Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Standard procedure semantics

The implications of:

• All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

are slightly unclear. This provision should instead read:

• All such blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

or something similar to that effect, so as to ensure that a literal interpretation does not necessitate special logging of unrelated or benign blocks.   — C M B J   00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Community consultation: Remit of the Ombudsman Commission

The Ombudsman Commission would like to consult the community on their opinions about the remit of the Commission. Please see this notice. Feel free to cross-post this notice to any appropriate noticeboard. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I demand you all step down

I have made my decision. I hold this so-called committee responsible for the events that transpired that led to my permanent ban. I have waited long enough to let cooler heads prevail. You are ultimately responsible for the actions of the CheckUser, although DeltaQuad certainly shares the blame. I definitely intend on making this precedent, giving everyone else, and I assume there are many, who has been arbitrary banned for no good reason but were unable to make it so obvious as to give you no room for maneuver. I will be doing this for them as much as for myself. I will be their voice.

You should strip DeltaQuad of his CheckUser permissions immediately for, at a minimum, incompetence. I did and still do consider his actions malicious, but even assuming good faith, it is plain incompetence. There are plenty of individuals who can take his place. Out of all the administrative positions, there simply should not be any question about the motives or competence of a CheckUser.

Thereafter, you should step down from your positions on this board, for even letting this outrageous incident happen, and re-run or -apply or whatever it is you did to get this job. I will not necessarily oppose your renewed application, but at least it will give pause for a review of your performance.

YOU, this board, are the biggest threat to Wikimedia Foundation projects I have yet come across. Your incompetence cannot be reverted, unlike the common vandal or troll. Your incompetence cannot be countered or contained, and with the CheckUser it knows no bounds. This whole affair is a stain on this project, and I, we, all of those who are your past or next victims, are here to see the stain removed.

I will not stop. Years from now you will tire of this, but I will still be there, here, wherever, clamoring for your fall. I will not stop. Ban me if you will, but I will see this through. You will step down or I will spend every ounce of skill I have to see you are forced to do so. You will step down or ... I am not even sure yet. If it means having your administrative right revoked, so be it. If it means a letter writing campaign to the Wikimedia Foundation board, so be it. If it means wearing a bright red t-shirt at the WikiMania con or otherwise causing a ruckus, then so be it. I will see this through.

Int21h (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Ryan Vesey 00:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Luck accepted. I'm going to need it. Int21h (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

None given. Ryan Vesey 00:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• So you were mistakenly blocked for a few weeks because of a faulty sockpuppet investigation, the blocking admin apologized, and since then you have been able to edit unhindered. Is that more or less the gist of it? Tarc (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

More or less. The incompetent make many mistakes. But I think your gist misses the point. If it makes anyone feel any better, I am sorry for having to resort to this. Int21h (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a reading of Matthew 7:5 would do you a world of good there, bro. Mistakes happen, this is a project staffed with volunteers. Chalk it up to a "shit happens" moment and move on, your call for mass resignations is without merit, and quite frankly a little juvenile.. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I will definitely take your advise under consideration. Mistakes do indeed happen, and life goes on. Call it what it you will, but I think this demand is appropriate and reasonable. Stepping down from the ArbCom should not be construed as a something that is to be feared. They have failed, albeit maybe only even once, but its enough to let someone else have a go at it. This is not just some WikiProject task force, this is ArbCom. The buck stops here. Int21h (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I did reply about this on my user talk, and figured I didn't need to drag it out here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking honestly here, I do think that anyone who was unaware of the way that TOR could affect CU data, and who made or supported this block anyway, should resign the checkuser tools. You quite simply aren't qualified to use them, and you aren't aware of your limitations. This isn't a statement of wrongdoing, it is a perfectly understandable mistake to someone unversed in this area. But you shouldn't be using CU if you don't understand it, especially if you do not know that you do not understand it. Not giving up CU would show that you do not have the best intentions of the project in mind. Prodego ^talk 02:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything is going to happen, it should happen here somewhere else, and should examine the events leading to the block and leading to the unblock. Wherever it occurs, it should not happen here. There is no way to have a productive discussion in a section entitled "I demand you all step down". Ryan Vesey 02:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ryan, you just contradicted yourself, so I can't understand you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed my error. Sorry for the confusion. Personally, I'm in agreement with Fluffernutter below. Ryan Vesey 02:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that multiple CUs signed off on the original block, Prodego, I think you have rather inflated expectations of CU perfection. As Tarc says, mistakes happen and are fixed, speedily and apologetically. Suggesting anyone who makes a mistake immediately resign for having made it would run us out of CUs (and arbs, and admins, and editors, if it follows down the line) rather quickly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Prodego, I'm not an idiot, I know what Tor is and that it affects CU. What I and 3 other CUs didn't know is how much the data is spoofed to hide from us. Specifically the useragents. When it came to that and a longterm sock looking to be exactly the same user over multiple tor IPs, thats how you got me issuing the block. It's not like I went out on a hunt alone, I asked people to check my work. If I'm at fault for that, so be it, but i'm not going to resign for a mistake that I made and apologized for sincerely, nonetheless in the presence of asking all of ArbCom to resign. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone on the arbitration committee should step down because one person made a mistake with checkuser? A person who has since apologized? Antandrus (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because we know that DeltaQuad is not going to step down, nor are they going to in any way remedy the situation so that it doesn't happen again, that much is clear to me. This happended months ago, yet they see nothing wrong. No audit, even though they have known about this situation since day 1. If they didn't, as I emailed most arbcom lists, they should have. All I got was a "not my problem so sorry" reply. What [censored]. If they don't see anything to be corrected, then they must be corrected. Its that simple: do your job or step down. That and all the forgoing reasons I have given above, including those in my replies. Int21h (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Letting off steam can be good, so perhaps the OP will get some small benefit from this thread. However, it is important to acknowledge that the WMF has provided minimal support to assist with their lofty goal of "anyone can edit". There are lots of tools, and MediaWiki is good, but fundamentally we rely on the judgment of a handful of hard working individuals to prevent chaos. The remarks above suggesting people should resign are incredibly destructive—if there is any evidence to support starting an investigation, that evidence should be presented and considered. After replies have been given and considered, people might like to offer opinions on what should happen. However, it would also be destructive to publicly explore the limitations of CU, so I suggest that people privately consider whether there is a pattern showing a problem that needs to be addressed before raising the stakes. Anyone demanding that no CU action ever be taken unless there is a 100% guarantee of the diagnosis does not understand the limitations of the system. We either accept occasional problems or declare the place open to trolls and POV merchants (and that problem is bad enough now). Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, its not as if I will necessarily oppose their re-election. But what you said could just have easily applied to all the others that will be Arbiters in their stead. And since there is no time limit on their term, its not as if I can just wait for their term to expire and take this to the "voters".

And no, the evidence should have been provided before it even came to this, not after, and not even here. But that moment is gone, they missed it, and this is the result. Its not as if I can do anything besides bring the matter to the community. No, wait, I am not even sure the community can do anything about it... Except possibly de-admin them. Int21h (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In mitigation, I should mention that the checkuser operator involved is hardworking and conscientious, and everyone makes mistakes from time to time. In this instance, the technical errors were identified by another functionary enabling the block to be undone. The original checkuser operator, when unblocking, apologised personally to you and I take this opportunity to apologise to you also on behalf of the committee. However, without in any way diminishing my regret, I remain a little curious why you have left it six weeks to raise this, and have then chosen to do so in such a dramatic manner. That said, lessons have been learned which will help inform both future use of the tool and the granting of block exemptions.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to cool down, to take some time off. I would have waited longer, just to make sure I could really put alot of thought into my reaction, but I just knew I would be rejected because I took too long. Int21h (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And you can apologize all you want, but all its going to do it make you angry, because neither do I care nor will I accept it. And even if I was prepared to accept it, or I even thought you should apologize, this is not the place. Save your apologies for your request to be an ArbCom member, after you've resigned. This is not about public displays of sorrow, this is about the future of the projects. I, personally, don't want apologies, I want change. I want to get this done before more editors find they have been accidentally banned for life when they're in the middle of an edit. Int21h (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom members do have term limits (2 years), the schedule is here. Ryan Vesey 03:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

First positive thing I've read in a couple months now. Int21h (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Int21h is clearly overreacting, but it would seem to me that a reasonable remedy would be for the blocking CU (User:DeltaQuad) to volunteer to be blocked for the same length of period as the bad block of Int21h. --Surturz (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What is that going to prevent? Ryan Vesey 03:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It will prevent Int21h going on and on about this until he gets blocked. How is it that multiple CUs sign off on indef blocking a six-year-old account and get it wrong? I don't think a simple apology is enough here. Mistakes of this magnitude reduce the legitimacy of the admin corps. If the harm done to Int21h really is not that big, then DeltaQuad should be happy to suffer the same amount of harm as a good will gesture, and to demonstrate that admins that make mistakes do not get off scott free. --Surturz (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking about DeltaQuad in the beginning. I was definitely fixated on him. But then I thought, what was that going to solve? Unlike ArbCom, as far as can tell, he does not rely on the community to hold his position. And the whole point of this is that he obviously does not possess the skills to hold the CheckUser right. And he's apparently is not alone (ArbCom really knows how to pick 'em), and ArbCom sees nothing wrong with this. My fear with that solution is there will just be another DeltaQuad and his 3 amigos to fill his place. I want a permanent solution, not some free swing at an editor. Int21h (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think some people are missing the point here. An analogy. A person goes to a shady neighborhood dressed gang-type clothing. There are other people there who are also dressed in the same way. I'm pretty sure most if not all people would think that there is something malicious going on here. So what would you do? It's not like the DQ or committee were acting rashly. There was consultation before any action was taken. IMO, if you're going to edit using prohibited IPs, then you should be willing to accept the consequences. I understand for some people it's a must, but you have to give some leeway. After all, you are not being totally truthful in identifying yourself. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If he's allowed to edit using Tor, I presume that there is a good reason. The one thing that does concern me is that he had previously been granted an IP block exemption. Was that taken into consideration when the block was made? Ryan Vesey 03:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Except assume that the "person goes to a shady neighborhood dressed gang-type clothing" told the "people" he was going to be there, gardening, and gave a unmistakable description such that you knew who it was and what they were doing at all times. Like wearing an ankle bracelet unmistakable. And DQ did what he did anyways. Like I said from the beginning, if not malice, then incompetence. Int21h (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

@Ryan: I wasn't there/I didn't participate when the block was made so I don't know. The IP block exemption right was not logged at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log and not everyone has access to the request he/she made. For other people, this could be treated as given in error.

