User talk:Elen of the Roads

I wonder if anyone got your reference....

You're the second person I know of who's read the Lensman series. MSJapan (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Orangemike is another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And the answer is

907 mainspace edits. Nobody Ent 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your post made me curious, so I went and looked myself up. I seem to have 7954 mainspace edits. I had no idea I had made that many. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks for quick Oversighting. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox dispute

You once mediated a similar infobox dispute. Can you be objective at Stephen H. Wendover as to whether the infobox is a distraction to the reader, or is helpful to the reader? Both arguments are valid and really more an issue of aesthetics, so a third opinion ... well, a fourth in this case, would be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

• Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end

• News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?

• Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks

• Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads

• Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mail call

I've dropped you a line. Worm^TT(talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

More MMA Socks

Just to let you know some more MMA SPA's have shown up, for example Nurple is the New Purple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Noahco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) along with Jfgsloeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for which there is an open WP:ANI here. Mtking ^(edits) 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Got 'em all three, and Noahco's kid brother User:Blio sucks. Nurple and Jfgsloeditor are BStudent0 socks, Noahco is editing on proxies now blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nest of 'em?? Us socks come in drawers, not "nests"! Jester of the court (NE sock) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will suggest at the ANI that the 3 pages he created should be WP:G5'ed in line with WP:DENY, I can't believe any of the other !voters will object. Mtking ^(edits) 23:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Male call

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nobody Ent 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

You showed interest in the discussion at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover the other day. As an admin, could you look at this again? Mr. Norton is currently starting an edit war over the infobox, claiming consensus, although the discussion on the talk page IMO shows that there is none. Kraxler (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

First track off The Poison

Hello! I've noticed that the name of the first song off the album The Poison is wrong. The real name is "Intro", not "Intro ... My Lifestyle". I tried to change it, but there are two users who do not stop reverting my edits without consulting. So I've been involved in an edit war. An unregistered user changed back the name several times and he added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes, BBC and even a picture of the album.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

This is so frustrating! I have that CD in my house (I bought it a few years ago because I was a big fan of Bullet For My Valentine) and I can read clearly that the name of the song is just "Intro". So I want to ask you to end this discussion. Thank you. Cristian MH (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No point telling me - I'm not going to edit the article. I'm just trying to stop you getting blocked for edit warring, because no-one seems to agree with you at the moment, which puts you in the wrong Wikipolicy-wise. If you can't get them to communicate on the talkpage, try going to WP:DRN for more eyes on the question. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked from editing The Poison?

I already agreed to stop editing the track names, and even added more reviews to the reception section since the disbute ended. I have talked with the user on his and my talk page, and I haven't edited anything regarding the tracks since I told them I would stop. I wasn't even warned about an edit war, and I only reverted twice meaning I in no way violated the 3RR. I am requesting that you unblock me from editing The Poison as I did not violate any rules. TJD2 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you. I have locked the article so no-one can edit it (see WP:PROTECT), because it kept changing every few hours, and that's no good for our readers. Decide amongst yourselves what is going to go in the article - if necessary go to WP:DRN to get some of the dispute resolution people to help you work it out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; I figured after I posted this that it might be just locked, but wasn't sure as I don't ever log off Wikipedia. As I said, I'm done with the track name argument, and have been for a while. I agree with you about the constant updates. Thank you for addressing my concern.TJD2 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. You should have no difficulties editing anywhere else, my locking the article does not reflect upon yourself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Urgent intervention on WP:ANI

Dear "Elen of the Roads"

[8]

I can't take this user's abuse anymore. If well intentioned editors can get harassed like this, I don't want to continue at Wikipedia. RobertRosen (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been some further developments. Which are on WP:ANI. I'm seeing if the user and I can call a truce and ignore/avoid each other in future. RobertRosen (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

He's a "reformed" socker who continued to indulge in uncivil disruptive editing with other editors (including an admin) even after being unblocked. In the past 5 months the only 2 articles he has worked on are those in which I reverted controversial BLP or poorly sourced/copyrighted material. Can you advise me on how to proceed because I want all this to stop. RobertRosen (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

RFAR

Could you explain more specifically why you struck out your vote?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I went back to the basic principles, and came up with a line of reasoning that looks like this:-

The following policies/customs/practice apply here

• If two or more editors are going at it hammer and tongs in a legit content dispute and will not stop, they can all be ibanned or tbanned to damp it down
• If two or more editors spend their time following each other around the project sniping, they can be ibanned
• If one editor follows another editor around persistently, for a long time, sniping, that is disruptive
• If editors are editing in a disruptive manner in an area, they can be sanctioned with tbans, blocks and bans
• If editors are trolling, they shoud be blocked
• If someone is being trolled by socks, the socks should be blocked
• If someone supports the trolling from the sock, they should be blocked

Let's leave out the two sockmasters for the moment. Focus on the editors who have legitimate accounts.

IIf the users with legitimate accounts were doing nothing wrong, they shouldn't have been ibanned.

If Mathsci is equally bad in how he interacts with the legitimate accounts, a normal (two way) iban would have been the right remedy

If Mathsci was behaving well but the other editors included in the iban were engaged in following Mathsci around sniping, the other editors should have been blocked or tbanned for being disruptive.

If the other editors were trolling, they should have been blocked for trolling.

If they were supporting the trolling socks, they should have been blocked for that.

At the end of the day, a one way interaction ban would appear to be the wrong remedy, but I don't have enough processed data to decide what the right remedy is, so I struck my vote. It seems to me that the issue of trolling socks, and the issue of the behaviour of the legitimate editors, is getting conflated, but the remedies proposed are not dealing with that. What should have happened if Arbcom was not going to support the original AE sanction was an examination of the behaviour of all parties against the checklist above, to determine where all the behaviours fall. Since everything on Wikipedia becomes stale so quickly, I don't know if there is still the opportunity to do this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My initial statement included evidence of the inciting incident for the AE case that led to this sanction. I had not interacted with Mathsci for weeks when he suddenly accused me of tag-teaming and meatpuppetry without any evidence on an unrelated AE case. There is nothing in my reaction that I think was inappropriate. All I can really say is that I probably should have just ignored the comment about me so as to not allow any room for hostility, one-sided though it may have been, but I can't say for certain that it would have changed anything.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Things on Wikipedia become stale quickly, but is there any reason to assume that has happened here? In his comments in his user talk and on the request page, SilkTork mentions that if Arbcomm were to examine the questions you asked, what it needs to examine would date back at least to 2009. Having waited a few weeks shouldn't matter when examining an issue spanning three years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.108.63.44 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

78.108.63.44 is a tor node. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

While we are on these historical matters, perhaps you could clear up something that has been puzzling us for some time. Mathsci is insistant that banned User:Echigo mole is identical with User:A.K.Nole, the link being a group of Vodafone addresses. He cites you as the source of this information. I believe he is referring to the incident in December 2010 when Mathsci got User:Mikemikev coomunity banned for disruption at AN/I [9] and then decided later that he was wrong? Anyway, perhaps you could comment on some related issues. (1) Should Mathsci be disclosing this sort of information at all? (2) Are you satisfied that you are being correctly quoted? (3) Has ArcComm indeed determined that A.K.Nole is indeed Echigo Mole? (4) Are you and ArbComm satisfied that the other users accused by Mathsci, such as User:Quotient group, User:Junior Wrangler and User:Penny Birch are equally guilty? If so, why has none of them also been banned? If not, then why is Mathsci permitted to make these frequently repeated allegations? I do hope you can clarify matters. Koi No Yokan (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr Nole (I presume it is you, and not just one of your party). I'm afraid I was just the messenger back then - it was User:Shell Kinney who as I recall actually handled the Checkuser stuff when I joined. However, I am interested in your side of the story. Do you feel you were hard done by, and why did you decide to respond by starting this sock party, which is surely a drain on your time and energy? What do you hope to achieve by it? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen, since you state that you didn't have enough data, why didn't you guys advocate opening a full case after striking your vote? In fact, after Silk Tork did some investigating on his own, you had more data than you had when you first voted. If you needed more, then wouldn't further investigation have been appropriate? Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Largely because there was a bit of a convo going on between a couple of us over what was the best thing to do, and various other folks were hopping up and down like this, and on Wikipedia anything over 24 hours old is stale in some people's eyes (they should try working for the Revenue - six years isn't long enough to write off a debt). In the end, it's all been archived...until the next time, which I'm sure won't be long in coming. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, since I don't feel that being one-way interaction banned just for having an argument in an AE thread is very justified, I guess you can expect an amendment motion soon. And, as obsessive as the editor at the center of all this is, I think you can expect more from that quarter, without my involvement. You guys really should have ended it now, instead of tabling it for later. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal your ban, then arbitrators have already indicated that WP:AE is the place to do that. Here's the template: Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. The remarks you are making about the "other editor at the center of all this" are not permissible until you make that appeal and your sanctions are lifted. The editor that started off the whole chain of problems was Zeromus1. I alerted Amalthea as checkuser in private on 9 September. Only in November did it become evident who was operating the account. Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

sigh * sips whiskey * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cla68 (talk • contribs)

