Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

Original announcement

So one sitting Arb inappropriately leaked information from a private mailing list and another sitting Arb was (apparently) sending inappropriate posts to a private mailing list. And now there's a statement in which neither is stepping down (or even apologizing)? Interesting. I wonder if either Arb has posted on this topic elsewhere.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to extend my thanks to the candidates who reported the mailing list disclosure to sitting arbitrators whom they considered trustworthy, and to the committee for settling on a version of this disclosure that is probably the least bad one possible under the circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I also find this very interesting and I find that the inference that some of it was considered to be an attempt at intimidating other Arbs deeply troubling. Kumioko (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Intimidation? Why, then, was I not censured at the time? All I did was state that the committee's failure to address Malleus Fatuorum's incivility towards committee members was likely to become a campaign issue in these elections. If stating an intention to use an open and public process to discuss differences in approach to handling incivility is intimidation, then I plead guilty as charged! The irony is, the actual issue has been obscured by these leaks. I can handle being wrong, or being outvoted, or being told that my conversation on the mailing list was no longer welcome... but when an intent to bring openness and sunlight into the process is misconstrued as intimidation, then there is something seriously wrong with the conversation. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

After you made that comment, both myself and another list administrator told you in no uncertain terms that the mailing list was not to be used for electioneering of any sort. It may not have been public, but it was a censure nonetheless. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you asserting that you as an individual, or acting with one single other arbitrator, 1) have the authority to censure another arbitrator? 2) That you did so? By all means, you expressed your disapproval, and that ended that line of discussion. To portray such as a censure is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

By definition, and I point you to our article on the subject, a censure is "an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism", so yes, any individual has the authority to censure anyone, and yes, I did. I think you're thinking more along the lines of what a censure means in a legislative body (e.g. US Senator Joseph McCarthy's censure in 1954, the most famous example I can think of). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You expressed disapproval, that's not in question. The committee took no formal action, in large part because I dropped that line of discussion per request. If any individual can censure any other individual, then I... no, that would be silly. You objected, I desisted, and then Elen took it upon herself, by her own admission, to share that email outside the committee. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You implied that nobody took offense to your comment at the time. I was simply correcting you, not saying that something happened that didn't. I'm not going to engage in a wikilawyering battle with you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I used a very specific word correctly, in its proper sense. I neither said nor implied that no one took offense to it: I said the committee took no action against me on the basis of what I wrote, which it did not. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment was a good deal more specific than your paraphrase here. And you were criticised for it within a very short time of your posting.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And, Roger, does any of that excuse the disclosure? Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm --Rschen7754 05:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jon.. I hate to be incredibly banal as to have to result to it, but you know the phrase "Two Wrongs don't make a right?" SirFozzie (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why, pray tell, has Elen not been removed from the committee after her admission, which by the committee's own statement did not happen in full until twelve days after the leaks came to the committee's attention? If my original statement was so egregious, why was nothing done about it at the time, other my being asked--and agreeing to--drop the line of discussion? Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither of you have been removed from the Committee, at least in part because of the policy for removal of arbitrators. It was not written in anticipation of a significant percentage of the Committee being candidates in an Arbcom election when considering the behaviour of two arbitrators who are candidates. The policy requires support from 10 arbitrators in order to remove someone (i.e., 2/3 of ALL arbitrators) and does not take into account inactivity nor permit recusal for any reason in calculating the required 2/3 majority. Risker (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec with below) Your statement makes it sound like I've done something anywhere near in the same ballpark as violating confidentiality, Risker. I know you don't like my position on certain topics and didn't appreciate the original post I made, but to imply that I would be removed from the committee because another arbitrator leaked my email is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You made use of the list to post information that clearly did not belong there. If you had posted the same thing to your userspace, I doubt anyone on the list would have batted an eye. I do not approve of abuse of the mailing list, whether it's breaking confidentiality or deliberately using it inappropriately. Risker (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You think a courtesy notification that I wasn't happy with the outcome of a recent motion, and would likely be using it in public campaigning in the upcoming elections is such an egregious abuse of the mailing list that it's at all reasonable to equate that with an intentional breach of the list's confidentiality? Really, Risker? Really? Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody on the entire committee interpreted the second email as a courtesy notice, certainly not after the first one. Maybe you'd like to have more opinions on that. You still have the option of posting it publicly; it's your email so you can do so. Risker (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is rather curious - the recusal policy says that an arbitrator may recuse only in a "case, or from any aspect of a case"... technically it doesn't include any other motions. That's probably something we should fix at the start of next year... </off-topic> Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Any vote to do so would be a symbolic one at best because it requires an absolute 2/3d's majority to suspend or expel someone from the Committee. Between inactive members, and those who are candidates in the upcoming election (who must recuse due to an inherent conflict of interest), any vote taken would fall short of the 2/3'ds necessary for the vote to pass. Something for the new Committee in the new year to look at (although making changes, even ones to clarify situations like this) requires a lengthy vote under similar terms.(or in short, what Risker said) SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The two-thirds-of-arbitrators bar was deliberately set high to remove the possibility of a small group of people hijacking the process during periods of high absence/inactivity. While the two-thirds majority may be inconvenient in the present instance, it is an important safeguard that the community's electoral decisions are respected. I'd be very reluctant to tamper with it.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest building in one, and only one exception. Nominated candidates for an ongoing election may recuse and lower the super majority needed. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Will either arbitrator be allowed to continue as a functionary should they not win reelection? --Rschen7754 06:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For most of the same reasons as above, such a matter will (if necessary) be heard by the new Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I eagerly await the rest of the PR whitewashing campaign that will explain why this really isn't such a big deal, people shouldn't be hasty and really, everyone should just move along. In the meantime, this popcorn tastes great. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wording