@Int: The email (request for IP block exempt) you gave did not give any technical details. Basing solely on this, the IPs that you were going to be using or what your useragent was were not provided. So no, you most certainly did not give an "unmistakable description". Elockid ^(Talk) 04:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then, like I said in the first place, that should have been the start of all this. That discussion. Any [censored] discussion. A permaban should not have been the opening sequence. All this, until now, has been, like everything else I said before this demand, thoroughly ignored. Not least of which ignored by these members of ArbCom. Int21h (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that they simply "ignored" you. The involved users already sincerely apologized to you for what happened. The reason an indefinite block was enacted was because you exactly matched the technical descriptions as the other socks. Per policy, sock accounts are indefinitely blocked. This is what happened. Like I said before, you failed to provide sufficient information to prevent this situation from happening. This isn't a competence issue by any means. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly disagree. Calling this whole discussion as proof I was not ignored is disingenuous. They apologized after. They apologized after I went through all the effort of refuting absolutely zero "verified" evidence. Do you know how difficult it is to refute nothing? I think you downplay it. Well, let me tell you from (this) experience, very. It is by pure luck, IMO, I was able to determine what the so-called "evidence" was. Pure luck. It was pure luck because, as I said, my pleas to be provided evidence (and procedures etc.) were simply ignored. There was the block, a refusal to help by some uninvolved parties, a denial of an appeal, and an unblock. (Along with some minor "we received your messages" messages.) I consider that "ignored". The "technical descriptions" should have come up by now. They still have not. I am at this point assuming it was the HTTP header? The User-Agent header to be exact? Combined or not combined with an IP? I still am being ignored IMO. No one has told me anything, besides as you say an apology, which as I say is beside the point.

What if I had forgotten to mention the User-Agent headers? What if I had been blocked my talk page before I mentioned that? Does anyone seriously think if I would still be here? Int21h (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a website. The people who edit it do so in their spare time. They are human, so they sometimes make mistakes. I see no evidence whatsoever of malice on anyone's part directed at you, and consequently your belligerent, confrontational, self-important tone is totally unwarranted. Even had you been wrongly found guilty of a crime in a real-life court of law, you would not get all of (the equivalent of) what you are asking for here, on a website. Unless you can show that DeltaQuad intentionally misrepresented the checkuser data, and that the Arbitration Committee both knew and deliberately ignored this, your "demands" are completely nonsensical. What was warranted here was what was given, an unblock and a sincere apology (which you have evidently rebuffed despite exactly zero evidence that it was given flippantly). If there is evidence that DeltaQuad is unfit to be a checkuser (as demonstrated by a systemic misuse or abuse of the checkuser tool), you should provide evidence of this (I believe there is none), and then and only then should any other actions be taken.

• DeltaQuad's mistake was just that - a mistake, for which he apologized.
• DeltaQuad is not a paid employee - he is a volunteer, and he presumably contributes in his spare time. He is not expected to be perfect, and he is not expected to know everything. In the absence of evidence that this is an ongoing problem, he is expected only to own up when he makes a mistake. That is exactly what he has done.
• The Arbitration Committee is not tasked with ensuring that all CheckUsers never make any mistakes, as you imply. They are, at most, tasked with dealing with abuse and/or recurring misuse of advanced permissions.
• Your claim that since the Arbitration Committee oversees the CheckUsers on this project, they should be held responsible for a single (acknowledged) mistake that a checkuser makes is like saying that the CIO of a company should be held responsible when an IT team member blocks an attempt by a user to access the corporate network via an anonymous proxy (without telling anyone he is going to do this, but not against policy), resulting in the user's account being locked out of the network. In other words, it is totally idiotic.
• This is a website, which matters not one whit in real life, and on which all actions can be undone (with the exception of a few that are completely irrelevant to this matter).
• You were not "wronged" in any way that actually matters, and you have no right to act in the pompous, self-important manner that you are.

(Personal attack removed) and stop taking yourself so seriously. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and to cut you off at the pass, no, I was not one of the checkusers who confirmed DQ's results. The first I knew of this was seeing this thread pop up in my watchlist. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Any consideration he receives or doesn't receive is irrelevant. At this point, DeltaQuad is irrelevant. What evidence could I possibly provide? I can't even provide evidence of my own innocence! I couldn't even refute the evidence against me. When I pleaded for this board on guidance, for discussion, they blew me off. Right off the get, before I even got angry, before I "went off" so to speak. They're job is to arbitrate disputes, and to oversee those who the community cannot overrule. I wasn't able to take my argument to anyone besides ArbCom, and ArbCom told me to go [censored] myself because its not their fault, they're just volunteers. Well, ArbCom members, go be volunteers like the rest of us, without your ArbCom responsibilities. Because, as much as you want to resist the notion, those responsibilities carry a heavy burden. If you can't handle the heat get outta the kitchen. Its not some else's problem, its yours. The buck stops here. And, to match quip with quip, I honestly believe when people grow up they forget the way. Int21h (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Int21h, asking Arbcom members to resign every time they fail to rein in the incompetence of Wikipedia's administration, over which they exercise governing authority, is futile, as they would all have to resign on a weekly basis. It's not completely their fault, however, because they get almost no professional support from Wikipedia's umbrella organization, the WMF. Anyway, I invite you to check out and consider becoming a member of an independent forum that critiques Wikipedia, called Wikipediocracy, the members of which quite understand your pain. Cla68 (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just it, it wasn't an administrator. DeltaQuad is above reproach by any mere administrator. He answers to no one but ArbCom.

So that's it then? He did nothing wrong? Not our problem that our subordinate did wrong go away? Its all over now next time you get banned oh well? What about the next poor sap who can't make an irrefutable case? What about next time? How many mistakes make it not OK? Int21h (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And I also think you hit on an important point: there is obviously a problem. An entire website has sprung up around the problem. If they won't provide a solution, or even work towards a solution, or even admit there is a problem, its time to go, and let someone else try. Int21h (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The evidence I am speaking of is evidence that DeltaQuad demonstrates consistent lack of knowledge of how to use the checkuser tool. If he made similar mistakes on other occasions, and the users he (hypothetically) erroneously blocked raised even a tenth of the shitstorm you have over this, such evidence would be tremendously easy to find. The argument that I gave that he is a volunteer is to say that people (yes, even functionaries) are not going to be raked over the coals for making a single mistake. Therefore, given that there is no evidence of any systemic misconduct, nothing more is warranted other than an apology, which he has offered. There is no further reprimand needed. This also applies to the Arbitration Committee - they have been presented with no evidence that this is anything more than a mistake; it is not part of a pattern of misuse. Since DeltaQuad apologized for his error, no further action will (or should) be taken on this matter.

To reply to your most recent comments, no checkuser block is above reproach, nor do they have to . Checkusers can and do check each others work. The global checkuser policy states that "On any wiki, there must be at least two users with CheckUser status, or none at all. This is so that they can mutually control and confirm their actions. In the case where only one CheckUser is left on a wiki (when the only other one retires, or is removed), the community must appoint a new CheckUser immediately (so that the number of CheckUsers is at least two)." In case you are wondering if I claim to be perfect, I have made a few outright errors using the tool (including one particularly egregious one near the start of my tenure), and I have had other checkusers correct and/or question my actions on a number of occasions.

No human is ever going to be perfect. An active checkuser like DeltaQuad will make hundreds, if not thousands of checks in a month. No matter how hard we try to avoid making mistakes, they will happen. One mistake, by the most active checkuser for the past six months, due to extremely unusual circumstances, does not warrant your endless soapboxing.

I have never really liked this essay, but in nearly six years of active editing I have never seen anyone so completely fit its description. You were blocked, mistakenly, on a website (can I stress any more that Wikipedia is a website?), because you were (apparently) editing via a method that many sockmasters use to evade their blocks. When it was realized that you were not socking, you were unblocked, and a sincere apology was offered. Given that (once again) there is no evidence that DeltaQuad is incompetent, and that this incident is not part of a pattern of misuse or abuse, there is nothing further to say or do on this matter. Your vigorous, needless "demands", cross posting, grandstanding, cajoling, your single-minded refusal to even read what people are saying to you, and your complete and utter lack of any perspective whatsoever are not helpful in the slightest.