Ah yes the next time ...[10][11] Mathsci (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty template

One more thing; users at the Call of Duty article keep reverting my work claiming they "don't need sources". They state the game Call of Duty: World at War is a part of the Call of Duty: Black Ops series, when in actuality although it is in the same universe, it is not in the same series. I've looked into this as well, and no sources support this claim. Nor have I ever heard COD1,2 and 3 reffered to as the "Original Trilogy". The way I see it without a source, these claims of WaW being in the Black Ops series are inaccurate. TJD2 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nobody Ent 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Another one

Think there is a new one ..... 65 Edits Per Hour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mtking ^(edits) 18:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You got it...:) This guy is getting to be a pain in the posterior. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mtking ^(edits) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Block expungement policy

I don't yet know when or if I will get to it, but I wanted you to know I added a comment of yours to my To-do list. In short, I'd like to see a procedure enabled to expunge a block from a block list, where the parties agree that the original block was in error. While some cases, such as your example, are clear-cut, the boundaries are tricky, so I'm not ready to propose until I'm ready to spend some time on it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the tricky thing. Where do you draw the line beyond the situation where the admin immediately says 'oh dear, wrong dude' or equivalent. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Would this review any blocks made back in the "old days" (say, 2006) that were questionable? I have one of those, a "I blocked myself" block, and a "Oops, my bad" block, plus associated annotation. --Rschen7754 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be for the community to decide. My alternate account User:Elen on the Roads was blocked because someone thought it was an impersonator, which amuses me no end, but it does seem unfair generally that a block that all sides agree was totally based on some mistake, cannot be properly deleted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's technically enabled - I tried blocking my bot and testing it, but of course the consensus isn't here to use it. --Rschen7754 23:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought all you can do is revdel it, and that still leaves a record in the block log. I did't think you can oversight it....???? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only revdel. I don't have OS, so I can't comment on if it can be done that way. --Rschen7754 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It should leave a struck through line, so anyone can see that this editor was blocked, but not the reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I did my test a while ago, so I remember it did something, but didn't remember exactly what. :) --Rschen7754 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually may be wrong. I forget - I have oversight, so I can always see where an edit has been revision deleted

[12] - it shows that a block happened at a specific time but everything else is blocked out, at least for me. If I look at the revision specifically, I can see everything as an admin. (Don't worry, I'll undo this :) ) --Rschen7754 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, there isn't a problem with testing (I've got a load of revdels of move logs, testing something for someone last week). Do you think it's worse to see a block with no reason? Or a block with a reason followed by an apologetic unblock. I wonder if you can oversight the block log. Half a mo.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you see now - I've oversighted it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's completely gone. There's one block and 2 unblocks. --Rschen7754 00:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay. So if there was a policy, an admin could ask an oversighter to oversight his snafu. And if there was a different policy, some community decision making process could ask an oversighter to remove a bad block (an error of judgement, not a complete foul up). Could you check your own admin log, to see if it has disappeared from there as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The block has, but the revdel is still visible (though I suppose it could be OS'ed as well). However, clicking on the associated link results in "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Oversighters, afttest-hide." --Rschen7754 00:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Peanut gallery notes You'd wanna disappear the unblock, too. (Us peons can count) NE Ent 00:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

FTR, I don't want it completely disappeared. I would like it if there were some record, somewhere, that includes all the blocks, even the inadvertent ones, to help make sure the system isn't gamed. But make it so that the block log easily viewable would contain only those that were in the oopsie category. I don't even want to remove those where many admins would say they wouldn't block in those circumstances, and the original blocking admin agrees it was a little overzealous. Leave that one there. I want to remove only those like the "Oops I thought it was an impersonator, don't I feel foolish", or "oh yeah, that comment was directed at you, not by you". Some of this is personal. I have a clean block log, plan to keep it that way, and would be royally pissed if someone accidentally blocked me. If I'm skating near the edge, and someone blocks me, even if many wouldn't that's on me. But if someone misreads a diff, or clicks the wrong button, I'd sure like it if that could be removed from the main block log, and I'd be happy that it remains in the longer record. I want to be able to say "I have a clean block log". I don't want to have to say, well, when you look at my block log, here's what you need to know..."--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course there should be a method to remove a mistaken block from the main log (although I agree there should be a publicy viewable audit trail somewhere). Another point is that sometimes a misguided admin blocks a user, then unblocks them a few hours later when an ANI discussion shows they were mistaken. The problem is that I have seen a couple of cases where the unblock was dripping with a "you got away with it this time" attitude in the unblock edit summary, when the summary should have said "community consensus is that the block was totally wrong, sorry". Any new scheme needs a way for another admin to annotate the record with the correct summary, however, firm guidelines would be needed to reduce the amount of wasted time in considering "review my block log" requests from the usual suspects. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

To my mind in the second instance, you would want an audit trail of the admin's bad block and subsequent conduct (in case he made a habit of it). Another admin could revdel the unblock summary, but without a technical change they wouldn't be able to amend it. You could do a hack by reblocking and unblocking with a better summary, then having the original block and the reblock oversighted, but I don't think that's at all a good solution.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• As the first part of the process, I'd like to suggest a change to the Oversight policy to allow suppression of a block/unblock entry in the block log where the following conditions are met:

1. The block resulted from a factual error(admin has blocked the wrong user) not from an error of judgement on the part of the admin (admin intended to block the user, but block is not supported by policy/consensus).
2. The admin who made the block is the one requesting suppression
3. The user has already been unblocked and advised that suppression will be requested

Technically, Arbcom isn't supposed to make policy (before anyone makes that point), but I'm just proposing this as an admin who has made a screw up. I think it would be preferable to separate this out from developing a policy on errors of judgement, as this is much more clear cut and should be less contentious. Thoughts anyone? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So I assume this would include admin blocking self. --Rschen7754 20:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that would definitely be excluded Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

All block log entries should be expunged automatically by the software 6 months after the unblock, if the person isn't reblocked in that interval. There is entirely too much drama and long term conflict from people getting pissy about block logs. Giano was a mostly-sane editor until he melted down over a block, similarly Mbz1, Malleus, etc. If someone does something bad enough that it needs to be remembered longer than 6 months, then people will remember it, there will be discussion threads to point at, etc. What we have now is a moronic combination of kindergarten and Orwell: "this is going on your permanent record!!!" The book Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age (ISBN 0691150362) looks very interesting. We do not need to memorialize all this stuff, just because we have enough computers to each be our own little FBI Records Division. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI response

I wroting the response your complaint on ANI. --B767-500 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

and another ?

what about Keep UFC Articles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? Mtking ^(edits) 19:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

.....and another one gone, and another one gone...another one bites the dust! (although Black Kite was the one that got him) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

You might take notice of my discussion at User talk:Courcelles. I appreciate your open-minded and thoughtful consideration during what was/is obviously an uncomfortable situation. Of course, the decision is still entirely within the domain of ArbCom, but I felt the information may be of use to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