"On polling the arbitrators, Elen..." Mildly confused — what's meant here? Did someone email all arbitrators and ask them questions? Did Elen ask questions of the other arbitrators? Something else that I've not thought of? Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• When the information came to us, we asked folks if they had disclosed any of this information to people outside the list. SirFozzie (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the "polling" basically consisted of sending a "Ok, who leaked info?" email and waiting until everyone responded. We actually did this twice - the first time was on November 13th, when Elen admitted to sending a sentence or so to a non-arb; the second time, on November 19th, everyone denied sending anything. Only yesterday did Elen admit to leaking a full email back on the 13th, but still denied sending the anonymous Gmail message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Wait, so information only seen by 14 (15 including the inactive Arb member) individuals was posted from an anonymous G-Mail account, and the consensus of these individuals upon polling is that no one did it? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The obvious implication is that one or more of the original recipient(s) saw fit to distribute the message anonymously. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • Hersfold: do you mean to imply that Elen did not respond in truth to the polling at any time? --Rschen7754 06:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Some of the statements she has made on the matter are mutually exclusive, yes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(From above) Moe: Here's the thing. The gmail did not have more then very basic information that would allow us to determine who had sent the email, and even the information that we DO is highly speculative at best. We can't "mousetrap" documents like you see in a Tom Clancy novel. Nor can we demand to gmail to tell us all the gmail accounts used by all the arbitrators, or any other such method to determine who sent it. we're not saying no one on the Committee sent it (although the most plausible explanation is just that, due to the circumstances of the issue), we are just saying we cannot DETERMINE if someone on the Committee leaked it. Rschen: The statement has the basic timeline down, as to what we were told and when. SirFozzie (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that you give the email more credit than it's due. The only potentially useful information we got was a timestamp, which is essentially worthless. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the missing arbitrators "opposes" or "hadn't supported at the time the motion passed"? --Rschen7754 06:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

They had not voted at the time it was posted. Due to the unusual circumstances, with the election voting to open shortly, obviously time was a factor in getting a statement up before voting began. SirFozzie (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Rschen7754 06:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification questions

I have a couple questions about this, but I'm unsure of my footing here (since I'm in the AE). Am I (or any of the others) "allowed" to join in the discussion, or is there some etiquette that we should follow (I'm not talking about requirements, just what would be encouraged). (I go and make some food and come back to see this...) - jc37 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't mind answering pertinent, honest questions to the best of our abilities, but please do realize that some information in this situation we cannot give, for reasons that should be obvious to all. If we can't say something, however, we will say that we can't say it. SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

My first question is: you said that you received the text of the email, does that mean you do not know who actually received the email? For if you did, then that person could check the full message details to get info like IP address etc, I presume?

Also, my recollection was, in the past sitting members were sitting members regardless of whether they were running for election (I'm not saying I agree with that past choice, just that that is my recollection), so with that in mind, why are they auto recused this year? was it their personal choice? - jc37 06:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why were there only 11 arbs who signed (support + recused + inactive)? I think this is such an important incident everybody should have an opinion on? Were the others not available, or do they not support, or what?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We were working on this most of the night (UTC). Three of those not voting were asleep when the time came to vote,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In order: First question: While I'd prefer not to get into the technical ins and outs (due to WP:BEANS reasons, I can say that Gmail strips out most of the headers we would use to track such things. We received a full copy of the email from people who had received it, who contacted the Committee with their concerns. We do not know ALL the people who received the email, only the ones who told us (and sent us) the email they received.

Second question: Considering that they (like JClemens and Elen) are candidates in the election, one would conceivably call a conflict of interest on voting on statements that could have a very real effect on their fellow candidates chances for election (and thus, their own). They are still sitting arbitrators, and would still vote as normal on any Committee business that does not touch upon the election, or any other inherent conflicts of interest they may have. This may answer your question as well, Ymblanter. SirFozzie (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but my question was about those who did not vote at all. I perfectly understand why the current candidates opted to recuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, while I was writing this Roger already responded. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c, just for the record) We were under severe time constraints with election voting opening shortly. We had hoped to have a resolution to this issue before now, however, outside influences did not allow that resolution to be made, so the Committee had to get something out and soon. Many of the non-recused arbitrators who have not voted were asleep during the debate and motion discussion. I would think they will vote when they see this. SirFozzie (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

COI, understood. But I wasn't asking "why". I'm asking a process question : )