What you are asking for, when taken next to what has been done to you, cannot, to my mind, stem from anything other than simple coarse vindictiveness. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Int21h's histrionics have torpedoed any chance he has for further satisfaction, but I do think you are understating the scale of the error that was made here. Int21h's account is six years old and had a clean block log. How does any admin indef block an account like that without being very, very, sure that they are making the right call? And without giving the account a chance to defend themself? Usually blocked accounts are allowed to edit their own talkpage to appeal the block, but Int21h's talk page rights were also blocked. --Surturz (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I say close the discussion, for a whole bunch of linkable reasons.—My76Strat (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And I concur with Surturz, My76Strat. Blocked the talk page... really? This matter raises some serious questions. In my five plus years here I have taken care to never be blocked, and while I am not an admirer of the way Int21h has come here to bluster, I must say that if I were in their shoes, I'd be pretty steamed as well. Greater care should have been taken, and there should be some real accountability here. And attempting to shut down this discussion looks pretty self-serving, in my view. Jusdafax 06:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How about ArbCom appoint a panel of three administrators to examine what happened, then issue a report with recommendations on how to prevent it from happening again, including a formal apology to Int and a request to the developer to erase his block log? Because, that would make too much sense and would threaten the chaotic and inefficient way that this website is run and which so many of its regular administrators prefer. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

@Surturz: I'm not dismissing that an error on this scale is bad. Yes, I made a bad block, probably the worst block I've ever made. You ask "How does any admin indef block an account like that without being very, very, sure that they are making the right call?", well, your answer is in the question. At the time, I was sure I was making the right call, and that a version of good hand , bad hand was playing out. The reason why I could not present the evidence yet because the investigation I was doing got extremely big, and I wasted a few days work (non-stop work) on it now that I know I'm wrong, so I couldn't present the evidence to the user directly. The talkpage was revoked due to persistent personal attacks that occurred, and I did not remove their right to that. I understand that it is upsetting to be blocked and that's why I never asked for any apology back.

@Jusdafax: Just so we are clear, I'm not attempting to evade scrutiny here or not be accountable for my actions, that's why I posted what I felt was a very personal apology to them and why I'm answering your questions here. The last thing I want is this to be something thrown under the rug and hidden, but I'm not going to stand down as a CU for one mistake. You say that there should be "real accountability here", what exactly are you proposing? Should I step down and give in to Int21h? I am willing to talk to Int21h in a civil manner and try and explain how things folded out, but "My personal attacks ended as soon as your personal attack ended. I do not accept your apology nor will I tender one. The fact that ArbCom has let 3 other CheckUsers that obviously made the same ridiculously outrageous mistake just adds fuel to my fire. I will not troll them: I will seek to have their CheckUser status revoked. Please, please do not confuse the two." said by Int21h on my talkpage is accusing me of more things, and battling even after I have apologized, and then continues to say that they will seek after more CUs to be dragged down. Int21h has further committed to taking me and ArbCom down with no alternative and no chance on talking it out. I can't work with people who put a stone wall up in front of me.

@Cla68: That is not going to work because it involves private CheckUser data. I already posted to the global CheckUser list about how I made my mistake to help prevent other CUs globally from making the same mistake I did. Furthermore, I have made a direct formal appology to Int21h already and he has declined it. He's also vowed to take me down as a CU. Getting the block log oversighted also shoves the issue under the carpet (which again is the last thing I want to do) and it's still accessible here, so what's the point in hiding my mistake? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• DQ, first off allow me to say that I appreciate both your work here, which is of a much higher order than anything I have attempted, and your reply, which is both patient and civil. I reacted to My76Strat's comment, which I continue to feel was insensitive under the circumstances. I do not condone Int21h's mania, which is self-evidently over the top ...way over the top. What I ask is some consideration as to how this previously block-free editor got turned into an embittered whack job, as I can only help but feel, "There but for the grace of God go I." I am hardly suggesting that you step down, as I have seen ample evidence of your good work. I also give a nod to your efforts to prevent further mistakes via the global CU list. I do suggest that you accept a warning to take care from someone or some body here that has more clout than I do, and that some further time be given to Int21h to calm down. If they are still at this level of rage next week, or if they make threats (they have come very very close to that bright line) then I will understand a position like My76Strat's. Again, my thanks for taking the time here to address concerns. Jusdafax 08:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I do feel bad about the block, and you bet this is going to make me a lot more careful with running over my CU results when similar situations apply again. I also won't hold a time clock against Int21h, and if it takes 2 days, 6 months, or 5 years before the civil conversation can happen to cool down from this, and as long as I'm still around, I'll have that conversation I promised any time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for dropping such a curt response and then getting sidetracked in another area. Otherwise I would have sooner qualified my response. I'm certainly not trying to stifle a productive discussion, nor ignore that valid points have been made. I simply did not see the productive discourse and I frankly carried some of the insult. Lest I be one of the three Amigos.—My76Strat (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• DQ, you made a good apology on the user's page, IMO. But quite apart from Int21h's posts here, you might have given more thought to your posted unblock reason, because what you wrote there looks more freezingly bureaucratic than apologetic.[1] Of course you realize that Int21h, a long-time editor, wouldn't even have a block log for but for the error made, so choice of words in the last log item, the unblock reason, kind of mattered. [Going into inappropriate analysis of user's internal processes mode :] I expect you simply impulsively wanted to unblock as quickly as possible, once you realized there was a mistake? But, after several weeks, five minutes taken to shine up the unblock reason, and inject a warmer tone, would have been well spent. I say this not to pile on you further, but to encourage all admins to be careful of every user's block log, because it's permanent. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

• Bishonen, thank you for your response. I hadn't really considered the unblock reason, and I do see it now as bureaucratic. So if I read correctly you think an unblocked reason more like "My apologies, the original block was a mistake" would be better? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that kind of thing, or maybe even more personal, like the way you wrote on the user's page. Mutatis mutandis of course. The note in the block log is the trace of your regret that lasts. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

• I was probably one of the checkusers DQ asked for confirmation in this case, although I do not remember the specific check: DQ is very conscientious and regularly asks for a second pair of eyes when there is doubt.

  I think this discussion here is missing the elephant in the room: why was Int21h using TOR at all? There is a very good reason why we disallow editing through open proxies (including TOR): it makes it impossible to prevent socking and abuse from taking place. While we very occasionally grant exceptions for editors who really need the extra anonimity, they must always do so with the understanding that since they are going to be mixed up with the /b/ crowd and other persistent vandals, they will have to suffer friendly fire at times.

  I'm not clear how Int21h came to be granted this exception in the first place. — Coren ^(talk) 14:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I would guess there should be some record in OTRS, based on the log entry

2011-12-27T02:03:12 TParis (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Int21h from autopatrolled to autopatrolled and IP block exempt (User request via unblock-en-l)

Once I realized that the cause for this is that the user was using Tor to edit, I had more sympathy for the mistake - anyone using Tor has to realize that it is disallowed in general, and only allowed in exceptional circumstances, and thus there may be mix ups from time to time, particularly if the user is spoofing their user agent. It seems we do need to clarify how a checkuser should verify the reason for an ip-block-exempt flag, to see whether Tor is specifically allowed for the user. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• After a search of the archives, it seems that int21h has been granted IPBE because he wanted to use TOR to circumvent port 80 blocking (which is not sufficient cause since https remains an option) and because he may travel to China. I can see why Tparis granted the flag in good faith, but it would seem that int21h wasn't given the speech about what the bit entails, nor did the necessary regular review of whether the bit was still needed take place.

  I think continued need to edit through TOR needs to be demonstrated at this point, as well as a clear understanding from int21h that doing so necessarily entails the probability that he may be caught again alongside vandals and sockmasters if he retains it. — Coren ^(talk) 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Coren, it is not my understanding that "we disallow editing through open proxies (including TOR)" (italics yours) - can you give me a policy reference for this? WP:PROXY currently says "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• You want Wikipedia:IPBE#Used for anonymous proxy editing, and WP:TOR. You are correct insofar that editing through open proxies isn't disallowed until the proxy gets blocked (which we do systematically as they are found), but using IPBE to do so through the block is only allowed in very limited circumstances (and, indeed, entirely forbidden if you were granted IPBE to edit through a normal rangeblock). — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, per WP:BLOCK, proxies are typically hard blocked when they are found, which prevents both logged-out and logged-in editing. A logged-in editor will be autoblocked unless they have IPBE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • So I'm correct insofar that editing through open proxies is not disallowed, which was my point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is disallowed - when we discover someone is editing through an open proxy, we hard block the IP address of the proxy. It is true that we do not additionally go back and block every username that has edited with the proxy, but the method of enforcement should not be interpreted to mean that editing through open proxies is "allowed" in any active sense. The language in WP:PROXY is not very clear about the difference between our rule about open proxies (we do not permit them) and the way we enforce the rule (by blocking the proxy rather than directly blocking logged-in users). One reason for the odd language is the ancient hard-block/soft-block debate which went on for a while in the past. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
        • freely use proxies isn't ambiguous, it's explicitly clear. Reasoning explained here. NE Ent 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
          • You are probably equally aware of the debate about proxies and soft blocking from back then. I would say it is incongruous to claim a practice is "freely allowed" while at the same time saying "but if we see you do it we will stop you" - which is basically the definition of "it isn't allowed". Some editors back in 2007 really did want to allow users to use open proxies as long as the users didn't to anything wrong, and to only soft-block the proxy IPs when they were blocked - but the consensus was never on their side about that. The blocking policy is that open proxies can be hard blocked on sight even if no abuse has happened. In 2008, the TorBlock extension was added to blocks Tor nodes even before any human administrator notices them. So it is misleading to tell new editors that we "allow" the use of Tor and other open proxies, because they are likely to end up autoblocked for using them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, excellent! Let's take a user who has apparently never done anything wrong, is pissed off for being blocked incorrectly for 2 weeks, and who is bringing up valid concern in a mildly un-useful way because they're pissed off, and calm the whole thing down by removing their IPBE flag. That will work spectacularly well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems it was a mistaken reliance on the IPBE flag to use Tor, instead of using another method to edit, that led to the problem in the first place, so resolving the root of the problem is the best fix. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Flo, any editor who edits through open proxies needs to be aware that being blocked as collateral of a sock sweep is always a possibility. He has taken steps to make certain he is not distinguishable from the people who abuse the same proxy he goes through, that he may end up not distinguished should occur as no great shock. Now, it may well be that TParis forgot to explain that to him when he granted the bit; but even if he retains IPBE the possibility that he gets blocked again remains exactly as high as it was, and subject to the same risks.