• News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate

• Featured content: The table has turned

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly

• WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with upset editor

Hi Elen of the Roads. I am involved in an AFD discussion here that has gone strange. User:Qworty has struck my text and accused me of being the blocked paid editor Morning277. I see from the investigation here that you have recently been involved, so I was hoping you could assist. I'm a new editor and have made less than 20 edits to discussions. I've never edited an article. I'm happy to turn over my account for a user investigation. Can you please help? BeyondKneesReach (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Qworty to file a request for a check in the appropriate place, as that is the correct operating procedure. Making allegations in the middle of a deletion discussion is not the way to go. However, if you are a new editor, I'm a duck, so would you care to advise me as to any previous editing you have done. You can do so privately by email if you prefer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that several editors have commented about several aspects of Qworty's conduct and editing practices and they seem very resistent. Many can be seen be reading through the users talk page and checking out the contribs. It might be time for an intervention. 138.162.0.46 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'm happy to discuss here. I've been a member since Sep. 25 but I made my first real edit on Nov. 9, although I did make one small edit to an article from my IP address before I created an account. That was probably a year ago and I assume it will show in the check user. My primary interest is in policy, so I've done quite a bit of reading in the Wikipedia space but haven't made any contributions in that regard. Out of boredom I have spent several hours watching discussions on the Wikipedia IRC help channel. That's my full Wiki bio BeyondKneesReach (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Qworty#John_Bassette_Notability_tag seems to go against WP:NPA. My interest in Qworty started with User_talk:Qworty#Suzon_Fuks where in his zeal to combat COI he assumed that a drama student somewhat incompetently editing an article about a drama specialist (for a coursework assignment) was a WP:SPA showing WP:COI and added an incorrect and confusing banner without any prior enquiry or discussion, in an apparent lack of WP:AGF and in contravention of the guidelines at Wikipedia:COI#Noticeboards_and_templates ("First approach...", "If you are sure..."). PamD 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC) amended 18:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to encourage you...

to run for ArbCom again. It's a thankless task, and I'm certain it's a terrible timesink, but I'd feel better if you were running. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll be honest, I had been very much in two minds about running anyway - I have been very brassed off by certain events. Then, it looks like "civility woo-woo" is going to form a key issue for this election, and while I have no concern about anyone asking my position (see User:Elen of the Roads/On editing in a collaborative project where I've been working up thoughts I initially expressed at my RfA), I have a real concern about how the debate might be conducted. It is (in my opinion, I'm sure all politicians everywhere would disagree) low politics to pick on individuals to highlight the issues of the day, creating victims or bogeymen usually without the consent of the individuals concerned. Certain parties have indicated that they intend to ask why did you not sanction User:this user for this statement or that phrase relating to certain contentious discussions on sanctions from the recent past. This has the potential to turn into a rerun of the original request to sanction, which is simply not fair to any third party being picked on for the next War of Jennifer's Ear when he never wanted to be Joe the Plumber in the first place.

• I appreciate that this is a bit of a convoluted statement, probably makes no sense to anyone else, and I'm probably worrying about nothing. The community by and large has good sense and would probably see through this kind of behaviour if anyone was to try it. And the other community issue - the role and structure of Arbcom itself - is an excellent topic for discussion, ranging from replace it with a couple of WMF staffers to triple the size and create "lower courts". --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• It makes sense to one who hangs out in the unsavory gutters of Wikipedia. If you're willing to continue to serve, that'd be great; reading User:AGK/ACE2012, it's certainly understandable if you choose not to. As regards to any "why did (didn't) you..." questions, I'd suggest approximately Because based on the information available to me it was in the best interests of Wikipedia. I explained my reasoning to the best of my ability at the time of closing; further discussion at this point is simply not fair to to the parties involved in the case. Make template, subst as required... Sure, you might lose some of the ArbCom-make-policy-by-fiat crowd, but I'm confident (hopeful?) the grown-up vote will prevail. NE Ent 13:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I had not seen that essay before, Elen. I'm glad you linked it. It is good to see we share many common ideas. I had already decided to support if you were to make another run, but those words help solidify my support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please run again. You do this difficult job very well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• +1 I agree with all those above. I was going to try and write something profound to encourage you - but then I found out most of what I would have said is already said better, here. Begoon ^talk 04:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not vote for you when you were elected. I would like the opportunity to remedy that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I never thought of it, but I suppose if I had, I would probably not have expected you to vote for me, as you had expressed concerns at my RfA. I'm pleased you don't think I've made a complete hash of it - it often feels as an Arb as if one is reduced to picking the least worst option. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC) (inserted italics - realised that sentence could be read two ways Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC))

• I don't suppose you know me from Adam, but I came here to say that I voted for you in 2010 and hope to have the opportunity to do so again. I may not agree with you all the time, but I see yours as a consistent voice of reason and I believe you care deeply about the project. Fwiw. Rivertorch (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I notice you have yet to add your name to the pile, so I assume you are mulling it over. No one could blame you, it is generally a thankless job. While I sometimes grump at the Committee (a favorite pass-time of many Wikipedians), and freely admit I should grump a bit less, the committee is better because of you. I guess you have to ask if you are better because of it. Whatever you decide, thanks for what you have done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Voice of reason. I hope you will consider running again. (olive (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#Elen_of_the_Roads

• • Good to hear. Hope it didn't take too many pints to talk yourself into another two years of bludgeoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I was looking to see the denouement of the Kraxler ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but it is gone, I do not see it in the archives either. Can you find it for me? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Using the search feature, it should be one of these: [13] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#User_Kraxler_using_abusive_language_and_deleting_talk_page_information NE Ent 15:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

I wanted to thank you for your comment to Qworty regarding the level of hostility in his/her interactions with me. You are quite right; there have been no real conflicts between me and other editors in the past 2-3 years. This recent attack on over 30 articles I've created and/or edited has been quite a shock, and I've bit my lip and tried not to react in kind. Whole reference sections and properly-constructed bibliographies have been deleted as "unsourced", then the articles have been nominated for deletion as "non-notable". I welcome any attention you can give to the issue (understanding that your comment did not mean you were taking sides or anything).Rosencomet (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen, could you perhaps have a look at the recent history of Association for Consciousness Exploration? I've acted boldly. PamD 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

While the notability of the subject is a little marginal, that merge discussion was closed five years ago at the time Rosencomet's editing was being examined by Arbcom. Popping up now and announcing that the consensus is to merge is just plain disruptive. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for looking into this matter, and for your actions. I would ask you to look at Starwood Festivals Qworty edits as well. I would also like to point out that Qworty's Starwood crusade, as another editor called it, has affected over thirty articles. Three have already been deleted as non-notable; at least ten more have been nominated. In several cases it has included wholesale deletion of entire reference sections and bibliographies as "unsourced", and other IMO questionable practices. There have been many tags for non-notability on prominent authors such as Patricia Monaghan and Raymond Buckland, and musicians/bands like Amampondo and Badi Assad. The COI tags are also problematic; they all seem to be assumptions that an appearance at the Starwood Festival, even twenty or thirty years ago, means I should not be allowed to edit the article, although the arbcom decided no such thing. Also, some of the articles are of people that have NEVER appeared there, like Badi Assad and Prem Das. This has every indication, IMO, of an attack by someone I have locked horns with in the past editing under a new name. You'll find a list on my talk page.Rosencomet (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered if he had a previous incarnation. Not a problem obviously, as long as the other account is retired and not blocked. Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of spam - but there isn't a problem if an article started a bit spammy, and got improved over time. And tagging Monaghan and Buckland for non-notability is just nonsense. I've been thinking his edits warrant a closer look. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Further check shows the account was created in 2007 under this username, so maybe you've had a run-in with him before. I've restored Raymond Buckland and am adding references - Google Books is a great source in this area. Should you have a copy of any of the varied "encyclopaedias of witchcraft" I believe they will be evidence of Buckland's status within the community. I'll see if I can track down some publishers stats as well. A lot of the others you list I know almost nothing about. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your efforts. As to his/her identity, there are a few possibilities, some of them blocked. I was never convinced, for instance, that we tracked down all of Mattisse's sockpuppets[14]. (She was the one who caused much of my problem in 2006, first demanding citations of non-controversial material, then accusing me of link-farming when I supplied them.)

I guess the ones actually nominated for deletion are the most critical. Of those, Donald Michael Kraig, Phyllis Curott, Baba Raul Canizares, Anodea Judith, Kenny Klein and the South African band Amampondo are probably the most ridiculous to call non-notable. A look at the pre-Qworty versions will demonstrate that easily. Which is not to say that the sourcing doesn't merit more work, just to be fair.Rosencomet (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone would have noticed if he was Mattisse, believe me. And he seems to have taken my advice and moved on to bringing some old articles up to snuff. Only Donald Michael Kraig and Kenny Klein are actually up for deletion - I've never heard of either, but it won't hurt to look for sources. I'll finish Buckland over the weekend - I'm surprised it was in such a poor state, there are a lot of sources about Buckland and Gardner particularly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; some have had their deletion nominations removed. Here is an updated list of articles Qworty has nominated for deletion that still have the tag. Of course, you might not agree that none of these should be so tagged; frankly, I have already said as much about Brushwood. I don't intend to sway you, just to ask you to review their pre-Qworty versions and see what you think. Thanks again.:

Louis Martinie, David Jay Brown, Luisah Teish, Patricia Monaghan, M. Macha Nightmare, Trance Mission, Matthew Abelson, Kenny Klein, Brushwood Folklore Center, Donald Michael Kraig, LaSara FireFox and Ian Corrigan.