Did each candidate recuse, or was it just presumed they would recuse, or did the non candidates just declare the candidates recused? I know this is a fine point, and there are other things you are busy with, but I think it's fairly important as it potentially affects recusal policy for arbs, I think. - jc37 07:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sitting arbitrator candidates were excluded entirely from the mailing list on which this was discussed. They didn't recuse as such because, in accordance with our standard operating procedure, they weren't given an opportunity to participate (or even view) the discussion.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

SOP for what, exactly? email leaks? And is this SOP noted anywhere on this wiki? Or is this a "behind-the-scenes policy? and is this a new email list? or one just for during elections? or? - jc37 07:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they're referring to the -b and -c lists referred to on WP:AC. --Rschen7754 07:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For recused arbitrators. The Committee has alternate lists for use when multiple arbitrators are recused on a case. We held this discussion one one of these alternate lists. If say, there was a case where there was multiple recused arbs, we would move the discussion of that case (if any) to an alternate list as well. Basically, the main ArbCom list everyone on the Committee can see, the alternate lists are set up with only the non-recused arbitrators to be able to view, receive email, and post to the list). Or, exactly as Rschen said. SirFozzie (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so one of the already existing ones. Just was curious.

From your comments, it really does sound like the non candidates decided to recuse the others, by fiat, by going to a different list. But maybe I'm misunderstanding. Like I said, this is a process question. And in many years of following things concerning arbcom, this is news to me. I remember reading during the last set of leaks, that at one point, User:Jimbo Wales was asked to be "on his honour" to not read certain emails (and Risker, as mail list admin, threatened to remove his access). And same with recused arbs. But in that case, they voluntarily recused. Part of this also comes to trust, when we the community choose an arbitrator to be on ARBCOM, we are trusting their judgement. And that includes trusting that they will recuse when appropriate. So I'm trying to understand what appears to me to be something new. - jc37 07:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, no one took offense or objected to being removed from the C-list. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(E/c x3) Hi JC: What happened, just to put your mind at ease, is that when we received information in this case that would present a conflict of interest for those involved as candidates in the election (as well as the parties themselves), I asked the list administrators to set up the C-list with the non-candidates. I then told the main arbitration committee list that I had set this up because we had received information that required review by non-candidates. None of the candidates raised any objection. Once the list had been modified properly, the information we received was posted to, and discussed on that list. SirFozzie (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was asking : )

Now back to other parts of this mess (sigh). - jc37 07:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Recipients?

Who were the recipients? Who did Elen leak the private emails to? Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Obviously - since I'm asking questions - not me.) - jc37 07:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect an answer, I'm just trying to make it obvious that there are some out there hiding their involvement in this from the community. They should come forward. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• As full disclosure: I am one of the recipient of the forwarded (gmail) copy of Jclemens's original email on the list. Immediately upon receiving it, I caught an arbitrator not involved in the election (Courcelles) on IRC to inform him immediately of the possible leak from the list. After a brief exchange where we determined that the leak was genuine, I immediately sent him a copy of the email which he has shared with Risker.

  A few days layer, I received a request to forward the full email (including the mostly worthless headers from gmail) to the committee's mailing list. — Coren ^(talk) 07:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hum. Perhaps I should have immediately reread myself when I wrote that statement.  :-) In my defense, it's nearly 3am and I've been working hard fixing a nasty bug in a system scheduled to be put in production in about 5 hours – at this point, I'm running on caffeine fumes. — Coren ^(talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Full disclosure here too, I may have been the editor Elen was referring to when she disclosed "1 or 2 sentences". I was aware that an arbitrator (I expected Jclemens) would be "actively campaigning" against those who did not vote to ban Malleus. I was not passed any full emails from any gmail accounts. Worm^TT(talk) 09:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify matters - I never forwarded anyone an email from off that list. JClemens chose to discuss his election tactics on that list because he was sure it had the 'seal of the confessional' and he could intimidate candidates without them being able to say anything. I discussed JClemens electioneering tactics with a couple of people, one of them in more depth through a private chat, because I did not know what to do for the best. I was very reluctant to accede to any prompting to run again, as I did not want to be part of a circus using another editor as a stick to beat people with. My concern with JClemens approach has been publically posted on my talkpage for a week - if I thought there was any particular reason for people to see the actual words, I'd have posted them too, but as my concern was the effect on the third party caught up in this, I didn't see any relevance. I certainly didn't email Coren anonymously - no idea who did that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I admire your redefinition of "clarify" to apparently mean making accusations about Jclemens' motives while obfuscating your sharing of the email content by hiding it under the technicality that you didn't "forward" the email. Yomangani^talk 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply at pains to point out that I'm not the one sending anonymous emails, nor is it being done on my behalf - I actually posted my concern publicly, which oddly enough, no-one seems to have spotted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You may not have clicked the "Forward" button available in most email clients, but you certainly copied the entire text of an email to a non-arbitrator, which amounts to the same thing. When the Committee was asked, you expressly denied sending the full content of any email. It wasn't until yesterday - when we'd already figured out that you had through other means - that you admitted doing so. (To be clear, we don't have anything to link you or any one else to the anonymous emails, I'm only referring to "I never forwarded anyone an email from off that list"). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I received a copy of the email about two weeks ago (not from Elen) and told SirFozzie about it that same day. NW (Talk) 18:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• I have not received any emails on this subject. (As a formal notice: I recuse from acting in any way on this issue as a clerk due to my conflict of interest as a candidate.) --Guerillero | My Talk 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No Confidence

I am really disappointed to read the "press release" from arbcom regarding Elen leaking confidential email from a private arbcom mailing list. I have no confidence now in her ability to be trustworthy with private information. I would expect that arbitrators would sometimes have acrimonious emails sent amongst themselves as they work on a case, but to leak any of these discussions to persons not authorized to see them is unacceptable. I am deeply disappointed.MONGO 08:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi MONGO!

