statistics that many arbitrators use these tools very infrequently; others are quite active at the SPI pages and the results of their work are publicly available. A few others work closely with the global checkusers, assisting in tracking down cross-wiki vandals and sockpuppeters (part of the reason for the high number of checks carried out).

  The same principles apply to oversight. Of note, Fluffernutter was appointed as an oversighter before Courcelles was a member of Arbcom.

  Of note, the Committee does recognize that there is a need for more non-arbitrator checkusers and oversighters (particularly oversighters), based on the recent statistical information, and we are preparing to invite self-nominations from community members. Candidates do not need to be administrators — all of the tools needed to operate either the Checkuser tool or the oversight tool are encapsulated within the permission — but must meet the WMF requirements for access, be vetted by Arbcom, and those who pass vetting must participate in a community discussion of their candidacy, prior to appointment. Risker (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Risker, that was a very good explanation and I personally feel much better about it now that I understand it better. Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm asking more questions. Having any arbs on the subcommittee is a bad idea. Having access is not the same as using the tool.

You say "Fluffernutter was appointed as an oversighter before Courcelles was a member of Arbcom." what has that got to do with anything? Have we stumbled on something else we should be told?

I went to SPI to look at the level of traffic, and found Jclemens doing some very strange things with respect to Mathsci - and invoking Arb privilege. I'm not sure there is any such privilege,

The best practice guidelines that have been written seem to be a secret document.

I find I made an enquiry in September of last year about the accountability of checkusers and oversighters - there has been some reporting of the results of complaints since, but there is still no real accountability. I don't count accountability to people ArbCom themselves appoint.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

If you think I've done anything improper in MathSci's recent SPI, you're welcome to request the Audit Subcommittee look into it, and I will be recused in that proceeding and removed from the deliberations... for all of about 5 minutes, which is all it will take to review the checkuser logs, which will show that I haven't ever run a Checkuser on Mathsci. What you may be referring to is that MathSci was recently admonished for battlefield conduct, and what Mathsci did on that page was revert an edit (by a sockpuppet, ironically) which argued rather convincingly that Mathsci had been keeping an alternate account, obfuscating links while still arguing that he met the definition of disclosure, and was using it to store evidence in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC and relevant R&I remedies. Since he was recently admonished for WP:BATTLEFIELD conduct in the R&I case review, the SPI is relevant in sanctions which may be forthcoming from the committee for this abuse of multiple accounts. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to see how any of that would help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What I see is Mathsci being abused by a serial sock of a banned user. I am not suggesting abuse of check user here, what I am suggesting is that Mathsci is well within community consensus to revert the sock of a banned user, and that it is not BATTLEFIELD behaviour. On the contrary supporting the sock of the banned user, which you seem to be doing, is surprising behaviour for an admin let alone an Arb. Moreover you are being very combative with other editors on that page. Rich Farmbrough, 05:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Why should Jclemens run a checkuser on a legitimate declared account? The community banned user Echigo mole had in any case not requested a checkuser through his sockpuppet Jello carotids. Jclemens put a checkuser block on the SPI case which multiple administrators later declared to be invalid since no checkuser had been requested. Jclemens also fully protected two pages on a declared alternative account. Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request and the SPI case was closed with no action. Several administrators remarked that Jclemens' actions were an inapproriate use of authority. He has also been trouted for enabling a serial wikihounder and sockpuppeteer, now community banned. In future hopefully Jclemens will think twice about extending more good faith to editors site-banned by the arbitration committee or banned by the community than to established editors in good standing. Jclemens should accept his trouting honourably like a gentleman instead of continuing to make unsupported allegations. They fly in the face of what other experienced administrators have already said in two different SPIs requested by two different socks of Echigo mole (the first by Southend sofa). Perhaps Jclemens is upset that the proxy-editing of his former wiki-friends has now resulted in new sanctions. The only way I knew how to show that proxy-editing occurred was by meticulously gathering diffs in userspace prior to repeatedly reviewing them (something only possible on wikipedia), selecting them and composing terse linking prose. Trusted arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad and Casliber were informed at a a very early stage that I was preparing such evidence, which was not easy and very time-consuming. At no stage did I suggest any bans or topic bans, in fact quite the contrary, I suggested that all the original topic bans be lifted. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(od) Another fact to get straight is that Salvio is no longer a clerk. He resigned as a clerk when he was appointed to the Audit Subcommitee, and was given the advanced permissions in order to carry out his duties as an Audit Subcomittee member. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Rich, have you really only just noticed that all the Arbs have the OS/CU bits? Arbitrators are elected on the understanding that they have access to the oversight and checkuser tools - that's why they have to identify to the WMF. It was a massive issue two years ago when Giano ran, because he said he would not identify, and there was an enormous debate about it. We are required to meet the same privacy standards as other CUs when using the tool, and only have access to Wikipedia data. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your capacity for stating the obvious has not dimmed. I wonder if you can see why this is a bad thing? Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC).
  