OK. I've taken a look at them all. There's nothing to stop you contributing in the AfDs by the way, particularly if you have any more sources, and from replacing deleted content if you have a reliable source. From the top of the list

• Patricia Monaghan AfD is heading for keep, meets WP:AUTHOR
• Raymond Buckland not at AfD and I am working on it
• Amampondo snow kept at AfD (I think Qworty is unfamiliar with the world music scene, to be fair)
• Badi Assad I have removed the tags - you removed the suspect coi editing (someone kept replacing the article with the content of her website) and there are reviews in world music publications
• Prem Das I have removed COI tag but left the notability tag, as I think notability is not well evidenced and another couple of sources supporting notability wouldn't hurt
• Donald Michael Kraig I have opined on the AfD that I think he meets WP:CREATIVE based on the Raven Grimassi reference in the Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft
• Phyllis Curott Removed four tags, article could do with more content but subject has demonstrated notability from the outset
• Baba Raul Canizares I have removed the COI tag but left the notability tag as there is not much in the article. You can help by finding some sources that demonstrate notability. If you find a source, you can restore some of the deleted content, otherwise someone else may nominate him at AfD (in fact, somebody has)
• Anodea Judith I have removed the refimprove tag as the small amount of content is cited. Subject is definitely notable. The long list of references seems excessive for the two lines of content, so I presume it sources some removed content. If you want to add back any removed content, include an inline citation.
• Kenny Klein Is he better known for his music? I can find very little that suggests the wider world has noticed him
• Louis Martinie AfD is debating either creating an article for the book he co-authored or redirecting to the article on Sallie Ann Glassman
• David Jay Brown at AfD. Doesn't look as if anyone can find evidence of notability
• Luisah Teish at Afd, should be kept. You should opine there
• M. Macha Nightmare At AfD. If I were closing (which I'm definitely not) I would keep
• Trance Mission At AfD and likely to be deleted. Another editor has decided to improve it, and seems to have made things rather worse
• Matthew Abelson no comments at AfD. Really doubt this chap is notable in Wikipedia definition
• Brushwood Folklore Center you've already said yourself that notability is pretty marginal
• LaSara FireFox At Afd - Steve with his Highbeam account has turned up that she was interviewed by the Chicago-Sun-Times in 2005 and her column in New Witch magazine got a mention in the Washington Post in 2003. I have opined that the CST article should take her over the bar.
• Ian Corrigan At AfD - doesn't look like this guy is notable in Wikipedia terms

The David Jay Brown article has been deleted. I thought it ended a bit early since the "vote" (I know it isn't really) was tied, and the editor who closed it referred to Brown as part of the "Crackpot Fringe". Hopefully someone without my perceived COI will recreate it one day. Oh well.

In the meantime, there are a few of Qworty's deletion nominations that really should, IMO, be closed: Trance Mission, M. Macha Nightmare, Kenny Klein, LaSara FireFox and Luisah Teish have overwhelmingly "Keep" comments. Could you or someone else please consider closing these? Thank you.Rosencomet (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI - M. Macha Nightmare, LaSara FireFox and Luisah Teish have already closed. The decision on each was Keep. Trance Mission (which was extended) and Kenny Klein are still open. Rosencomet (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0

Given the latest MtPrincess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is there a range block that might help out ? Mtking ^(edits) 20:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

one other question any link between this and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Temporary for Bonaparte Mtking ^(edits) 20:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

CUs who knew A Nobody better than I say they do not believe either Temporary for Bonaparte or BStudent0 is him. I've been blocking IPs sequentially - at this rate I could end up blocking every campus in Ohio. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Followup

Did you get to this [15]? NE Ent 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Haven't had time yet. If someone else wants to pick it up, feel free. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. You get to when you get to it. Ents famously prefer not to be hasty. Was mostly checking to make sure nothing was stuck in a spam filter somewhere. NE Ent 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bull-Doser

I promised to not post again on his talk page and I won't. But these two edits [16][17] are concerning. I don't think he understands the message you posted two weeks ago that he cannot edit while he's blocked. Or maybe he thought he could legitimately edit with his old User:Take Me Higher account.

Contrary to what some people may think, I don't necessarily want Bull-Doser to stay blocked for eternity. It would be great to see Bull-Doser becoming a positive contributor someday. I think he has the potential to bring a lot to Wikipedia if only he would listen to others for a change instead of living in his world. But edits such as these two recent ones coupled with his lack of interaction with others makes me think that he's not ready yet to be back. Farine (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've been following this one since day one, and I tend to agree that there appears to be an incapacity to comprehend. It isn't about willingness, it is about ability. Sutble, but real. I had declined an earlier request for different reasons, but the exchanges all over the talk page speak for themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• The Take Me Higher account is blocked so he can't use it. He just seems very clueless, and so far he's not particularly listening to some of the explanations. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Just because. StAnselm (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly :) And virtual brownies contain no sugar! Its all good. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay!

I was worried it wasn't going to happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There was some concern here also. This will be an "interesting" election, with certain tactical considerations to voting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've hit something of a timing snag. I wasn't intending to run, and because of that arranged to go on holiday for four days from tomorrow (hubby and I are going to Edinburgh for a late birthday treat). I then allowed myself to be talked into running (you know who you are, damn you!) at a point where outside activities have eaten up my time (if I say I'm heading up a project that involves building work and a deadline and a health and safety course with a written exam....). So I'm not going to get all the questions - most of the questions even - answered. Just have to see how that goes; lacking the ability to clone myself, there's not much else I can do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me; I don't have any questions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as Otter told Flounder in Animal House 'You fucked up .... you trusted us.' I suggest posting a note on your candidate page saying you'll be offline on {{ engvar | default=holiday | en-us=vacation }} during the question period. NE Ent 13:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get done and post that note this evening. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the tree shaping case is nothing personal; I didn't even realize that it was the case you drafted. --Rschen7754 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

• News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in

• WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles

• Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal"

• Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect

• Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy Yourself

Just wanted to take a moment to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving!Rosencomet (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of statement

This is to notify you that you have been named in a statement issued by the arbitrators not running for re-election, regarding the recent leaks from arbcom-l. If you have comments regarding the statement, please post them to the Arbitration Committee's Noticeboard talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen, who did you leak the private emails to? Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, are you the butler in the Vatileaks scandal? :) Jeff Kilmar 08:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. But seriously, I haven't been forwarding emails anonymously to anyone. The actual words (now I believe on JClemens userpage) were not what made me mad, it was the intent to carry out what appeared to me to be an attack on another editor as part of his election campaign. I discussed his stated approach in depth with someone in a private chat, then I put the note you will see above on my talkpage a week ago. The worrying thing is that someone else is allegedly sending emails to people (or Coren at least). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please resign

Elen, please resign from the Arbcom and your adminship, effectively immediately. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use your main account, my brave fellow. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

Hej IP! Your statement is in violation of my copyright, which was asserted 2 years ago! Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, you should know! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elen!