I would suggest waiting until you know more. It sounds like JClemens wrote something that sounded like a declaration that he would use the deliberations in the election. My guess is that Elen warned other candidates of that declaration. Worm That Turned noted 1-2 sentences reached him.

In the USA, the Presidential challenger begins receiving the national intelligence report every morning, just as the President does---to ensure impartiality, professionalism, and to prevent disasters. Could Elen have been acting, with 2 messages (one of 1-2 sentences and the other of unknown length) just to level the playing field, in a similar fashion? Let's find out! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The comparison with US politics is apt. The leaker(s) should leave arbcom and seek nomination from one of the US political parties. They've demonstrated they have the required "talents." Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer. You'll see I have had a note on my talkpage] for a week now about my particular concern. I haven't forwarded emails to anyone, I discussed the situation in depth with someone in a private chat, then I put the note on my talkpage which would I believe alert anyone reading it. Forwarding anonymous emails would be just ridiculous, this isn't Watergate, there's no national security here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The report provided by the committee states, "She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one"...she meaning Elen. Why were the emails released, to who, and was there any approval from those on the mailing list for you to do this?MONGO 14:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me this is going to turn into "he said vs. she said." --Rschen7754 17:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed

((Folks, I just removed a probably well intentioned "Motion" by an IP address user to "impeach" JClemens and Elen of the Roads. Just a reminder, the only way to remove a sitting arbitrator (other then a voluntary step down, is that two-thirds of the Arbitration Committee (including those inactive and recused) must vote to expel or suspend them, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators. However, both of their terms are expiring, and they are both currently standing for re-election. I would suggest any such efforts be concentrated there, and not in a symbolic method here -- SirFozzie (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)))

This is Wikipedia's own Vatileaks scandal :) Jeff Kilmar 08:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see that SirFozzie is trying to prove the Streisand Effect by removing my motion to remove these two arbs. As a result I can only suggest that an RfC/U be initiated against Elen, Jclemens, and ArbCom. There simply must be a way that the community can remove corrupt arbitrators. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't confuse internal, political squabbling with corruption. Leaking private emails, however, may be a different story. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions

In that statement you say "These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election." Was this not considered inappropriate enough to communicate to the community at the time, or have you been deciding whether to say this since then? If it was not going to be released before the leak then why are you saying this particular sentence now - how has the leak changed the situation? And to Jclemens are you willing to release the e-mail you sent, to the community (hiding anything sensitive if necessary) so voters can make up their own minds on the appropriateness of the e-mail? (may ask this last question on the candidates question page later) Davewild (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The message has been posted at User talk:Jclemens#The original email. Other than formatting, the only thing changed is that I've redacted my given name. Jclemens (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that is the second of the two messages involved. Risker (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Did Jclemens send the emails in question while the committee was deliberating on the civility request for clarification or after it was closed? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• After it was closed. The recent Civility Enforcement motion was enacted on 25 October, the emails were sent in November. Courcelles 09:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see, then, how Jclemens's statements, as much as they are visible, can be read as bullying. It looks like politely giving notice. But obviously I'm not privy to the context or all the facts. This is a very difficult situation for a voter. I largely decide my preferences on my perception of the character of the individual candidates. I'd appreciate it if the sitting committee members would agree to release enough correspondence for electors such as me to make an informed decision. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I note that Jclemens has published the email - that was something I also argued for. The community will now be able to get a better feel for the incident from seeing that. My own view is that as a courtesy MF should have been informed before releasing the email, as he is central to the email, and to Elen's reaction, and I hope that was done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I now have a question. The Committee statement describes Jclemens' messages as "attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election", at least in the opinions of some of the Committee members. I've read what Jclemens posted on his talk page. And obviously, I haven't read anything that has not been made public. I cannot see how the posted text would fit with the passage that I just quoted. It's clearly an attempt to play hardball on an issue that might be disputed in the election, but an attempt to intimidate, or an attempt to prevent candidacies? I would find it very helpful if any Arbitrators who felt that the phrase I quoted reflects their own opinion would explain why they see it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said elsewhere (below?) on this page, the email that was leaked in full - the one now disclosed on Jclemens' talk page - was not the only email on the matter. There were other, more forceful, emails on the subject, which have not been disclosed which will not be disclosed officially without Jclemens' consent (which I don't think he is willing to grant). It is the combination of those emails, not the single one that has been disclosed, that led to that interpretation. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Hersfold. That answers my question, at least insofar as where we stand now. This being the case, I have a piece of advice to the Committee as a whole: get an agreement to release all of it to the community. Everything Jclemens said about it on the list, everything that was context for it, everything that Elen has said about what she did. If there's a reason something has to be withheld or redacted, indicate in general terms why. Absent that, the community will fill in the details with speculation. I'd go so far as to suggest making public the name(s) of any arbitrators who refuse to give consent to release. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"only 11 arbs who signed"