I'm afraid I absolutely cannot see why this is a bad thing. As I said, Arbitrators are elected on the understanding that they will have access to these tools, in line with the Foundation's privacy policy. You seem to be arguing like you're surprised that the librarians have access to the stack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to librarians having access to the stacks. However librarians have been some of the biggest book-thieves on record. I would strongly object to librarians not having to check books out to borrow them. Moreover I would object to librarians conducting secret book-burning parties to protect teh rest of us from offensive content (though this too has happened). Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Just because that is how something has "always" been done, or it is how someone else does it, does not mean it is a good thing. For example search warrents need judicial oversight, though the police have argued for chief constables to be allowed to authorise them. This is like a judge signing a search warrant, going into someone's house, then burning the warrant afterwards. Fine for Judge Dee but not for a modern accountable organization. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

• Almost-un-related comment Looking back here, it seems I've been playing with CU/OS data for about a month, graphing it, looking for trends, blah blah blah. Anyhoo, here's the raw data in CSV format for anybody that wants it. CU stats in CSV format and OS stats in CSV format This is all the data for everybody going back to 2009, gathered from WP:AUSC/STATS history. Cheers. 64.40.54.186 (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Rich Farmbrough, 09:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

The "5000 checks per month" is a bit misleading. For example, were I to check an account, it would show up as at least two checks in the log, possibly many more than that. For example, were I to do a thorough check of myself, it would show up as 13 checks in the log. Even then, it's sometimes necessary to re-check something you've already checked, adding even more checks into the log. So, to state it generally, the number of checks in the log is much larger than the actual number of accounts being checked. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaratam/Archive alone probably generated over 100 checks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes Elen 6 people have explained that. Though why a thorough check of yourself would show 13 checks you might care to explain. The point is we have no idea how the power is being used. Is it 80% SPI, 20% global checks? 20% SPI 80% "just thought I should check that" checks? Who is working with Global, who is working solely on SPI? Can we spare Arb time to support WMF or should we ask them to fund staff? Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Fluffernutter and Courcelles

What is the relationship between Fluffernutter and Courcelles? Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I believe they are married. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) My bad - thinking of someone else. Hope I haven't caused vast embarrasment by marrying them off. Answer in that case is I don't know to speak of - you'd have to ask one of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Riskier said "Fluffernutter was appointed as an oversighter before Courcelles was a member of Arbcom." That implies that there is some relationship. (And explains Fluffer's strange oppose of Jenks' RfA.) We have had questions asked before about Arbs being in relationships with other editors, I would have thought history would have shown that declaring these up front is the best policy. I can see nothing on their user pages about this.

Fluffernutter, Courcelles what is your relationship with one another? Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Objectionable commentarySlander

Unfortunately untruths about me have already been copied to mirror sites. Can I ask all editors, especially arbitrators to stop making inaccurate statements that reflect badly on me. It is contrary to NPA, CIVIL and BLP, just for starters. Rich Farmbrough, 08:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I won't ask you to post things here, but if you could email links to these mirrors that have you concerned, it may give us an idea of what the problem is. All Arbcom-related pages are supposed to be no-indexed, so it surprises me that they are showing up on mirrors. Risker (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't surprise you. Most mirrors are just after the hits, and they get more by copying more pages, noindex be damned. I'll email them to you, not because I mind posting them here, but I don't want to create links to them. Rich Farmbrough, 09:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Well, having looked at the links that you sent to us, they are exact copies of on-wiki pages. If you have a complaint about violations of key behavioural policies, take them to WP:AN. The reality that you have been sanctioned in an arbitration case is just that, a reality. Both of the links you sent seem to be "real-time" mirrors, and the mention of your name will disappear once your name no longer appears on the on-wiki page. Risker (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have redacted the personal attack in question. Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Jack Merridew

Jack Merridew, who has a long history of sockpuppeting and harassing others, was previously limited by the arbitration committee to editing with one account.

During the last Merridew sockpuppet roundup a few weeks back, Amalthea said that user:Uncontroversial Obscurity was being used in complaince with the arbitration committee, e.g, that he had notified the arbitration committee about its existance and that was the one account he was permitted to use.