    He wasn't blocked incorrectly. He was blocked correctly, and unblocked correctly on good faith alone. — Coren ^(talk) 15:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

    • Well, "blocked incorrectly" in the sense that a productive editor was blocked when it turns out they didn't need to be. I'm not on the anti-DQ and anti-AC bandwagon here. Managing their expectations about the future of editing thru Tor is a good idea. Musing in this thread that it would probably be appropriate to take IPBE away is, at best, tone deaf, and at worst, looks like showing someone who's mouthing off to their betters their proper place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Few thoughts. It is unreasonable to expect whole Arbcom to resign every time some fuckup happens. On other hand, sometimes editors who are willing to "challenge the establishment" all the way up are needed to point out issues that could otherwise easily go unnoticed. Lets face it, in similar circumstances many editors would have simply quited wikipedia for good, with extremely bitter taste in mouth, and never returned. Being declared a sockpuppet by CU is basically "game over" message in 99% of cases.--Staberinde (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually meant for this to get some actual responses (ney, conversation) by ArbCom members, but for the rest of you, here is a tale of Christmas past:

Hello Int21h,

At this time, the English Wikipedia Unblock team is declining your unblock request, and will not hear your case anymore. Your next and final step of the appeal process is to email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of the Arbitration committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org.

King of Hearts

English Wikipedia Administrator

Emphasis added. Int21h (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And to those of you who will inevitably claim my requests for redress, my future proposals when each fails in turn, that my reasoned discussions in the proper forums are climbing the reichstag dressed as Spiderman (Germany jeez don't get me started), you will ultimately get your wish to have me banned from Wikimedia. Have no doubt. ArbCom is at beast not able to do anything but offer silence to my cries. I don't care that you unblocked me. I want the problem recognized and fixed.

I was required to do things, things that were required by ArbCom should I face a ban, like "community discussion" and emailing obviously incompetent users about their apparent malicious ban (to no avail mind you, what you've seen in replies from DQ is what I got). Any all administrators were forbidden from reviewing DQ's (and his three amigos) obviously wrong and inappropriately carried out surprise permaban. Oh yeah, the community discussion is required even though your banned and no one can do anything about it--because of ArbCom. ArbCom has consistently and purposely consolidated power, taking away any power for the community, administrators included, to do anything about it. They have purposely consolidated procedure such that any and all discretion about surprise permabans rests with them and them alone, and any and all public discussion or activity to the contrary will be met with--more permabans.

It is not just my ban, but everything around it. ArbComs procedures, their power grab, their destruction by lawfare. If left unchecked ArbCom will continue to place more and more restrictions on Wikipedia editing until any action could be (correctly) viewed as something to be punished, leaving them with unfettered discretion to punish who, how and whenever they please. (Germany for the win! Take that Spiderman!) Int21h (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What if the mistake had never been discovered? What if that had been me?

OK I've checked DQ's original block message and I think more than a simple apology is required here. This is DQ's original block message[2]. DQ provides no evidence at all for the block for Int21h to refute. DQ claims other CUs have corroborated his verdict but does not name them. DQ does not even name the sock accounts that Int21h is supposedly using as socks. A look at the contrib history for Int21h prior to the block reveals no disruptive behaviour nor anything that would benefit from socking (eg RfA, edit warring). There is nothing to indicate that blocking a six-year-old account in good standing without warning or explanation was warranted.

The complaints about TOR usage are a smokescreen and irrelevant. We encourage anonymous editing here - most editors use handles, not real names, and expect some level of privacy. Genuine privacy, not social-media-website privacy.

I'm happy to believe that DQ was not malicious, is generally competent, and this is a one-off mistake. I am sure his apology was genuine. Words, however, are cheap. This mistake is so bad - and CU accountability so obviously absent - that DQ should be encouraged to actively demonstrate contrition. I think a self-imposed wikibreak of three weeks and one day (the same amount of time as Int21h was blocked) would be appropriate for DQ, as a matter of honour.

If that is not forthcoming, I think ArbCom should site ban DQ for the same period. Incidents such as this and Durova's CU fishing expedition harm the admin corps' reputation. ArbCom should take all necessary steps to restore that reputation. "An eye for an eye" isn't the best justice system around, but at least it

is easily understood and easily enforced.

Ideally Int21h's clean block log should also be reinstated. It's seems bizarre to me that Coren used revdel on Int21h's complaints, but not on the bad block. Arbitrators are supposed to protect editors from CUs, not the other way around. --Surturz (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I find the compensation unreasonable and vindictive. Basically what you're saying is that let's choose someone to take the entire blame. There is no single person, group or party to blame. IMHO, both parties here are to blame. Int21h for failing to give the exact technical specifics he was going to use (if he only sent the info to Unblock-en-l, then that is another fault for him/her, if he sent an email to arbcom/the functionaries list, I invite them to send me a copy), and the whole administrative process. Not only are the two parties to blame but other parties are also involved. Proper procedure was not followed when giving IP block exemption and other admins declined his request. All of these are contributing factors. The reason the Tor usage is such a big deal is because Tor usage is most associated with sockpuppetry, disruption, vandalism, etc. It was found that other users were editing from the same IPs and using the same technical details as Int21h. Since Int21h failed to provide the "specifics" to distinguish himself/herself, it's gonna come up that he/she's related to those sock accounts. Also, since information was not made readily available (Coren and actually myself until yesterday didn't know why IPBE was granted), we can think that it was given in error/there was no justification or verification. The block was bad, yes. But the reasoning behind it is not based on one party. If we're going to put a blame and consequences on someone, then it shouldn't be just on DQ. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The "eye for an eye" idea is at least as bad of an idea as having the entire committee step down. I'd go ahead and say it's worse because it's more likely to create a horrendous precedent and it flies in the face of policy (if it were to be a block). Ryan Vesey 02:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the "eye for an eye" sanction suggested is needlessly harsh. My thinking was more along the lines of an official warning, and the victim's clean block record reinstated. It is something many of us value highly, you know. Jusdafax 02:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Needlessly harsh" is putting it extremely mildly. There is no possible way to view such a suggestion as being a good faith attempt at resolving a concern. Resolute 03:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of blocking and banning is to protect the encyclopedia from harm that would result from a user's continued participation in the project. DQ has acknowledged that he made a mistake, and surely has resolved to be more careful in the future. What more will further action accomplish? Deterrence? I don't think that makes sense unless we can show DQ's culpability in the wrongful block was more than simple negligence (presuming any culpability even stands here). And we must consider that punishing for what well may be an honest mistake would serve to weaken CU determinations in the future... should we risk weakening this important investigatory tool? I say not based on what we've seen in this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that from rational point of view blocking DQ would be pointless (him voluntarily accepting some punishment is matter of personal taste). What some people seem to be missing here, is that more or less similar rational reasoning should be also employed before blocking long time user in good standing. If Int21h had been an admin or even higher, then most likely whole thing would have been approached far more cautiously and error spotted before actually reaching to block. But because he was simply an ordinary user in good standing, execution was performed swiftly and effectively, even though there doesn't seem to have been any indication that his account was being actively used to harm the encyclopedia.--Staberinde (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, there was indeed such an indication: int21h was editing from the same IP address(es), and with the same browser info, as disruptive accounts. In this case, it seems that two mistakes were made: (1) giving the IPBE flag to int21h when it was not needed, and not alerting him then that using the IPBE flag to edit with Tor has a significant risk of this sort of block; (2) not adequately investigating the reason for the IPBE flag before the checkuser block. The way forward is clear: int21h needs to stop editing with Tor, and the checkusers need to develop a system to check the reason for an IPBE flag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that simply means that there was indication of account possibly being controlled by same person that was causing disruption with other accounts, but no indication that account User:Int21h itself was being actively used to harm encyclopedia requiring quick and decisive action. Not to mention that 6 year old sockpuppet accounts with 11k edits must be quite rare.--Staberinde (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't require confirmation that all of a sockmaster's accounts are actively being used for disruption before blocking them all. Moroever, as a general principle, there is nothing to stop an editor from having a "good hand" account and also having several "bad hand" accounts used for disruption. An editor who edits with IPBE needs to be clearly informed that it may cause them to be suspected of association with other accounts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree partially with that. Sure, the possibilities of good hand / bad hand accounts exist, and socks should be blocked. But on the other hand, if an account has IPBE and is overlapping with a sockfarm, then that should first trigger the question whether that is an abused right, or whether it is co-incidental. Some people have a good reason to use IPBE (I have it globally on this account .. and though it can be guessed, I'd rather be asked why first than blindly blocked - there may be a good reason). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this situation shows the need for better handling of IPBE - checkusers need to make sure to check for it, and they need check the reason why it was given (this is usually going to be in OTRS rather than onwiki). — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where my case is recorded, it is given to me after a private discussion with a bureaucrat discussing what I had problems with. In any case, the granting bureaucrat can be found, and they can be asked. And otherwise, the CheckUser can ask the editor themselves (though I understand that for a real sockpuppet that is likely going to give an evasive answer .. ). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