Please just take it easy for a day. I trust that you had good reasons. My guess is that you wanted to warn the possible victims of leaks, having learned from previous leaking scandals the damages that can occur.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you resign over what is essentially fallout from the worst behaviour by an arbitrator I have ever seen, attempting to deflect attention from his own indefensible statements and actions, then I'll retire. Difference is - lots of people would miss you, and your enormous contribution. Begoon ^talk 13:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not resign, and let the community decide on your continued service. Some of the candidates scare me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• All this talk of resigning is premature and serves no purpose. Elen has earned enough trust over the years that it would be best to reserve judgement until the facts are out. Like most dramah at Wikipedia, the reality of the situation is likely quite different than the rhetoric that is flying around. Everyone would do themselves a favor by stepping back and just taking a deep breath for a day or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per Wehwalt. You know you're doing something right when certain people oppose you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm at work at the moment. Give me till this evening to post a statement - the Arb statement (which I only saw an hour or so ago) isn't the full tale. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I must disagree with Dennis in respect of the "trust" Elen has gained. She went on record flatly denying that arbcom held a secret page on me - brusquely dismissing my claims out of hand. A few days later a fellow arbitrator emailed me to confirm the page did indeed exist. Oops. Naturally I won't be voting for Elen at the fortcoming election. However - neither am I calling for her resignation over this issue (and certainly not her admin tools, which would seem unrelated). So as someone who honestly thinks ARBCOM would be far better off without Elen of The Roads, but as someone who thinks Elen should certainly be an admin I have to disagree with the IP's knee-jerk request. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Struck latter half. More stuff falls out and SandyGeorgia has made some fine points. I note the motion below. Good. If Elen thinks she should remain an admin is up to her, I guess. If she thinks she should remain a contributor to Wikipedia is also up to her as well. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pedro, there never was a seekrit Arbcom page. The Arbitrator who contacted you was the only one who had any idea what you were talking about, which wasn't a seekrit Arbcom page at all. Still, why spoil a good story. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I have an email with a subject line of "The Secret Page - it exists" it rather looks like you're wrong. I'll not go further. Evidently disclosing private e-mails is your expertise not mine. Pedro :  Chat 

Not saying the page didn't exist. Just that it was something only one person remembered the existence of, not a page where Arbcom were actively plotting to throw you off the project, which was what you thought at the time. Which was a bit confusing, since no-one was fortunately. But you know that - you've got that email which explains it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC) That sounds snarky, and Pedro really was genuinely worried at the time that he was the subject of some Arbcom campaign to get rid of him, because of this page filed away somewhere that should have been deleted ages before it eventually was.

• With respect to Pedro (as I'm sure he knows, real respect, not fake respect), I think we'd be better off with you (Elen) remaining on ArbCom for 2013-15. Per Wehwalt above, there are candidates that I find worrying. You might not be better off, but I'm a selfish bastard so I don't care. WRT to everything else, I agree with a comment you've made in your statement below: the one thing that concerns me is your lack of transparency when ArbCom asked what happened. That was a mistake, but assuming you're human, you get to make those occasionally, and it doesn't rise to the level of negating the good work you do, and the benefit of having you on AC. It's a hallmark of dysfunctional organizations that they react to small mistakes with firings, so I'm not sure what the future holds, but if you choose to continue to run, I'm still supporting your candidacy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest Floq, the mistake was dragging some poor third party into it at all. I should have just posted on my talkpage to start with and not involved anyone else. But I needed someone to talk to, and then I was trying to avoid shit getting thrown at him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to imagine what I would have done in your position. It seems pretty... "lonely", I guess I'll say... maybe "insular" is a better word... not to be able to bounce ideas about non-private information off of someone unless they're already on the AC. If this was someone's private information, of course, you can't go sharing that, and having to deal with that kind of thing alone is, I guess, why you Arbs make the big money. But discussing, with a non-arb, the content of the JClemens email I see posted on his talk page doesn't seem wrong; I might have done the same thing if it troubled me. Much of the reaction I've seen so far seems draconian.

I guess I can think of several things that might improve the situation in the future. But since they don't involve putting JClemens' head or your head on pikes, or overthrowing ArbCom, or assigning blame, I don't imagine people are interested in hearing them right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends - I might be interested if it involves getting hammered.--v/r - TP 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No heads on spikes? Then I'm not interested either. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Might have been better to discuss it with another arbitrator, or a former arb who is still on the mailing list (unless they got rid of that). Is it established that your confidant/e spilled the email? Anyway I see an error of judgment on Elen's part, but not a fatal one based on what's known so far. Even the CIA director can't keep email private, so the rest of us have no hope. I'm comfortable with Elen staying on arbcom, just be more careful next time. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

They got rid of the having old arbs stay subscribed forever thing. It would have been better to discuss it with another Arb. That was poor judgement. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

[18]. Courcelles 20:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

View from this bridge

Can I first of all confirm that I have at no time ever disclosed any of the sensitive personal information that has been sent to the arbcom mailing list. The mailing list software distributes email sent to the list (it's not webmail). When I cease to be an arbitrator, I will dump that part of my email archive. There is no requirement for ex-arbs to do this, but any UK organisation that permitted ex-employees to retain sensitive personal data after they left would suffer legal consequences, so I believe it is the correct thing to do.

Second, can I confirm that I am not the person sending anonymous emails. If I particularly wanted Coren to see that piece of text, I would just have sent it to him. I don't know who is behind that.

What JClemens had said about what he would do when he ran for Arbcom was said as part of a rambling conversation between a number of committee members, which got round to Hobbes Leviathan at one point. It moved on to civility, and views from the recent case were rehashed. Following this, JClemens sent the email on his talkpage, indicating that he was going to ask candidates whether a particular statement by Malleus Fatuorum should have resulted in a ban and, if not, why not. As has been alluded to elsewhere, several Arbs indicated that it was not appropriate to send it to the list, it belonged off list.

What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat. I was worried that Malleus would react to the question with one of his anglo saxon epithets, and another request for a ban would ensue. People were asking me if I would stand again, I did not want to get involved in this, but I did not know what to do for the best. Yes, I was angry and used some unparliamentary language. And yes, I did reproduce the words as part of the discussion. To say 'at the upcoming election I am going to stand on this platform and ask this question'- it simply did not seem to me to be something that had been said under the seal of the confessional (an absolute guarantee of non-disclosure).

Eventually I concluded that I was over-reacting, and the community would reach it's own verdict, so I just put the note you can see higher up this talkpage.

The next thing I knew, people were apparently getting anonymous emails with the text on JClemens talkpage. Where I do consider I made a substantial error of judgement is not at that point reporting back to Arbcom immediately everything I had said. This was because the person I had confided in assured me they were not sending random emails (and I have no reason to think they were) and I did not want them to be subjected to the hassle they were eventually subjected to.

So that's what happened.

I understand the view of those who say that everything ever said on that list must be under the seal of the confessional. My view is that ultimately a closed list creates an 'us and them' mindset because you can't discuss things with anyone else, and there's no requirement for propriety. I've seen it on a lot of forums, and would prefer to see much better confidentiality for personal data, and less exclusivity in discussion. That said, this was not an attempt to dismantle the list.

I also understand the view of those who don't think it was the sin that cannot be forgiven, but still think it was a huge error of judgement and I'm a complete incompetent.

I also understand the view of those who don't think there is a huge problem, but wouldn't trust me

I refute wild speculation about how I'm going to go mad and publish loads of personal data.