The Committee has been heavily discussing the matter since we became aware of it. First on the full email list, then on a list restricted to those Committee members who were not candidates in the election. I have from the start been strongly in favour of releasing a statement to inform the community, giving as many facts as appropriate to allow an informed decision to be made in the election. There have been several versions of the statement, and it has been difficult to find as neutral a statement as possible which gives the facts without undue weight and also without inappropriately naming individuals. While I would have wanted to tweak this one a little (the "intimidation" interpretation is perhaps undue - though Jclemens's post was intended as a warning to other candidates; and there are other aspects of the post that might have been mentioned) it is a summary of the incident, and a statement needed to be given before voting opened. My last comment to the list before I logged off was: "We need to make a statement of facts, publish it on wiki, and let the community decide if they trust them enough for a second term. I'm now going to bed." My support for a statement was clear (and has been clear from the start). I was unable to vote on the final wording as the voting took place approximately between the hours (for me) of 3am and 5am when I was asleep. I'll take this opportunity to support the statement; and if it's felt needed, I'll sign the noticeboard - though it would be appropriate to show that my support is to the already published statement and that I was not part of the voting process that agreed the final wording. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added your vote, with a diff, in a "Arbitrators subsequently supporting: " line.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks Roger. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Security of communications

I'm concerned that Arbcom is apparently unable to remove someone from their ranks for leaking, because it would appear that there is now nothing to stop Elen (or anyone else disaffected on the committee) from leaking further emails. Is anything being done to preserve the security of past and future emails people send to Arbcom? Does Elen still have access to the mailing lists(s) and their content, which presumably includes private information about many users? Does Arbcom intend to set a precedent by not removing (or not being able to remove) those who leak from its mailing list? That is to say, does the failure to remove Elen today mean that leaking Arbcom emails is something for which there are no effective consequences, either because the committee doesn't want there to be or because they are unable to enact them? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably easier to write a privacy policy that says they care deeply about your privacy, will do just as they please, and you're a fool to expect otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

At the current time, Elen is currently still subscribed to the main mailing list and retains full access to all Committee information, absent the arbcom-en-c alternate list which as stated above she was unsubscribed from as a candidate in the election.

To answer your question regarding precedent, I speak only for myself. I am of the opinion that any leak of any size must be responded to with immediate removal from the Arbitration Committee and revocation of all advanced permissions including sysop. I actually drafted a pair of motions to this effect early yesterday or the night before (I've been getting so many emails of late I can't remember exactly). However, as mentioned above, a vote for explusion from the Committee requires 2/3 support of the whole Committee. Despite the potential flaw in the recusal policy Risker noted, presumably Elen would not be permitted to vote, but that still leaves 13 active arbitrators. (13 / 3) * 2 ≈ 9, so if as few as five arbitrators refuse to support, the motion will fail. We've already polled internally to gauge support for the motion, and a number of arbitrators have stated that they would prefer the community decide on this matter since she's currently running for election anyway. I disagree with this approach for precisely the reasons you mention, however after days of arguing I have been unable to convince my colleages otherwise. I hope that with the apparent outcry against Elen here, some of them will be more willing to consider such a motion, but it appears for now as though my hopes lie with the community at large. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I missed part of your questions: "Is anything being done to preserve the security of past and future emails people send to Arbcom?" Yes, the Arbitration Committee is working with the WMF to seek out a new system for managing internal email, a CRM system that will be used to replace the arbcom-l mailing list. With such a system, in theory, a log should be generated whenever the system is used to send an email to someone outside the system. In addition to that added security, it should help things run a little more smoothly. However, no system we use will be able to prevent the copying and pasting or simple transcription of information, which does seem to be what happened here. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Hersfold. I guess my concern is that as far as I know, there is no community mechanism for removing someone from Arbcom other than simply failing to re-elect them. That means that if Arbcom expects the community to act to remove Elen by not re-electing her, there is no way around her retaining access to private/confidential communications until then. In this case, that would be a month or so, which is bad enough. If this were to have happened at any time other than during an election, the time frame could potentially be up to two years with a giant security hole hanging out on the committee until the next election could remove them. I'm not sure there's any solution here, if it's really true that the committee couldn't agree to remove Elen, but I find this to be a serious (and sort of alarming) hole in current policy, and even if the leak can't be removed this time around, the next arbcom immediately should definitely set about creating an anti-leak policy that would allow it to remove future leakers. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Better would be to clearly define the terms of service for use of the list. NE Ent 16:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Devil's advocate) And if the community decides to re-elect her despite what has happened? You are both assuming she will not be elected. -- KTC (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(after weird ec) That would also be a very good thing, NE. I'm surprised there wasn't already one, too. I wonder if there are other mores we're assuming are part of arb policy that actually aren't. If there are, setting those down officially would be a Very Good Thing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I speak only for myself. I am of the opinion that any leak of any size must be responded to with immediate removal from the Arbitration Committee and revocation of all advanced permissions including sysop. I concur with Hersfold, and endorse the concerns about the security of the maillist-- more so because in her subsequent posts here, EotR doesn't seem to acknowledge the seriousness of what she has done. That we have no means to deal with this by removing her from the Committee immediately is alarming. Will someone please educate me: it is my impression that before multiple RFCs stripped him of any authority wrt ArbCom, Jimbo would have been able to immediately remove EotR as an arb, and we wouldn't find ourselves in this strange position now? Those same RFCs left elections entirely in the hands of a volunteer community, with no one in charge, so that we ended up with (through no one's fault) a delay. I've been beefing for a long time that the various Arb election RFCs left us in a position for issues like this to occur. The Buck Stops Nowhere ... and it is unfair to the other candidates that this will overshadow the elections. But then, an honourable person would step down ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Could we please wait for official statements before passing judgement and demanding resignations.(olive (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