At the time of the block, it is known that the user had IPBE. The problem here is that the CUs did not realize that the particular (rather popular) Tor software package used spoofs the useragent to something that is quite rare in people who do not use Tor. Now imagine that you see a user with IPBE, editing from a number of Tor nodes, each of which has socks from the same sockmaster, and they all share the same, rarely seen, UA. I think you know where this is headed... T. Canens (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why the user in question needs to switch to something other than Tor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@Beetstra: The more difficult issue for you is that you don't have IPBE specifically on enwiki. I believe you that it is assigned globally, but it does not show up at all on enwiki - even in the "user rights management" screen and even in the toolserver database. So the chance anyone would know you have IBPE is quite low, unless it is recorded in OTRS and the go out of their way to do a search. With Int21h, at least is shows up in the rights list on enwiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice additional problem. Indeed, my admin account anyway does not show that I have IPBE, it is intrinsic to the adminbit anyway. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And I say above, not just discovered, but discovered by me. What if I had forgot to mention (and make a point out of it) the User-Agent header? What if I had been blocked from editing my talk page before I did? Just another mistake? Just another accident? And I am making an assumption here, making an assumption it was the User-Agent HTTP headers that was the "verified" evidence, because no one has told me anything. Still. Not DQ. Not ArbCom. You are all basing your discussion on information I still do not have access to. Why was I banned? Why? I don't want an apology! I want answers! I want fixes! I demand it! ArbCom must step down, or be removed, if they are going to continue to sidestep the issues here! Int21h (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't this been explained by now? You were apparently blocked because you connect through TOR, which is at times used by vandals and trolls to cause problems in the project. If you insist on editing via such a connection, then things like this should be expected. Perhaps the question that shjuold be asked is, why do you insist on using such a connection? Tarc (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "things like this should be expected" by users who employ reasonable privacy measures. No one should be forced to choose between their privacy and the risk of being blocked without practical recourse. That doesn't necessarily mean heads must roll over it this time around, but we clearly need to have a discussion about how to best make sure other upstanding members of our community aren't systematically eradicated in the future. Also, we have no business questioning the basis of a user's privacy practices unless they are applying for sensitive permissions.   — C M B J   15:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the exact same thing would have happened. I was the one looking into the CU data for BASC, and I didn't really look at your vociferous on-wiki appeals, by then well buried in your talk page history, and the single mention of UA buried inside a bunch of other irrelevant info. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So what changed your mind(s)? Int21h (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the original block, so there's nothing to change. When I ran the BASC checks, I found some accounts that are behaviorally unrelated but have the same UA, and I happened to have used the software package at issue before, so I suspected that it might be a shared, spoofed UA. From there, confirming the suspicion is rather easy. I pointed it out to DQ, who happened to be online at the time, and he promptly unblocked. T. Canens (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Int21h (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

History?

I know that I have always been a critic of the ArbCom system, but this situation reminds me of two things:

1. The ScottyBerg / Mantanmoreland Sock situation, one blocked by ArbCom as a sock of the other. These two editors had, according to ArbCom/CU, as only overlap that they were editing from the same geographical area (and not even from the same internet providers). The rest of the evidence is completely public. That further evidence amounted to having numerous overlapping articles they edited (though mostly cases which are necessarily non-coincidental - e.g. articles relating to their geographical area, which they obviously share and articles where one does a vandal revert and the second edits significantly), and some overlapping traits (which were anyway not completely uncommon - other editors who are obviously unrelated had the same traits ..). Purely a game of statistics, and I, for one, am still not convinced that they are socks (but please, convince me otherwise).
2. As we know, ArbCom does not require ANY form of formal training. The tools are just given to you when you get the trust of the community. We, the community, simply have to trust that someone is competent enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The last point isn't quite true. I don't know what the exact procedures are now, but when I applied for checkuser, I was sent the famous "Essjay questionnaire" which included a large number of technical questions pertaining to checkuser usage. If you know enough to be able to answer those questions, then it is highly likely that you know how to operate the checkuser tool. It's not training, but it's not quite blind faith either. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the reference: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_12#ArbCom_training - and what you describe, Deskana, is NOT formal training. Question, what happens if one is not capable to answer the questions correctly? And did all the Arbs here at least have to do this (and how do we know that they did this?), and what were the results (did they all pass?)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

For Arbitrators (not CheckUsers) it is all on the job training; there is nothing formal. I ended up asking Hersfold if he could teach me the basics of checkuser because I didn't want to cause a huge conniption my first month in office. We ended up doing it by checkusering my account and IP addresses.

Thankfully, most Arbitrators have the common sense to not get involved with checkuser unless they know what they are doing. NW (Talk) 17:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That you say 'most Arbitrators' here is telling, NuclearWarfare. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

IPBE review

There are about 400 accounts on enwiki with IPBE enabled. Is there any interest in arbcom in reviewing which of them are no longer active (e.g. User:BillLeecn), and which of them have appropriate documentation in OTRS? That review is something that would need to be carried out internally, because the OTRS records won't be available. It would make sense to me to make a requirement that IPBE has to be given by OTRS so that the reason can be documented, and so that checkusers have a guaranteed place to look for the reason it was granted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does appear through this that policies regarding IPBE, granting of and relationship with CU need to be clarified and improved. Resolute 16:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be news to me that there are OTRS records related to this; however, our Checkusers have periodically reviewed the list and winnowed it down in the past. It's past due now, and I'll see if I can round up a couple of checkusers to go through the list. We can work out a way of tracking reason, possibly on the checkuser wiki, that doesn't involve adding IP addresses. I am very much of the opinion that IPBE is handed out inappropriately in some cases, and without consideration of the responsibility and increased scrutiny in other cases. Risker (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear this is already something that is done - thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean UTRS, because OTRS does not handle this sort of thing. --Rschen7754 17:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right; I didn't realize they had migrated unblock-en-l to a different system. When I said "OTRS" what I had in mind is unblock-en-l or its successor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What changes should be made?

I must admit I'm somewhat dismayed at the response that Int21h (talk · contribs) has received from the community. Wikipedia has a bad reputation for treating its users poorly and bad blocks certainly don't help the problem we have with editor retention. Some of the old-timers here may remember a few short years ago when bad blocks would lead to RfC/U's, ArbCom cases and even desysopings because the community was outraged at bad blocks. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. But enough of that, we should be trying to fix the problem.

I thank DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) for stepping up and apologizing and also for notifying the CU list to not make the same mistake. I think this is the proper direction to follow and I would like to get input from the community on how to move forward to make sure these things don't happen so often. Perhaps adding a cautionary note to the blocking policy would be a good first step.

It's obvious that changes are required. So what changes do you think should be made to make sure these things happen as little as possible? 64.40.54.45 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I already pointed out what I think is the main issues: checkusers should be have a way to check the reason for an IPBE bit, and users who have IPBE should be educated that they may receive extra scrutiny, and possibly even be temporarily blocked, if they use IPBE to edit in ways that make themselves indistinguishable from other disruptive editors. The root of the present situation was the granting of the IPBE bit when, according to the reason given above, it was not needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

While I can't speak for Int21h, and without prejudice to anyone currently bearing the ArbCom banner, his experience and sentiment embodies a perception shared by many (if not most) experienced users at one point or another: that there is an intrinsic lack of tangible recourse available if/when a body like ArbCom overreaches or makes mistakes. I know I've personally refrained from commenting on a couple of arbitration proceedings in years past where I thought that speaking up would not only do absolutely nothing to help, but also be a very costly mistake, and that's also indicative of a serious long-term problem in my mind. Perhaps we might eventually consider moving toward something like a triennial proceeding to reaffirm the community's continued consent for the Committee as a whole, a collective reconfirmation if you will, if for no other reason than to offer everyone the peace of mind that there is meaningful accountability of the greater acting body.   — C M B J   13:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that would become merely a rubber stamp procedure, if the intent is to treat such a reconfirmation in the abstract. What is needed is a legitimate method by with ArbCom's decisions can be overturned. Such a method would have to be structured carefully so as to avoid ArbCom not becoming the second to last court of last resort. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Clarifying I just wanted to clarify what I meant by changes. I think it's probably unlikely that changes to ArbCom will gain community support. So I was thinking in terms of updating the procedures in the blocking policy and the related templates. The basic problem I see is that the community will AGF on the part of the blocker and not so much on the part of the blockee. When an editor is wrongly blocked, the people reviewing the block often give it a quick look and dismiss it. As of now, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Block reviews is strongly skewed towards a belief that all blocks are 100% correct. It doesn't even mention what to do if a block was a mistake (good faith or otherwise) and the blocking admin refuses to understand that. This is what should be changed. Mistakes will happen, but they need to be corrected quickly so it does not harm our project and its reputation. Thanks. 64.40.54.247 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Block log revdel suggestion

I saw a suggestion above that User:Int21h's block log should be rev-deled, but the subject changed.

I think that suggestion deserves more discussion. I'm inclined to support, but would be interested in arguments pro and con. A clean block log is something that many editor maintain with pride. While some may think the pride misplaced, I do not. I do not like the fact that a block log can be muddied through no fault of the user, and I think in such situations, we should remedy it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Yes. NE Ent 18:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This certainly seems justifiable and I would support it, but I think it's currently not allowed per the policy at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Misuse, which states

  RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries.