Yet recently, he started editing using the account Br'er Rabbit. His user page there claims he has notified the Arbitration Committee about its existence.

So, my questions are:

1. Did he notify the arbitration committee that he was editing as Uncontroversial Obscurity?
2. Did he notify the arbitration committee that he was editing as Br'er Rabbit?
3. If both 1 and 2 are true, did anyone on the committee tell him it was not permitted? If not, why not?
4. If either 1 and 2 are true, why was the community not notified that someone with a long history of harassing others was again being permitted to edit? Raul654 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're probably looking for a more detailed response, but here's a prompt one: 1) Yes, 2) Yes, 3) Not to my knowledge, 4) He was never banned in the first place, to the best of my knowledge. I'll let other arbitrators who followed the case more closely (I don't work in the ban appeals space unless something needs the entire committee's input) comment further. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight -- he decided he was going to ignore the arbitration committee remedy, explicitly emailed you to tell you that he was doing so, and none of you did anything to stop or dissuade him? Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

His actions have, technically, complied with the remedy; he has only edited with a single account at any time, and has informed the Committee prior to changing accounts.

This is not to say that what has taken place is desirable, and we are looking at how we might amend the remedy; but, obviously, we cannot enforce something that we didn't actually impose. Kirill ^[talk] 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

His actions have, technically, complied with the remedy; he has only edited with a single account at any time, and has informed the Committee prior to changing accounts. - the arbitration remedy makes no mention of "at a time". It says one account. period.

If you meant to say 'at a time', you should have specified as much. It also rather defeats the purpose of sanctioning him for sockpuppetry if he's allowed to duck out and re-appear with a new account at will and with no notification from the committee. Which is why nobody in their right mind would think that the text of the remedy would imply it. Raul654 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So if someone edits from account A, then account B, then account A, then account B, then account C, then account A, and then account B, that's just editing from "a single account at any time"? Under the interpretation that a user can switch back and forth between accounts successively, what sort of editing would even be socking, let alone violate the so-called "restriction"? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, he's not banned, Yes, he is allowed to edit from one account at a time. No, that doesn't prevent him from changing account on a weekly basis if he likes, Yes, he informs us when he changed to the Br'er Rabbit account, no he is not editing from the Jack Merridew account, yes it probably is a windup to pipe the name, no there's no need to slap socktags over the Alarbus account, yes he may not edit from it while he's editing as Br'er Rabbit. Anyone got any other questions.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, the plain text reading of the one-account limit not withstanding, it was the original intent of the arbitration committee when writing that remedy that Jack would be permitted to serially sockpuppet? That is to say, he would be permitted to create a new account, notify the arbitration committee about it, abandon it when his misbehavior comes home to roost, and repeat again ad infinitum? Raul654 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, am I the only one who thinks that all of this sounds patently insane? The "remedy" for years of harassment and sockpuppetting is that he's allowed to keep doing it, as long as he does it one-at-a-time? Was he given a lollipop for his troubles too? Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear here Raul. The person behind the Jack Merridew account was banned for serial socking to harrass another user. Eventually,after at least a year out, he was allowed back under strict mentorship for a year, and required to stick to the Jack Merridew account only. He did his time for his behaviour. Please stop trying him again for that offence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) You didn't answer my first question. I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this newfound interpretation a case of retroactive CYA.

(2) I will stop bringing up his past misbehavior when he stops repeating it. His actions over the last few months, such as during the FA RFC, and this morning's intentionally provocative way of letting Gimmetoo know he has returned. I'm sure Sandy Georgia would have a lot more to say on this subject.

(3) Two weeks ago, Gimmetoo opened an ANI discussion two weeks ago about Jack and demonstrated that he has violated the one-account limit numerous times, including using several accounts simultaneously as recently as March of this year (User:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 and User:The Call of the Wild). That is a violation of the arbitration committee remedy, even under your own insane interpretation. Was the committee notified about the existance of those accounts? Was anything done about them?

(4) The creation of his newest account happened two days after Gimmetoo's ANI discussion was closed because nobody knew if Jack had resumed editing. That is fishy in-and-of itself.