What "officials" and "statements" are you referring to? We already have a statement from ArbCom ... and a response from Elen of the Roads. What other "officials" are empowered to ... anything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy beat me to the expression of confusion about this - the official statement from Arbcom is right there on the noticeboard. What other official statement(s) are asking the community to wait for? I see that Elen has said she'll post a longer statement later today, but I would expect the voted-on Arbcom statement to reflect the "official" realities of the case more than I would expect a personal statement from Elen to do so. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen says she will comment after work. Did I miss her statement? I didn't say 'officials' I said official as in a complete statement regarding the arb's position as stated by the arb herself. I assume we allow process to include an actual full statement by the "accused" before we presume to pass 'judgment'. (olive (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

Ah, I see the confusion. She has already commented enough to make it apparent that not only did she leak, she prevaricated by calling it not a leak because she didn't do it by pressing the "forward" button. There seems to be no question that she is discussing arb matters with other candidates. And we have an arb standing for election who wasn't available to answer candidate questions-- not fair to other candidates, who now asks us to wait until tonight for a longer statement, when the security of the arb email list should be our main concern. It's all enough that it should be dealt with now ... yet we are hamstrung by past RFCs so that there is no means for this to be dealt with expeditiously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Process and fairness indicate we allow for a statement. Security of the arb email list? Sorry, but I don't see that as an issue at this point in time. Do we think Elen is now posting emails as we speak jeopardizing arb security. I don't see that a real possibility. We must maintain a process that treats everyone on Wikipedia with fairness and measured judgement, and which includes allowing Elen, any other arb, and anyone else for that matter in like situations to speak and explain. Rushing this is not, in my mind, measured. And for what its worth elections have been delayed for technical reasons.(olive (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

I agree that the official statement is important, that there aren't AFAIK, official statements in progress,a ad a personal note from Elen carries less weight than the official statement. That said, I would like to see Elen's complete responses, which she believes will outline some relevant information not in the official statement. I also think it is relevant that the shared email is one some arbs do not think belonged on the mailing list. While I wish Elen had taken a different approach to addressing that point, I do not see any need for precipitous actions; I am not concerned about the possibility that Elen may share other items on the private mailing list that were posted appropriately to the list.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're worrying about something that's not happening, olive. There is quite literally no way to rush this. The community has no avenue of action here other than voting against Elen in the election. We couldn't rush to judgment and hang her in a kangaroo court even if we wanted to (and/or had the vote count from the community to do it). The very most any of us not on Arbcom can do, it turns out, is express our disappointment with Elen and/or the committee and hope that one or both of them take action to fix this...which neither of them appear willing to do at the moment, anyway. And as an aside, speaking as someone whose personal information I know the committee has...yeah, I'm concerned about someone who leaks vindictively continuing to leak vindictively (edit: this was an unfair term to use here. While it appears to me that the leaks were vindictive, I don't get to cast Elen's motivation as being what I think it is, just because that's what I think it is A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)) is now that they have nothing to lose. Maybe I'm crazy and I'm the only one who's worrying about this, I don't know, but speaking for myself, I definitely am worried about continuing leaks. 17:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffernutter (talk • contribs)

No, you are not only speaking for yourself, and the "vindictively" part is a concern. The arbs have access to some extremely personal information about a former Wikifriend of mine, and I do not feel comfortable that this info is in the hands of someone who is so casual about leaking. Were it not for the unfortunate consequences of a series of RfCs that gave more and more power to the community without foreseeing unprecedented situations like this or making provisions for them, we might have a means of doing something about this. Instead, we have Randy from Boise making decisions about how we handle our most confidential information. Of course, the community or the arbs or whomever can formulate a policy going forward about how to deal with leakers, but that doesn't solve the period between now and December 31. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am in exactly the same situation, and feel exactly the same way you do, and am also in agreement with any leak of any size must be responded to with immediate removal from the Arbitration Committee and revocation of all advanced permissions including sysop. If the election obstructs this, then I would be happy for the election to be cancelled forthwith. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that thought. I've seen way too many instances where editors were metaphorically hung before they could say anything, and where judgement passed was based on a build up of hearsay which contributed to a potentially false narrative about an editor. This is a collaborative community which means the community including its arbs have as a group the power to create narratives that snowball into perceived truths. If one takes the trouble to dig, what can be found often, is very little, but a community with ability to build stories and influence others until the whole thing rolls out of control. A community as a group has a lot of power which we can with out knowing it use to harm. My own thought on this is that we wait before we go much further in judging. (olive (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