  A related discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal:Create a capability and process to expunge a block from someone's record when all agree that it was an error. Perhaps that should be changed. 64.40.54.247 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• I, too, would very much like to see an improvement of this sort. Those editors who contribute in good faith often feel, quite justifiably, proud of having a clean block log, and telling someone that a bad block is no big deal is disingenuous to the point of being insulting. I see that the discussion at the Village Pump has yielded a consensus to implement something like this, and the limiting step at this moment may be implementation by developers. A minor variation that I'd like to suggest is to allow for adding an entry to a block log after unblocking, but not merely a "dummy" block-and-unblock, in which a clear statement could be made to clarify a previous unblock. One part of the problem here is when the unblocking admin enters an unblock reason in good faith, but subsequent discussion indicates that a further explanation is needed (example: "this was determined to have been an incorrect block, and the user should be considered to have a clean log"), particularly to address the blocked user's feelings of mistreatment, so we need to add a capability to add such a thing to a block log. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

telling someone that a bad block is no big deal is disingenuous to the point of being insulting I agree 100%. Walk a mile in another person's shoes... Believing you understand what another person feels because of a bad block and actually experiencing it are two completely different things. I think WP:IAR should override the WP:REVDEL policy in this case. 64.40.54.247 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• An FYI on this discussion: based upon the earlier discussion on the Village Pump, there is an outstanding Bugzilla request (#44759) that people interested in this issue may want to express their voices to the MediaWiki developers. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a Bugzilla login because I keep my e-mail private. Could you or someone editing there perhaps be so kind as to place a link to this discussion on the bug page? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this would be one very important step in moving forward. We really do need a way to facilitate record expungements, because, no matter how much we would like to believe that mistaken incidents have no effect on a user's community standing, they inevitably do, and it isn't right that anyone should be subjected to such an unjustified and arbitrary hardship.   — C M B J   05:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, no. There are at least a hundred thousand accounts, if not more, that are blocked indefinitely and will always remain so, and many of them have been blocked indefinitely for more than 5 years. Their block logs must remain so that admins and users in the future will be able to confirm that they're blocked, why, and when they were blocked. Risker (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What? We're only discussing situations where specific blocks should be fully undone to prevent reputation scarring.   — C M B J   05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite correct; on reviewing why this post didn't really fit in, I realise that I was responding to one of the suggestions on the bugzilla that blocklogs should be routinely expunged after 5 years. On the other hand, I do not believe that this block was incorrect, so I do not understand all this sturm und drang about an appropriate block, and I would object to its being removed from the user's block log. In my view, it was a perfectly correct block, because the checkuser had every reason to believe that there was a single user operating multiple accounts including a mix of good hand and bad hand accounts. Using Tor is a choice; it comes with risks, including the risk of the Tor exit node being blocked, and the risk of one's account being permanently associated with some of the most destructive vandals known to the project. If one doesn't want to take that risk, one doesn't use Tor.

The actual solution here is to more strongly word theWP:IPBE page to make it dramatically clear that all IPBE users will be checkusered, that they may be subject to direct or collateral blocks if they or other users on the same proxy IPs meet the criteria for checkuser review; and that the use of anonymizing proxies is particularly likely to result in direct or collateral blocks to their accounts, which will not be remediated other than to unblock the account. In an ideal world, only checkusers would be able to grant IPBE, because in almost every instance where people felt they had special protection from blocking (rather than heightened risk) the IPBE was granted by an admin without review from a checkuser; however, I'm realistic enough to know that nothing ever gets taken out of the admin toolbox. Risker (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate block (admin decision) and appropriate block (user fault) are two fundamentally different concepts. It's one thing to say that an administrator's decision to block someone innocent was rational, but it's another thing to suggest that an innocent user deserves to bear the brunt of that action.

I also take real issue with the suggestion that anyone using security software like Tor should accept that they may be penalized or systematically eradicated for no other reason. I've personally deployed that very same tool on someone's machine who had never even heard of Wikipedia because of national censorship. It is not unexpected that similar measures would be utilized to protect some users whose contributions might otherwise compromise their identities, or threaten their freedom, or endanger their lives.

If anything, the IPBE policy should be made more considerate of non-problematic contributors who need special protection from direct and collateral blocks, not less, but there is definitely an issue of expungement that exists independently of that specific subset of users.   — C M B J   09:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that it really is up to the CheckUser admin to get it right. Making it the responsibility of the TOR user is simply punishing the victim. The CheckUser admin has the specialty knowledge, while an IPBE account might simply be a student contributing from a university, or someone editing from behind the great firewall. Letting a "Good Hand" account continue making reasonably useful contributions is a lesser evil than blocking an innocent editor. And clean block logs are very, very, valuable to some of us that have them. --Surturz (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree here with CMBJ and Surturz. I find it very disturbing that the Arbitration Committee finds it correct to block good editors just because they look like a sockpuppet. There are many legitimate reasons, as pointed out here, to edit through a proxy or other form of protection. I, for one, simply cannot access parts of Wikipedia if I am not using one of those, and that would hinder my possibilities to work on cross-wiki spam hunting (obviously, the same is true for some of the sites that are spammed, they are inaccessible for me as well). Luckily (or maybe not), my admin-bit, any admin-bit, here on en.wikipedia comes with it built-in .. but I have to be afraid to be blocked at any moment now if a CheckUser misses that point.

A point behind this, is that this this time is brought forward. Obviously, the only way to fight this is through the same entity that is performing the block (BASC is not a totally independent entity), and others may not get through anymore to appeal their block, or have the technical understanding of what went wrong (obviously, for those that actually did nothing wrong, they will never know what hit them). Hiding that behind the idea that if it is a sockpuppet, it was a good block is also disturbing, as well as the possibility that there are others out there still blocked without reason.

And obviously, DQ did not get any training before being let loose on the tool. Others are shown how to use the tool, but there is no real, let alone formal, training. We just have to trust that the Arbitration Committee will do their jobs right (and I am sorry, I have no reassurance that any of you actually have had any real training and will not, accidentally, make the same mistake). Notwithstanding, the technical means that you have with CheckUser are minimal, and require analysis of editing patterns. That runs the risk of biased statistics. Question, and I have asked this before in other cases, did the 'several [other] CheckUsers [who] have already looked into this offwiki and have verified the results' ([3]) do this independently (so unbiased trying to find other socks based on an initial point - i.e. 'find socks for editor A'), or did they get presented a request to check whether Int21h was the same as someone else (so presented with a whole set of socks which including Int21h, and were asked to check whether the conclusions were valid - i.e. 'can you confirm that A and Int21h are socks')? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No block where blocked editor caused no harm to encyclopedia can be described as "perfectly correct block". It is possible that admin who did the block may have acted correctly according to current standard procedures and guidelines, but that simply means that there is error in procedures.--Staberinde (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

@Staberinde: Yes, I who made the bad block was not informed enough about the spoofed technical data that Tor gives out to know that I was acting in error. So it appeared at the time like a good block. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dirk: When I asked for the initial two cents of checkusers (which was the only time as my investigation did not conclude before the block was reversed) I told them with 1) a single TOR IP address that Int24h had used that in my opinion best showed the evidence at that point with only a handful of IPs out of the total I looked at 2) the sockmaster that was operating on that Tor node and held the same technical information as Int21h 3) The unblock-en-l email (which all administrators who were subscribed to the list at the time had access to) where Int21h asked for the IPBE 4) Three statements I asked them to give their opinion on, that was comprised of my opinion already. 3/4 CUs (the 4th being myself) agreed to block at this point with the evidence we had. It was also stated that while we had an apparent connection to a serial sockmaster, that we needed to look into that connection further before naming it off. Now I'm trying my hardest not to read into your comment, but you express the statement that I was 'let loose on the tool' without any training. That sounds like I knowing that I knew absolutely nothing, went out on the tool with no experience, and was set loose to disrupt with the tool as I saw fit. That is incredibly insulting. Computers and computer networking have always been my top interest in life, and I've perused it because that's the area I'm best in. I'm also now a fair chunk through my second year of a Computer Networking degree. So my previous knowledge has no value? no worth? Also, I've only come across 1 (Tim, the one who corrected me) CU who had knowledge of this spoofing that Tor does to the technical data. And Tim wasn't even a CU before the beginning of the year. So essentially either there was no one who had this prior knowledge to educate the rest of us, or they were not active enough to see the case, notice it, and point it out. I hope that all the above answers the questions that you have. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the remark that could be read as insulting, that was certainly not my intention. I really do not think that you were set loose to cause disruption, I think that that was not at all your intention, and this is not an attack on any you, or any other ArbCom member personally, but a criticism of the system. My aim here is to get the thought through that there needs to be some form of formal training for Arbitrators, and not only for the use of the tools that come with the package but for the whole (and I, and others, have suggested that before).