(5) Please point me to where the committee repealed the one account limit. If that remedy is not still in effect, then by all means I will end the discussion here. Otherwise, it's full relevant to the current discussion. Raul654 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What is provocative about correcting the spelling of the name, which is the only thing that edit does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me to explain to you why it is provocative for Jack to use his newest sockpuppet to go and edit the talk page of someone he spent years harassing? And no less to edit a comment explaining to Gimmetoo that he had returned? Ok, here goes: Gimmetoo probably doesn't want much to do with Jack. Jack seeking him out is provactive. It's a stick-in-the-eye to Gimmetoo, who just two weeks ago was asking for him to be community banned. I'd like a response to my above points, please. Raul654 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that noise; Gimme was harassing me. One of the most unfit admins on the project (and I'm looking at you, too). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't follow all the wikidrama going on and has no idea what evil you did that got you into trouble in the first place: Is there any particular reason you had to create this account and abandon the other one (which apparently was perfectly valid)? Just curious. --Conti|✉ 21:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course; AC knows. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am also new to this case and not familiar with it prior to a couple weeks ago. I am willing to let the past be the past provided the user will quite the repeated account hopping (get it rabbit and hopping, sorry couldn't resist). It sounds like there was some discussion between the user and Arbcom in confidence and I am willing to let that be but please for heavens sake Br'er Rabbit stay to one account for a while. Given the past it doesn't look good and isn't helping your case. Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, would you be willing to stick to your current account for now? Assuming there's no new, important reason to create a new one, that is (and I cannot come up with any right now, admittedly). --Conti|✉ 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya'll shouldn't feed the drama-monger; this has been on arbcom-l for long time. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the drama on either side. In fact, as I said, I barely know about it. It just seems like a sensible request to a sensible user to ask him to stick to one user name, regardless of who he is. So that's why I'm making this request to you. :) --Conti|✉ 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is a point to this thread, it is so thinly veiled I can't see it. What I can see is an editor intent on outing a returning user; and other conduct unbecoming. The section header alone is in poor taste, and by no measure, a naive apparition. What a piss poor way to welcome someone back. My76Strat (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's rather hard to out someone who makes it a point to out himself. The section header is there because it is the name by which he is best known, which is particularly important in a case like this where he goes through accounts like used tissues. The reason this thread was started is because, while he does do some good editing, he's never really stopped the harassment for which he was originally sanctioned. He just changes targets. And welcoming him back is one thing I have no intention of doing, ever. Raul654 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to poke at you and from that perspective my comment above was excessive, and harsh. I apologize for that. I have formed an opinion that you are more strict than I feel necessary, but you do seem consistent to that end; and it's not the worst of things! Thank you for extending comments to my regards; in calm; calming fashion. My76Strat (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if I fix the crappy FA Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima? It's got 10 {{citation needed}} on it and, uh, needs work... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone watching who doesn't know what's going on, a short while ago Jack made another series of procavative edits to featured articles I have written - articles he'd never previously edited - to "fix" a bunch of non-mistakes like HTML ndashes and whatnot. This goes to what I was saying elsewhere in this thread about him never really stopping the harassment, just changing targets. (And, in the process, Jack managed to bury a factually mistaken edit to the intro that would have otherwise been caught on my or someone else's watchlist. That's sort-of like running over grandma with your car and then getting out and offering to help carry her groceries) Raul654 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Raul I don't mean to seem like a jerk here but is all this fussing really necessary for what seems to amount to minor edits. I don't know the history and really don't need to but it seems that you are just upset that he was meddling in articles you were working on. Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya think Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Operation Downfall would pass WP:FAR? I don't. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I definately think they need some work but I don't know that the problems couldn't be fixed if it went through FAR. Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the section header were a naive apparition, what would it contain? How does one distinguish naive apparitions from wise ones? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Teh point of this thread iz battleground. Alarbus 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A better question, of course, is if Alarbus (talk · contribs) was also used appropriately. Was it? Hipocrite (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup; did lots of useful work. Kewl user page, too (try the extra scrollbar). And Don't Feed Teh Raul. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I can attest to that. He fixed a lot of referencing mistakes, that would affect reader experience, in my FAs, and taught me a system to avoid them so I don't make them anymore. Even when he was between Alarbus and Br'er Rabbit, he was feeding me revised versions of my articles with cleaned up references. All of which I appropriately credited him for in edit summaries, of course, you can check my contributions. (note: there is nothing improper in doing that).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, he has been a lot of help on several of my featured articles, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Demiurge1000 - I missed your comment at first. Thanks for asking that I clarify my comment. I say it is not a naive apparition because it was appended by a user of abundant clue; to know better. How one would distinguish reflects upon their own clue; of which I have in small measure; yet sufficient. My76Strat (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Two new requests for comment regarding the Arbitration Committee

I've started two new requests for comment regarding the Arbitration Committee:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Effect of arbitration processes on editor retention

The intent of these requests is to solicit community feedback regarding potential improvements to the arbitration process. Input from anyone with an interest in arbitration or the Committee's work would be very appreciated! Kirill ^[talk] 20:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)