I suspect our only difference on this relates to timing: the period between now and December 31 is of more concern than what happens in the next 12 hours, and we are in the unfortunate position of not having a means to deal with that hole because we stripped Jimbo of any authority over ArbCom and left Randy from Boise in charge via a series of RFCs. We have a statement of the problem endorsed by every single arb who can opine, minus one who is absent, we know there's a problem, we know EotR doesn't see the gravity of the problem, and we are in a position where nothing can be done about a potential security hole through December 31. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops sorry about choppjng you off.(olive (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

I suspect Elen being intelligent and responsible sees very well the seriousness of the situation. I don't think we can assume she would now go on a rampage of releasing confidential information. How she sees her past acton and how it is viewed by the other arbs is another thing entirely. She has to be able to comment on that action and in the meantime her record as an arb in terms of her reasoned approach and maturity would indicate she won't now do something rash and immature. As with anyone here or in life, none of this means I or we agree with any arb all of the time, but we must give people due process and with out clouding the issues ... And again this is just my opinion.(olive (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

Considering ArbCom's statement, the only way forward for Elen is saying that the statement is completely false. --Rschen7754 17:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Like my statements here that also is an opinion, rather than a fact. Let's wait and see.(olive (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

• In reply to Hersfold comments above, I for one would like for the Arbitration to formally vote on a motion rather than simply informally verify that there aren't the numbers to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Full support. I would also support posting a motion to de-CU/OS/admin Elen, considering that the majority required there is lower. --Rschen7754 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see this too. It's possible that the numbers really aren't there, but I think it's incumbent upon Arbcom to make the motion, given that they are our only line of action in this case. Declining to try because it might not pass is denying the community the right to have this matter dealt with at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe the path with the least drama involves us waiting an hour or two for Elen's promised statement. I don't think this slight delay will harm the encyclopedia and there is a reasonable chance it will either shed light on the situation, or end it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Unless her statement involves her resignation effective immediately, there's really nothing that can excuse disclosure of information from a highly confidential mailing list and a cavalier attitude to security by user(s) entrusted with access and safeguarding of incredibly confidential informations. As the Arbitration Committee has already discussed the matter and has approved a motion stating that she indeed did leak some of this stuff with no opposes, there's not much much to discuss anymore. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, given the speed at which Arbcom grinds, I doubt a motion could magically appear right this second anyway, and even if it did, it would certainly continue being !voted on past the point at which Elen gives her statement, so either way her statement would be given consideration. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
        • As I've said above, the statement by ArbCom is condemning enough. Elen would basically have to say that the statement was flat out wrong in order to move forward, and then it's a game of who's telling the truth. I'm more inclined to believe ArbCom than Elen at this point given that she's already not been fully honest about this. --Rschen7754 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

          I think it would be more constructive to wait for her statement before deciding who is lying IF in her (yet undisclosed) statement she claims the arbcom is plain wrong. I still hope she says smth else.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

          • My request isn't about the merits of the case, only the timetable. When there is a chance that a little patience may help us avoid a wheelbarrow load of drama, it is my natural inclination to try a little patience. This is for the sake of the community as a whole, not the individual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Whistleblowing