The use of these tools seems to need proper training (so that e.g. the information of TOR technical data spoofing is known, technical limits, etc.). You say "... either there was no one who had this prior knowledge to educate the rest of us, or they were not active enough to see the case, notice it, and point it out" shows that even more. You, with prior knowledge of Computer Networking, did not know about the limits, and that is not your fault, it is the fault of the lack of proper training. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this explains things and puts a smile on my face, and I 100% agree with you that some sort of training should become standard even for non-Arbs, though I do feel it's more prevalent for non-Arbs. Also the guide that is given to us at CU wiki also could use some updating, reformatting, and cleanup but i've been struggling to find the extra time to do so. But yes, we need to learn from the mistakes we make, build, and continue on learning as best we can so we try and avoid mistakes like these. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Insulted? A good faith fuckup is still a fuckup. Tor (anonymity network) describes the operation of the network and notes "When browsing the Web, Tor is often coupled with Polipo or Privoxy proxy servers. Privoxy is a filtering proxy server that aims to add privacy at the application layer." Following the Privoxy link follows we find "filtering capabilities for enhancing privacy, modifying web page data and HTTP headers." So the knowledge DQ lacked was pretty much already documented on Wikipedia. In context, it is Int21h who should be insulted and DQ should (continue to be) apologetic, and the block log revdel'd. That said, calls for DQ to do penance of some sort provide no benefit to Wikipedia and should not be pursued. NE Ent 14:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, "pretty much" doesn't go far enough. I knew it modified web page data and HTTP headers. The IP is in the HTTP header and it is modified. I followed that and understood that through the course of my investigation. What I didn't understand is that the useragent is completely spoofed. And you obviously haven't read my already existing apology statements. I've have been apologetic but Int21h doesn't want to accept it, so I am not going to force him to, yet I still have the original statement there on his talk. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, well we all know that now, but the user agent spoofing was simply not something that was considered at the time because it wasn't common knowledge. I saw the data and thought I was seeing someone with a really out of date browser. Every CU had access to the data, and though I don't know how many reviewed it, not a single one of us who did realized what we were seeing. So, yeah, the block was a mistake, but it's not as if DQ was alone in thinking that Int21h was socking.

To those who have commented here, I have this to say about some of the reactions to this block: Int21h was blocked (not banned, as some keep saying) from editing a website. He was prevented from practicing a hobby. He was not locked away in Guantanamo, but some critics on this page and elsewhere seem to think that this block is a similar injustice. This is a website, a hobby, and we should all keep that fact in mind and to try to maintain proper perspective. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is the onus on Int21h et. al to maintain proper perspective instead of those who made the mistake? NE Ent 16:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Did I not say, "we should all"? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is that it is not a bad block, or even a mistake. Anyone who's using Tor is likely to be blocked, good user or not, because it is impossible to differentiate them from seriously problematic users. We have far too much granting of IPBE, sometimes without any rationale at all (see the Education Program's dispensing of IPBE as part of the "rights" for that program, with absolutely no reason given at all), that the entire purpose of the IPBE program has been eroded. It is intended to give a little bit of leeway to those who are editing from countries where there is a long history of government interference in internet connection, not so that people can edit using anonymizing proxies as a routine. "I might be going to China" should never be accepted as a reason for granting IPBE, nor should "I am editing from work/my local coffee shop"; "I am going to China from May to September" is a good reason. The problem here is that we are not warning people who are granted IPBE that they *will* be checked, and if there are abusive users on the same IP/using the same user agent etc, they will be blocked at least until the issue is clarified. IPBE should always be considered a tool of last resort to permit editing under circumstances where the user is at risk, and with the understanding that it is far more likely to result in *precautionary blocks*. Those aren't mistakes. Risker (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

CU hints and tips clearly states: "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way or an editor was behaving in a way that appears suggestive of possible disruption. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)." (emphasis mine). Was any evidence Int21h's editing pattern matched that of the sockpuppeter? NE Ent 16:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely, this should be done. I've seen more than enough discussions here with 'you have a long block log', where most if not all of the blocks were overturned for good reasons, bad blocks do count against you, up to the point that bad blocks are used as evidence of bad behaviour by ArbCom itself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well that is an interesting sentiment. Who will be the first admin to step up with a scalpel and begin the pruning of Malleus' block log? Tarc (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Questioning "Tor abuse" justification I keep seeing people mention that bad blocks are justified because of the abuse we get from Tor and I really have to question this rationale. For the last few years we have been using mw:Extension:TorBlock which automatically blocks Tor exit nodes as soon as they pop up. Between that extension and ProcseeBot (talk · contribs) I don't believe we have massive amount of Tor abuse that people are inferring. So I am not certain this justification is valid. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 64.40.54.214 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• The extension has been known to not work sometimes. It looks like it's malfunctioning again. Just take a look at how many Tor nodes I blocked the other day. Secondly, ProcseeBot blocks proxies, not Tor nodes. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since we're talking about proxies, ProcseeBot doesn't get all of them. IMO it blocks only a small percentage of the proxies out there. I mean I find myself blocking a number of open proxies. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Elockid. I stand corrected. 64.40.54.87 (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• I, for one, am entirely satisfied that DQ didn't do anything with malicious intent, and I think we need to move past the post-mortem of this single block, to look instead at what can be done to improve things in the future, because otherwise this is just spinning wheels. Yes, it would be helpful to provide better advice to editors who consider using IPBE. But more importantly, let's get back to the original idea of this sub-thread: ways to correct information in the block logs of good-faith editors whose blocks were subsequently found to have been incorrect. This isn't about putting a bad mark on the logs of blocking admins. It's about correcting (not necessarily removing, as in revdel, but just correcting) the bad marks on the logs of editors who actually didn't do anything wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish. We have an opportunity to fix one of the problems with the way Wikipedia operates. If the conversation degenerates, we will lose this opportunity. 64.40.54.87 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Is this thing on?

I know that dealing with WP:CHILDPROTECT issues is probably unpleasant for you, but it is part of the job and you knew that when you put yourselves up for election to ArbCom. Since I'm not getting any responses to my emails, perhaps one of you would be good enough to respond to my questions in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Was there a change in our child protection policy?? And it would be just super if you could do that without immediately disappearing, so that we could have a discussion about this. You know it's not going away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to email me if you had somehow got blocked by too many arbcom members due to (ahem) problems with your behaviour. I'm quite sure to be able to get some people's notice if it's actually important. It's also possible that people are just busy, but yeah I'm sure I can do some quite harsh prodding :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the thread and respond if there's anything on which I think I can offer useful comment. If you meant "immediately disappearing" to be a hint at my disappearance after commenting yesterday (and not a hint at some other arbitrator or a general remark), I didn't intentionally snub your reply to me and I would have always responded to your {{talkback}} when I had a spare moment. Also, if you think we do not care about child protection in general and in practice, then you should know (and I think I speak for every one of my colleagues when I say this) that this is very far from accurate. I suppose I'm suggesting you not be quite so angry about this (and, on that note, I'll go deal with your e-mail before doing a single other thing). AGK [•] 22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only judge ArbCom's concern for "child protection" by its actions. And I'm not seeing any action in cases where there is very very little room for doubt. If you think I'm "angry" about this, you have formed the wrong impression. I'm not angry at all. Or even surprised. But I am persistent and I think this is an important issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

DC, I can assure you that ArbCom is swift (indeed, some have complained too swift) to act when provided with evidence. The problem is that too often, we are provided with little but conjecture and cherry-picked circumstantial hints. In those cases, and absent actual on-wiki problematic behaviour, we can't simply bring down the hammer on an editor because he may or may not be one of several Internet personas that share the same pseudonym. — Coren ^(talk) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Constrained though we are by policy and privacy concerns, I think it might be helpful if we talk about the two most recent cases that I covered on Wikipediocracy's blog. In one case, the user had previously self-identified on-wiki as a "girl-lover" (a pedophile who is attracted to prepubescent girls). This user is now indef blocked by an admin who is not a member of ArbCom and did not make the block at your request, with an edit notice telling people to contact ArbCom about the block. I have no doubt that they informed you of the block. If you feel that there was insufficent evidence to connect the account which self-identified with the blocked account, you should reverse this block. If you agree with the block, I am curious as to why you sat on your hands until someone else made the block, since I know the case had been reported to you. In the more recent case, no one has acknowledged even receiving my two emails about it, let alone asked for more information. These don't seem to me like the actions of a body that is concerned with carrying out one of its duties. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

AGK, you said you were going to "deal with your e-mail before doing a single other thing". I haven't received a reply, the editor is not blocked, you haven't replied to my questions at WP:AN, and you haven't made another post here. I'm curious - is my email dealt with now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delicious carbuncle, I have replied to your email in my personal capacity, you will find some comments from me there. I will certainly discuss the matter with you, but because this is clearly a privacy issue, I will not be discussing further on-wiki. If you want to discuss Arbcom's (or Wikipedia's) handling of child protection cases, discussion should be kept to the general case. There is certainly room for improvement - and I believe this is something that the foundation, not Arbcom, should be handling. Worm^TT(talk) 12:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I did deal with your e-mail immediately, as I said I would—though I don't think I'm at liberty to say how I dealt with it. As for your questions at AN, I did look at them, and did not see anything I thought I could helpfully reply to. AGK [•] 14:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mailing list, again

(I'm tempted to point out that I'm not asking for anyone to step down.) But I'm dismayed that, amid all the other talk here, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Mailing list has been archived. I sincerely urge the Arbs to look at it, and to take it seriously. It's something that you absolutely need to do better on than (some of) you have done in the past, and there are feasible and constructive things that you can do about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I for one have been thinking about the mailing list issues ever since they were first raised. I had expected to comment in that discussion when I had a chance (I was on vacation for some days), and am sure the discussion will continue in some form. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment on it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Brad, you're more optimistic than I. The practice in handling mailing list abuse, and in handling any subsequent discussion about mailing list abuse, seems to be—ignore it and hope it goes away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried about that, too. Brad et al., please prove me wrong by not waiting until the next time the archive bot comes by. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it's not archived. NE Ent 02:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mailing list

The following was un-archived by NE Ent. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Back at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Thinking about the mailing list, I started a discussion about mailing list policy, and I'd like to re-start it. At the time, some of the Arbs wanted to wait until January, more or less, and I think we are clearly there (also, from more than a week ago, User talk:Risker#Checking if the time is OK and User talk:Tryptofish#Mailing lists). Really, I hope this doesn't come across as pushing anyone before they are ready. But I think the nature of institutions like this is that it can be helpful to make sure that things don't slip through the cracks, and that's the spirit in which I bring it up again. No pressure, just trying to help!