I'll accept whatever happens next. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you kindly clarify what you mean by "What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat.", did this involve the release of email or snippets of emails, including the email Jclemens sent and that was later received by Coren and NW? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also got a quick question: You shared the content of JClemens' mail in private with someone, and then right after that someone else sent the content of that mail around anonymously to various user, but that someone else was neither you nor the person you shared the content of the mail with? --Conti|✉ 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Snowolf, Conti. Going to answer you both. Sorry, I thought I made it clear it included I think probably all of what's on JC's talkpage, plus the wording of the question he said he was going to ask. Incidentally, under the 'seal of the confessional' rules, just discussing it is as bad an offence as repeating what was actually said. I now know that the person who emailed NW was the person I discussed it with - I didn't discover this until recently. He used his own name and must have anticipated that NW would just refer it back to the committee, which makes me even more convinced he's not behind the anonymous email to Coren. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an honest comment, Elen, although it is vague as Snowolf has pointed out. I'm one of the folks who thinks you made a bad judgement call and you should step down from Arbcom. That said, Elen, I've always had immense respect for you and I still hold you in a high regard. I'm disappointed is all. Good luck.--v/r - TP 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. See note above re vagueness Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I take the completely opposite view, and wish that there were more disclosures about the unsavoury goings on in these secret email lists. Bollocks to the "rules", we need a damn sight more honesty and integrity. But it may be of course that Elen and I have a shared Anglo-Saxon legacy, just that she tones hers down a notch or two. (In the interests of full disclosure it's more likely that my ancestors were Normans, but hey, that was a long time ago now, let's forgive and forget.) Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty certain my English ancestors were of saxon stock, but we'll let bygones be bygones. It is the problem with any closed list, forum (Delphi moderator forums were often terrible for it) or chat room. If noodling, laundry lists and personal attacks are all under the same seal of the confessional, nothing gets challenged, and it can create a hothouse atmosphere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think the leak was a bad judgement call. Whistle-blowers are necessary to the health of any society. I think not taking ownership early was a bad judgement call. The rest of my comment still applies.--v/r - TP 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who sees something bad happening has a duty to speak out, so I'm wondering why the other sitting arbitrators just sat on their hands rather than exposing Jclemens' bully-boy tactics. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We agree.--v/r - TP 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that we do, except for the small matter of Elen stepping down from ArbCom. I hope that she's re-elected with a resounding majority for taking an ethical stand against Jclemens, someone who should never have been elected to ArbCom in the first place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect to Elen, I am not sure how these particular actions can be viewed as ethical. She secretly intimated confidential matters to a group of special friends and then lied to the Committee for weeks. While I am sure her actions in other cases are quite ethical, this situation was handled in one of the worst ways possible. Jeff Kilmar 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What is confidential about an election statement? Just curious. What makes the statemet "at the elections I am going to publically do this" confidential? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I should say that you are handling a difficult situation with poise, and I thank you for responding kindly despite the fact that I was criticizing an action of yours. Now since you ask, I understand the view that all material should be public except that which directly involves personally-identifiable data or the like. However, that is not the policy at this time. You surely are more aware than anyone that arbitrators have an expectation of privacy for all list communication. If you wanted to change that, it doesn't seem quite right to just go ahead - that creates a sense of betrayal. Rather, you might have posted a motion to end secret mailing lists. The fact that you disclosed an email that the writer expected to be confidential seems unethical. It has been the case for years that the permission of the sender has been needed to post emails. Maybe that should change - but just suddenly going ahead with disclosure seems a bit off. But others may not agree. Jeff Kilmar 00:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In short: If you had told the other arbitrators when you were elected that you intended to disclose their emails, that would have been one thing. But you evidently let them think their communications were private, and then went ahead and disclosed them. That seems a bit underhanded somehow. Jeff Kilmar 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, and a very valid one if I may say. I don't believe JC was aware of my views, although the committee remaining from the previous year would have been aware of previously expressed opinions, as it had come up in discussion before. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you were less than forthright with your fellow committee members in promptly revealing exactly to what information had been released; I fear this may make things more difficult for your future work on the Committee. At the end of the day, what is most important to me is the quality of decisions from the Committee, not occasional lapses of judgement from its individual members. It's fairly obvious to me that we are better off with you on the committee than off of it, so I will be voting for you shortly. NE Ent 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, foolish attempt to deflect the committee's attention from the person I had discussed it with (so they wouldn't blame him for the anonymous malarkey), not realising that he had in consternation bundled everything up and in effect sent it back to the committee. The mistake was dragging a third party into it at all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a rather short attention span, and consequently find discussions such as this one difficult to follow without falling asleep. Who is this mysterious third party? Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Confiding in one trusted person, on an issue that is apparently going public anyway, that involves no private data, is something I can't condemn you for. Trying to get my head around this.

If your confidante didn't share the full text of Jclemens's now-public post with anyone, and neither your confidante nor you sent the anonymous Gmails, then someone else with access to the arbcom list did. That was either another arb who coincidentally decided to widely publicise Jclemens's intentions - which is possible but improbable - or more likely another arb who learned that you had disclosed the email to a confidante and decided to make a scandal out of it.

Are you aware of this being discussed anywhere other than here and

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard
• User_talk:Jclemens?

Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this quite consistent with last year's leaking scandal? Who's been on the committee long enough to be implicated in both leaks? Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The only common thread so far is that both involve disclosure of arbcom l posts. This case is targetted at EotR with a very specific and immediate petty political purpose, the former was some kind of grand statement about/assault on arbcom itself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The last leaks were targeted at me, no "grand statement" that I could see. And this current leak also centres on me. Coincidence? Malleus Fatuorum 04:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite likely. I think the target of the anonymous Gmails was Elen not you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask Elen a question. Roger Davies has indicated that there is a sliding greyscale in email communications with arbcom and between arbitrators. That evidently does not apply to sensitive personal data. There is no doubt in my mind that Elen can be completely trusted with that kind of sensitive and confidential data. The matters under discussion here, however, did not involve personal data, but an inappropriate use of arbcom-l as part of an election campaign. I have assumed that prior to the email addressed to Risker published on his talk page, Jclemens had sent a previous shorter email, also concerning ACE2012 and Malleus Fatuorum, to arbcom-l. If so, without mentioning names, had any arbitrators already objected to that previous email as being off-topic or inappropriate for the list before Jclemens sent the second email? Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think Elen had a tough choice here - whether to stick to the letter of the rules and abide by the non-publication of a communication that she thought unethical, or to follow a moral course of action in exposing what looks to me like a malicious and bullying misuse of secret ArbCom communications channels and so putting herself at risk. In the event, it looks to me like she went for morality, and tried sounding out a third party - and that led to the whole thing coming out. While I could not recommend the routine publication of private ArbCom communications (because some really do need to be kept confidential), I support Elen's outing of this latest example of Jclemens' arrogant bully-boy tactics - and Mathsci makes a good point that this was not the kind of confidential information that ArbCom often holds about third parties and which really must be kept secret. I sincerely hope Elen's action does not significantly damage her support in the election, and I can only reiterate my own support. I have already cast my Support vote for Elen and my Oppose vote against Jclemens - and I do confess that in each case I clicked the button harder than I would otherwise have done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Boing! And, yes, the votes are in. I trust you, I always have, and I see no reason to change. In fact, the morality of this tale adds to my sense of trust. But there is someone within ArbCom who is really, really playing politics here. I know who I think it is but in any event the field narrows with each election. Keep well, and keep doing what you do. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Elen, I know we have had our troubles and I was both surprised and sorry to see this chain of events. I think we both know I know all too well how things can spiral downhill from one bad decision. I just wanted to let you know that I think that you are handling it very well and I hope that this doesn't affect your participation in the project. As others I agree that Arbcom had to do something (and I posted a brief comment about that at the Arbcom page) based on the seriousness of the events and I think they acted pretty fairly, even though it may not seem like it. I doubt it will affect your election so in a month you'll have access to all the tools again and things will be back to normal. Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thought you could use one of these!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly could. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just noticed all the crap your getting, maybe a cute kitten will cheer you up, if not you can always eat it. You got my vote BTW, I have always been of the opinion you are one of the better admins around here. Cheers.

Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yum, kitten. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure about leak

Would you be willing or able to post the responses you gave to the Arbs on November 13th and November 25th respectively regarding the leak? I presume these are the dates where you acknowledged revealing details from the mailing list and I think it would be helpful to know what you specifically told the other Arbs regarding your communications with non-Arbs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing that as well. In the meantime, I have posted my thoughts on the matter at my voter guide. --Elonka 18:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

• News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain

• Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons

• Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation

• Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries

• WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A personal view

Elen: I wrote you a note above suggesting that you run again for arbitrator, and I have no regret now for having done so. When this recent brouhaha arose, I considered whether it would be best to vote for you or not in the current election, not because I have any doubt whatsoever about your discretion – which I do not – but simply because I wondered if your re-election might create a new ArbCom that was unable to be effective, given the actions taken by other arbs. In the end, I decided that it was best for the community that you be on the Committee, and that Jclemens not be, and I voted that way. We will see if other Wikipedians see things the way I have or not, but regardless of the outcome of the election, please know that at least one Wikipedian appreciates that you placed the good of the community above all else, and were willing to put yourself on the line. Best of luck to you, in the election and in all else. 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

I wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, whatever happens. At the end of the day, it's only dispute resolution (and the pay is lousy) :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for hiatus

Apologies for absence - had the most humongous migraine and been unable to look at a computer screen for two days.

To answer a few points:-

@Anthonycole - the party I talked to bundled up what I said and passed it to Nuclear Warfare, who promptly forwarded it to Sir Fozzie, who had it by the 13th and was asking about it. According to those who have seen it, what was sent to Coren was slightly different, and I have no idea who sent it. I would not like to speculate that it was another arbitrator, but the request to Coren to verify it by returning it to Arbcom suggests that it was not intended as a tip of but for other reasons.

@Mathsci - Risker and a couple of others had already attempted to shut the discussion down at an earlier stage, as it was in their opinion running completely off the rails. However, another member of the committee argued that there was no precedent for shutting down a discussion as Arbitrators could basically post however they felt led. One problem with this setup, where everything is as sacred as everything else, is that Arbitrators are free to post personal attacks or outrageous statements and there really is not a lot one can do about it.