Tangential to the above discussion - I believe that the committee should look into a whistleblowing amendment to Arbitration policy. Assuming a matter where an arbitrator is acting in a dishonest manner (something that does appear to have happened on the committee in the past), and the committee is unable to handle it with satisfaction - I do believe arbitrators are morally obligated to take this information outside the committee, to reduce corruption within the committee. Worm^TT(talk) 09:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In such a case, Ignore All Rules would certainly apply. However, the provisions on confidentiality - here (#4) and here - are not as black and white as they might appear at first sight. These paragraphs set out what matters are confidential and talk about "appropriate confidence". This, I suppose, provides us with a sliding scale: at one of the scale is limited disclosure by email of not-confidential stuff; at the other, wholescale public posting of sensitive personally identifiable material. Clearly, viewed in this way, unauthorised disclosures at the opposite ends of the scale are in very different leagues and need to be handled differently. That said, unauthorised disclosures of any description do undermine the confidence that arbitrators must necessarily have in each other and thus damage the ability of the committee to operate effectively. For this reason, I think it's a mistake to build in a whistleblowing exemption - which can in any event be spuriously claimed - but instead regard legitimate whistleblowing in exceptional circumstances as mitigation though perhaps not complete exoneration.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response Roger. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Damage the ability of the committee to operate effectively"...and damages the ability of nonmembers to be able to trust anyone that is serving in a position that is supposed to be based on trust. In the past, I have sent a few emails to the committee...how can I now trust that members of the committee haven't shared the contents of my emails with others that aren't supposed to have access?--MONGO 12:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is you can't, which is what this is all about.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, I appreciate your concern. For my part, I work in an environment that has much higher standards about personal data (cannot be disclosed without the permission of the subject, cannot be held forever, has to be held in a secure environment etc) but which expects the decision making processes of governing bodies to be available upon application. That's the standard I have tried to work to. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well...the way I read the statement from the committee, there is some reason to believe that the release of these emails or sections of them was (is) a breech of the privacy covenant. I have no idea if you and Jclemens or others on the committee are in some kind of feud...and it isn't my business. So, who release what, when was it released and to whom?MONGO 14:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Worm That Turned's point is what makes this issue so murky. If there was no question about whether the email was appropriate for the list, then the breach of confidentiality would be indisputably wrong. Some have commented along the lines that the original email could have just been sent to the arbiters via individual email, so why make a big of sending it to the list. Yet had that been done, it would have not received the privacy protection afforded the Arbcom list, and a non-verbatim disclosure of its contents would fall into the massive gray area surrounding ordinary email disclosure. Yet the disclosed email isn't that bad. Hardly an ideal test case for a whistle blower situation. Monty₈₄₅ 15:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The disclosed email is the one that was leaked via the Gmail accounts, but it wasn't the only comment on the issue. As I understand from her statements, Elen also copied sentences from some other emails, which have not been disclosed to my knowledge. In her defense, I believe the quoted portions were things that Jclemens said he was going to ask in public anyway, but the point is the disclosed email isn't the only email that Jclemens sent on the subject, and certainly not the worst of those sent. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So the quoted portions are arguably with implied consent? The original statement [1] seems at odds with the information on this page, particularly the " including the full text of one". She has indicated that she will make a statement later after work [2], which hopefully will shed some light on the latter issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The full email (the one Jclemens has disclosed on his talk page) was not quoted with consent. The undisclosed sentence to which I refer above was arguably quoted with consent since Jclemens seemed to imply that he was going to ask that particular question to the candidates (that is what Elen is claiming, at least), but I did not ever see Jclemens say "you can quote me on this" about any of his posts. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Terms of service

Are there specific terms of service for the use of the arbcom-l mailing list beyond the links (here (#4) and here ) provided by Roger Davies above? (If so, a copy or link to them would be appreciated.) NE Ent 12:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No. It's the problem with the list. Some Arbs regard anything posted to it (bad jokes, laundry lists) as under the seal of the confessional, which automatically prevents any mention of them elsewhere. You'll notice also that the policy says that if an Arbitrator SENDS you anything with their arb hat on, you are not permitted to disclose what it says. I have never agreed with those two positions, but this wasn't a deliberate attempt to undermine them, just a need to talk something through with someone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If Elen's mentioning something that was posted online constitutes "leak," isn't Risker's mention on 19 October of the existence of a specific Jclemens proposal also a leak? (Also, does the User talk:Jclemens 23:37 19 October contribution, which is struck out (revdel'd?), contain additional information from the list, and is it visible to anyone other the the committee?) And, obviously, when the committee comes to consensus and posts findings/remedies et. al. content that was discussed "privately" becomes publicly. So it appears to me that the "private" in arbcom-l is as poorly defined as "civility" in the community. NE Ent 13:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The suppressed edit is a real name. That has been replaced with a user name, otherwise the contents are exactly the same. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's Jclemens' first name -- ya'll do realize it was recently published in a USA newspaper with national circulation in an article about Wikipedia, right?? NE Ent 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It was also used on this very page. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And, err, http://jclemens.org. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on that webpage that definitively links that person to the Jclemens on Wikipedia, even if there are some coincidences when comparing published statements to some of the links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose. I guess the context (he's been using this domain as his e-mail host lately) is missing here. It's the same Jclemens. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Be careful to not run afoul of WP:OUTING. We have enough activity on this page as it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, this page is not a place for bad jokes of the sort you just made. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delayed elections

Feedback for the record? [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it's completely unrelated. Tznkai, who organized the RFC to set up the electoral commission, can confirm that I contacted him late on Wednesday (Nov 21) to ask if anyone had contacted a WMF sysadmin to set up SecurePoll. Turns out the answer was "not yet". I understand he tried to get the ball rolling then, but any further details would have to come from him and from the electoral commissioners. It takes quite a bit of time to set up the SecurePoll (as I recall, it takes about 24 hours for the computers to prepare the list of eligible voters, and that is only one stage), so until a WMF sysadmin with the proper access is assigned and starts working on it, the election will be delayed. Best place to discuss this is on the election coordination page. Happy-melon has done the "non-WMF" side of the work over the course of a few elections, and can undoubtedly answer any technical questions better than anyone here could. Risker (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disappointed

I'm disappointed in all Arbitrators, Elen, and Jclemens. The only three people that I can commend for their actions are WormTT, Coren, and NW. That's all I have to say.--v/r - TP 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)