@TDA and Elonka - it would make about a dozen emails but I will totally put my hands up and say that on the 13th I named the person I had spoken to. I had asked the person I had spoken to, and they said they had not sent any text to anyone, so I tried to protect them by saying (several times) that they did not have any verbatim text, but they did have all the details. This was plumb stupid, and I fully accept all condemnation for being plumb stupid.

I didn't send anything to Arbcom on the 25th. I sent the following message to SilkTork, saying I was going to put it on my talkpage when I got back home (I had no access to a pc at that point), and he forwarded it to Arbcom. I gather Arbcom got the details of what I had discussed with a third party by subjecting him to the "third degree" at some point prior to this.

As I referred to publically above, a couple of weeks ago another member of the committee posted what appeared to me to be an election manifesto to the main arbcom mailing list. As you can see above I disagreed with what he said In fact, I was bloody angry. I viewed it as low politics and was particularly concerned that it would have a very bad impact on a third party who hadn't signed up to be part of it. As such, mentioned it to a couple of people and discussed it in more detail with a friend (ranted at him about it would be nearer to mark, to be honest. I wouldn't score any civility points).

The situation is being compounded because someone else (I have honestly no idea who) is apparently sending the text of what I referred to as the election manifesto to some of the candidates using throwaway email accounts. No idea what the point of that is, it seems very childish to me. If I'd intended to advertise it, I'd have posted it on my talkpage. All it said (in several paragraphs - it was a political speech) is that he was disappointed that the current committee did not back his stance on civility, he wants to see a future Arbcom that backs his concept of civility, he intends to make that his platform, and he feels very strongly that the community supports him on this.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy says that Arbitrators should preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations and the Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. However, Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Communications_and_privacy states that Arbitrators usually seek to treat your communications, including emails, as private when possible. We however cannot guarantee against public disclosure for a number of reasons, including potential security limitations. Accordingly, you should not disclose sensitive personal information in your communications with us. Once received, your communications may be shared with committee members and, in some limited cases, with third parties to assist in resolving issues or other purposes. Your communications may be kept for an undetermined period of time for archival or other reasons. So if you are an individual, you don't actually have a guarantee of privacy.

It is the view of some members of the Committee that everything an Arbitrator ever sends to that email address - bad jokes, gossip, laundry lists - is under the seal of the confessional and can never be repeated or referred to elsewhere. I do accept that some people will feel quite strongly that what is said in confidence should remain in confidence. Some will feel that what I did (talking it over with someone) was entirely beyond the pale and means I can never be trusted again. Personally, I think that far stricter confidentiality than that email list is required where personal data is being handled, but by and large the deliberations of the committee should be in public unless there is a privacy issue. Where this leaves election manifestos, bad jokes, gossip and laundry lists is anyone's guess.

As to why I haven't resigned. Well, some of what I said above is actually important. Arbcom have already acknowledged that their mailing list system is not suitable for sensitive personal information, but continue to use it for that purpose. It sends your personal information to third party email inboxes, over which it has no control. Data can be kept forever by persons who no longer have any affiliation with the organization. There isn't even a requirement to delete your email archive when your term of office ends. There's a reason English local councillors all have official email accounts - so the Council can make sure the archive gets deleted when the councillor's term of office ends.

And did you know that if Arbcom sends you an email, you can't share it with anyone. That's part of what "Sent by a committee member in the performance of their duties" means, and there have been fireworks repeatedly when someone has posted an email that an Arbitrator sent to them.

And a closed list where members can say what they like without fear of consequence because nobody can say anything elsewhere is ultimately corrosive. There is no reason to extend protection to every petty comment, every off the wall statement, every personal attack. Because that's what is being protected. Not sensitive personal data. Not state secrets. For goodness sake, this isn't NATO, it's dispute resolution. Why do we have this institution in the first place, this sooper seekrit list that people are terrified of. Let's get the personal information somewhere other than fired into random mailboxes, and get the discussion out in the open. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"get the discussion out in the open" should have been done a long time ago. There's no need for any secrecy in the proceedings of the Committee in the most situations. But what's bothering me, Elen, is that you came up with this "fresh" idea only now, when you yourself are getting scrutinized for leaking some emails.67.169.11.52 (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It has come up several times before - the committee at one point during the past two years even agreed to set up an open access mailing list, but never did because it was technically impossible with the kit available. At the very start of my tenure I had a blazing row with Risker over this business of emails sent by the committee to a third party being confidential (ie the third party was forbidden from publishing them). Came up in the Rodhullandemu case - the email in question ended up on wiki anyway. PDs always used to be drafted on the arbwiki without any preliminary workshopping - after Monty Hall, I said I'd never do that again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this bit of disclosure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pony!

	Pony!
	Hugs! For your patience and professionalism with the current situation, exhibiting grace under fire, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Awww. I always wanted a pony. No danger of speeding on a pony:) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, those roadsters can go pretty fast! Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Elen of the Roads. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Survivor award

		The Survivor Award
		Escaping extrajudicial execution
		motion declined NE Ent 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)}

I have to admit that at first glance that thing looked like some particularly old-fashioned kind of toilet. At least it isn't the Halifax Gibbet. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion

The arbitration motion regarding you has been archived as not passing. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Moral support

Hi Elen.

It looks to me like somebody used a private list inappropriately (which bothered you), you discussed it with a friend (which is what friends are for), your friend spread it around without your intent or consent (aargh!), and your hobby suddenly became a lot less fun (at least for the present).

If that's what happened, you absolutely have my sympathy and moral support. I also commend your cool-headedness thus far in response to it! --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's about it, although in fairness to the other guy I don't think he intended anything like the drama it caused. A lesson all round, mostly for me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly it's far too easy on WP to cause drama with no intention of doing so ;-)... the hiccups happen when you don't keep that in mind. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If Re-elected...

Hi Elen, I'm still trying to decide whether to support you in the ArbCom election, and wonder if I might ask a couple of questions...

1. If you are re-elected, what action(s) do you plan to take on the issue of inappropriate use of the mailing list by arbitrators?
2. What changes will you advocate for arbitration policy relating to mailing list misuse, confidentiality, and disclosure?
3. In the (admittedly unlikely) event that both you and JClemens are re-elected, how will you go about working together?
4. Suppose another situation occurred in which an arbitrator posted inappropriately to the list on a topic where the community arguably has a right to know. I refer to a post where disclosure would not violate the privacy of any editor and where the comments made are inconsistent with an arbitrator carrying out her or his duties. How would you handle this situation?
5. Relating to your recent actions, I am much more disturbed by your misleading your colleagues when asked about the leak than I am about seeking the counsel of a friend. Voting for an arbitrator involves trusting in his or her judgment and whilst I accept that you would not have disclosed personal confidential information, I am concerned that you were unwilling to be fully open about your actions. Please explain to me why I should vote in support of you continuing to serve on ArbCom.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. EdChem (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I am the editor who posted the questions above; I have removed the IP address from which they were posted. EdChem (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What's much more concerning to me is that you choose to post from an IP address rather than from your registered account. It's difficult to find the right word to describe that sort of behaviour, but cowardice comes close. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you can't find the right word, MF, then I hesitate to try, but maybe gutlessness has the right kind of ring to it? Begoon ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I apologise for my bad faith assumption. I offer no excuse for it. Begoon ^talk 07:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have many words to describe this sort of stupidity, but most of those who object to the honesty and integrity that Elen has displayed wouldn't understand them. If I'd confided in someone I'd believed to be a friend who subsequently decided to stitch me up I'd be more than a little bit peeved. Not that I have any friends of course, so my reply is entirely hypothetical. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if the contributor had signed in, I agree. Perhaps he or she forgot? It has happened to me. In any event, as someone who wholeheartedly supports Elen's bid for reelection, I think the questions are fair ones. Rivertorch (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rivertorch. I appreciate your comments. For the record, I have not logged in to Wikipedia for quite a while, I left at a time I was grieving when I couldn't cope with everything that was upsetting me - which included some of the actions of ArbCom. I have watched Wikipedia from time to time since then, made a few IP edits, and wondered if I would come back and / or whether I'd vote in the ArbCom election. Malleus, I have been angered at your mistreatment by ArbCom and their collective failure to respond appropriately to Jclemens' "not a Wikipedian" behaviour was one of the low points in ArbCom history. Elen's response to Jclemens has actually made my voting (including for her) substantially more likely, and I wanted to ask some questions to help make my decision, so I posted them; I did not stop to consider whether to log in. You are all correct that I should have logged in, which I have now done to claim my questions. It was disrespectful to ask any candidate a question without logging in, and I apologise to Elen for that - Elen, I hope you will accept that my action in posting questions from an IP address was thoughtless rather than deliberately deceptive. Malleus and Begoon, I am not a coward nor am I gutless, I have no problem admitting the questions are mine, I hope you will accept that I was at worst foolish. I agree with Malleus that I would be "more than a little bit peeved" with my friend if I were Elen - which I suppose raises questions about her judgment - but I feel it is not appropriate for me to ask about that; Elen's mistake in this regard was a human one, as she has recognised, and the idea of an ArbCom whose members believe themselves incapable of human error is frightening. ArbCom is already far too reluctant to admit to error, and that is one of its flaws. If this whole incident leads to a greater openness and to a willingness to admit to error then something valuable will have been gained. EdChem (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello EdChem. I fear you caught a whiplash here because both Malleus and myself (and several other editors) have been plagued by trolling in times of trouble from what I can really only describe as anonymous cowards. I hope that time has helped to heal your real life grief, and you can return to this project and find pleasure in editing. I have answered your questions below, to the best of my ability.

If you are re-elected, what action(s) do you plan to take on the issue of inappropriate use of the mailing list by arbitrators?

Shut the damn mailing list down as soon as ever it's possible. It is totally unsuitable as a medium for holding sensitive personal information, as was made clear two years ago when sensitive personal information ended up on Wikipedia Review. There are comments on some technical work done in this area over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Having got the truly confidential into a safer place, the list can carry the other traffic (voting calls, availability etc) without having the burden that the need to preserve everything as confidential carries.

What changes will you advocate for arbitration policy relating to mailing list misuse, confidentiality, and disclosure?

• Firstly, require all outgoing Arbitrators to clear their email archives of any list traffic once unsubscribed from the lists (there are 3) because they no longer have a reason to possess it. One could request that ex-Arbs from past times do likewise if they have not already done so. No means of enforcing it of course, because all the emails go to private inboxes, but one can at least ask.
• Secondly, as said above, separate out the sensitive information. This may need some agreed definitions - existing legal definitions such as the UK data protection act start from the position that the information allows you to identify the person, the same criterion as used in the WMF Privacy statement. However, I would rather think that the community would want a definition starting with information that would identify the editor on Wikipedia, given the amount of traffic from editors who do not wish to be identified with the information they want to provide us with.
• Thirdly, make clear what you can expect to happen to your information. The current policy (WP:ARBPOL) says that everything is confidential and treated as 'appropriate'. However, at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Communications_and_privacy it tells editors that the committee might share your information with whoever it sees fit with or without informing you, and not to send it confidential information anyway, as confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Not helpful
• Rather, any policy should make clear that for example, personally identifying data is covered by the WMF Privacy policy, and a breach of this policy involving any WMF system (eg checkuser tool or this new crm if it comes off) will result in immediate loss of access to any WMF system containing p.i.d. The community will probably want information which identifies you as an editor, and which the committee has decided to accept as part of a private hearing, to be kept confidential with similar protections. On the other hand, allegations that the committee decides should not be dealt with by private hearing should be deleted off the system, not kept forever to haunt an editor who is completely unaware that User:FromMars, with whom she was in a content dispute, wrote to Arbcom saying that she was secretly employed by the FromVenus organisation to edit with multiple sock accounts. This is a basic privacy principle (or should be) - if Arbcom has told the reporting user to go file an SPI and they don't, it should delete it's record within a few months, not keep unsubstantiated allegations hanging around like the proverbial fart in a phonebox.
• As to correspondence between committee members - assuming that confidential information about other people has been got into a safer environment, any mailing list may still contain confidential information about it's members included in conversation (birthdays, family details, phone number, new job or whatever). In fact, the safest thing might be to say the mailing list is only for that kind of stuff. Discussing cases should be in a separate location, arguing with each other or making the kind of statements that led to this in the first place should be onwiki or by personal email.
• At the same time, most of the discussion on cases and motions should not have an expectation of privacy at all. Even if not held onwiki (the genuine difficulty here is that everyone and their dog chimes in and swamps the discussion), there should be an expectation that it can be disclosed upon request.

In the (admittedly unlikely) event that both you and JClemens are re-elected, how will you go about working together?

We would just have to, in the sure and certain knowledge that we completely disagree on several things. The committee can work with differing opinions - although part of the scope of discussion on cases and motions is to find a format which will achieve majority support, it is perfectly clear that it makes its decisions by majority vote, not consensus. I think it would be a mistake to expect it to be like a government with a three line whip.

Suppose another situation occurred in which an arbitrator posted inappropriately to the list on a topic where the community arguably has a right to know. I refer to a post where disclosure would not violate the privacy of any editor and where the comments made are inconsistent with an arbitrator carrying out her or his duties. How would you handle this situation?

I'll be honest, right now I'd probably just shut up about it :) In the future, there should not be a reason to put that kind of post on a list (or on a wiki, which seems to be one solution being discussed as I mentioned above) where most of the traffic consists of or is discussing personal information that should be treated as confidential. If a person did so, and another member of the committee was disturbed by it, they should be free to raise it with the person by personal email or onwiki without anyone yelling 'Leak!' or simply to ask for disclosure (see note above about discussion on cases and motions) It's what is in the information that makes it confidential, not where it was posted.

Relating to your recent actions, I am much more disturbed by your misleading your colleagues when asked about the leak than I am about seeking the counsel of a friend. Voting for an arbitrator involves trusting in his or her judgment and whilst I accept that you would not have disclosed personal confidential information, I am concerned that you were unwilling to be fully open about your actions. Please explain to me why I should vote in support of you continuing to serve on ArbCom.

Indeed, while I have said that I was trying to protect my confidante (who had assured me he had not sent the text of anything to anyone - and who I still think was only trying to do what he thought was best), I would anticipate a lot of voters deciding that my judgement is so completely shot to shit that I'm not fit to be an Arb. All I can say is it was the same motivation that has led many to criticise me for being way too lenient and over emotional. There are people behind these usernames, and a lot of the time they are trying to do what they think is best, it just doesn't work out. Arbcom is not the government. It's not there to make policy, rule on content, or 'guide the project' (which is what I do believe is what JClemens wanted to see - an Arbcom that would guide the project on civility). It is just there as the last stage of dispute resolution, to sort out those wrangles that have spilled over into intractable bad behaviour, deal with the odd private matter (mostly alleged paedophiles and stalkers) and to manage parts of the tool permission process on behalf of the WMF. I think I've done that fairly, and fairly well, and would do it fairly well again. There's a balance in many cases between protecting the editing community, who just want a quiet environment and would often favour a 'block the lot of 'em' policy, and being fair to editors who are not always the mendacious, pov pushing trolls the other side (who are always incivil, lying edit warriors) make them out to be.

In the end, it's up to the voter's conscience, opinion, or whatever one chooses to call it. There are a number of good candidates who would do a good job. I'd say pick the ones who take the job seriously as a means of helping good editors to keep editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful and informative responses. I would like to ask one follow up, if I may. In response to my first question, you advocate closing down the present mailing list as it is unsuited to handling genuinely confidential information - which I think is an excellent idea, but it wasn't the intent of my question. So, suppose the truly confidential material is moved to a secure storage medium. I presume there would still need to be some off-wiki communication channel for arbitrators. How would you like policy to handle the issue of inappropriate use of that channel by arbitrators? EdChem (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC) PS: If you like, I'd be willing to copy and paste my questions and your answers over to your candidate questions page.

Ah right. I would expect at that point that it wouldn't matter so much what they posted, because the expectation would be that anything that isn't personally identifying (schedule, job or family details etc) could be referred to elsewhere or requested for disclosure. Misuse is a problem where someone cannnot be called to any account because of list confidentiality. If something said on the list can be referred to elewhere, it both removes the kind of issue that came up here, and might make members less likely to post things that they are not prepared to say openly.

I think it would be a good idea to transfer it over to the candidate question page, so please go ahead. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		"For bringing such preposterous behavior to light..." I just finished saying my piece on Jimmy Wales' user page and it occurred to me that I was right! Anonymity is only necessary on wiki to protect people physically or financially — it is not meant to provide carte blanche for threats and backstage bullying. In your next term, actively work to end the veil of secrecy around ArbCom deliberations. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)