Here's what I said then:

... I'm not proposing anything that is fully thought-out here, but I hope to start some useful discussion. Perhaps we could revise policy regarding the mailing list so that all material on the list would, in effect, be in one or the other of two categories:

• Category A would contain:
  • anything that would identify or otherwise violate the meta:Privacy of users (people contacting the list, parties to cases, arbitrators themselves).
  • sensitive material, such as stalking situations, users who are minors, etc.
  • What else? We should discuss what else should be included here.
• Category B would contain:
  • everything else.

Category A would continue to be treated as it is now, per WP:AP#Transparency and confidentiality: fully confidential, full stop, violations regarded as very serious problems.

Category B would be treated in a new way. The "default" assumption – the way everything on the list would be thought of, until explicitly determined to be otherwise – would, again, be full confidentiality. But Category B material could be released from full confidentiality by a simple majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators. Such a vote would have to determine: (1) that there is nothing in Category A (or anything Category A is to be redacted before release), and (2) that there is a valid reason to release the material, either on-Wiki or through a more restricted release to persons not on the mailing list. Anyone could make a request to the Committee for such a release, or any arbitrator could propose it. The majority vote would mean that no individual arbitrator would be allowed to release anything without majority consent, and also that no individual could veto majority consent. (I'm not sure whether the vote itself would need to be recorded on-Wiki. It might be enough to conduct it on the list itself.)

I think recent experience has shown that Category B might include material that most members of the Committee have found to be unhelpful, as well as communications that are more of a gossipy nature, as well as things that are directly related to the Committee's business, but that do not reveal confidential material under the privacy policy. I don't see any good reason for the majority to vote to routinely release wholesale slabs of material, but my hope is that this would give the Committee some flexibility to deal with situations where there may be some value in making something more transparent to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The response back then seemed to be positive, so let's look into this further. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. NE Ent 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Thanks Tryptofish for raising the issue of mailing lists again. I think we can now honestly say that there's no such thing as a good time to raise these sorts of issues; with three open cases and a few other serious tidbits to review, we have a pretty full plate. Having said that, after your prod on my talk page, I have initiated a discussion amongst arbitrators to examine the mailing list "alternatives" that we saw in early November 2012 that the WMF is able to support. Many of the issues that we have with incoming mail are stymied by the use of the inflexible Mailman software (for example, we can't delete anything from archives without adversely affecting the posts that remain), and we have too many mailing lists for everyone to keep track of effectively. I won't say that response to my discussion has been enthusiastic, but I'm not giving up hope!

  I think it might be helpful to try to figure out some examples of information that might be considered "suitable for release", both from the arbitrator side and from the community side. I think you might be surprised at how much actually shows up onwiki that is simply a reiteration of the positions of individual arbitrators; the most recent example would have been the motion on withdrawing cases, where there was pretty solid correlation between what people said onwiki and what they said on the mailing list, and indeed some were more expansive here onwiki. Risker (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks Risker, and I'm certainly very sympathetic to how much you and the others have to deal with. Two suggestions: (1) what I'm talking about here is really unrelated to the technology of how the list works, instead focusing on how the humans deal with the material, so I recommend looking at it that way; (2) maybe the best way to figure out what is suitable for release is to start by determining the opposite: what must be kept confidential, because what does not need to be kept confidential becomes suitable for consideration for release. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  Once my colleagues with more knowledge of this issue have had the opportunity to weigh in, I might offer some comments; but for now, I'll keep out of this discussion. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank Tryptofish for how thoughtfully and generously he has framed these issues, and to assure him that I do not consider him to be badgering us in any way. AGK [•] 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, AGK, that's very nice of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about something along these lines myself. I'd say that Tryptofish's proposal is heading in roughly the right direction, but without an explicit, compulsory separation between ArbCom business and ArbCom chatting that is applied to every message, the Committee is going to get itself into trouble again when its members use a 'business' list for 'personal' activities.

I would be inclined to propose two lists, along the lines of

1. Arbcom-en-L The current list, to be used exclusively for material directly related to carrying out ArbCom's responsibilities. Primarily for material related to ongoing case deliberations. -en-L would continue to enjoy its completely privileged status; its messages and contents cannot be released or discussed outside the list (or the other areas similarly sealed to ArbCom) without the clearly expressed, explicit, obtained-in-advance permission of message authors—or as released by the mechanism described below. Arbitrators are expected not to 'game' the protections of this list by, for example, appending significant 'non-business' content on to 'core business' messages. Arbitrators who repeatedly or egregiously abuse the protected, privileged list should be sanctioned: public censure, temporary loss of list privileges, or even removal from the ArbCom.
2. Arbcom-chat A mailing list to which all of the Arbitrators are subscribed, to be used to broadcast messages to the entire Committee that aren't directly related to carrying out the current business of ArbCom. Message content on this list isn't restricted. Arbs are welcome to use it as they see fit, though they are expected to confine official business to Arbcom-en-L as much as possible. This is the list where Arbs can carry out general conversations, discuss changes to policies that aren't directly under ArbCom's control, engage in electioneering, and talk about who is going to bring the potato salad to the ArbCom Picnic. Messages sent to Arbcom-chat are treated exactly the same way as messages sent between Wikipedia editors using the 'Email this user' function, or sent to a fellow editor's private email address. Arbitrators who repeatedly post private, case-related matter to Arbcom-chat should be sanctioned: public censure, temporary loss of list privileges, or even removal from the ArbCom.

What are the practical ramifications?

• Arbitrators who are using the existing Arbcom-en-L list appropriately and solely for its intended purpose now will face essentially no changes.
• It should go without saying that Wikipedia's privacy policy continues to apply to material on both lists—and to private material whenever and wherever Arbs may handle it on- or off-wiki.
• Material on the Arbcom-chat list enjoys the same protections – and limits to those protections – as regular email between editors. Under the current policy, if Coren mentions on Arbcom-en-L that he will be bringing the potato salad to the ArbCom picnic, and then Newyorkbrad mentions Coren's potato salad on-wiki, it is a technical violation of the list rules for which Newyorkbrad could face sanctions. Under my proposed policy, the picnic and its potato salad would be discussed on Arbcom-chat, and Newyorkbrad could mention it on-wiki without precipitating a crisis.
• Arbitrators who repeat or describe, in whole or in part, content from Arbcom-chat to individuals outside of ArbCom remain fully and personally responsible for the content of what they post, as they would for information (privacy-policy-governed or not) or messages they receive by email. In other words, they are expected to use discretion and good judgement, and not do things like repost or forward full messages without a damn good reason. As part of that discretion and good judgement, Arbs are expected to recognize when their fellows have used the wrong list, and treat the occasional bit of ArbCom business on Arbcom-chat accordingly.

Finally, we have the situations where an Arbitrator has used the Arbcom-en-L list inappropriately, for one or more messages which ought to be on Arbcom-chat. Messages, or portions thereof, can be copied from Arbcom-en-L to Arbcom-chat under the following circumstances (numbers and timing are suggestions, subject to tweaking):

1. With the clearly expressed, explicit permission of the message's author(s);
2. Upon receiving the support of a majority of sitting, active Arbitrators; or
3. If the Arbitrator requesting the transfer identifies his request as 'urgent', with the support of at least two-thirds of the Arbitrators voting within 48 hours (or such longer time as the Arb may request) of the request for a vote.

In all but the most time-sensitive situations, this provides a mechanism by which abuse of the Arbcom-en-L can be moved somewhere where it can be mentioned publicly if necessary. (For example, this would have permitted members of ArbCom to publicly discuss, or at least acknowledge, Jclemens' attempt to use the privacy of Arbcom-en-L to manipulate the 2012 ArbCom elections.) Arbitrators are encouraged to use method #1 informally wherever appropriate and possible.

It's still rough around the edges, but I think establishing a clear demarcation between ArbCom business and Arbitrator chatting (and the appropriate level of secrecy or privilege for each) requires that material be confined to separate lists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I get where you're going. A couple of issues: So if I post to the list saying that I will be on very reduced activity because I'm going on an exotic vacation, is that business or chat? [Hint: arbitrator absence is business, personal information like holiday plans is confidential, and it will inevitably evolve into chat when a group of people who are friendly with each other have the chance to say "pics or it didn't happen", for example.] Secondly....oh god not another mailing list. Please not another mailing list. Especially not another Mailman mailing list. Risker (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Appending: It is not physically possible to "move" messages from one mailing list to another. We are physically unable to delete "wrong list" messages from the archives without irreparably damaging other posts. At best, one can redirect the *response* to a "wrong list" email to the right list (which we do if an unblock request comes to the main mailing list), but one has to be very very careful to strip off previous messages that are in the right place, which is darn hard to do from one's smartphone. And if anyone thinks that ANY arbcom list is suitable for electioneering, then I think it's time to pack up the committee and go home. That's possibly the saddest thing I've read on this page, ever. Risker (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously 'move' is a figure of speech, rather than a literal, technical expectation. To 'move' a message to the other list simply means to 'copy without violating policy'. I'm sure that that interpretation is understood. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps -chat isn't the best name for the list; perhaps the two lists should be Arbcom-private and Arbcom-mail or something of that sort. Go ahead and hash out a reasonable division. Maybe declarations of absence should be cross-posted. (Sure, arbitrator absence is business, but it is business that should be shared with the community; the mere fact that you're unavailable doesn't trigger the need for secrecy.) Maybe warnings of an upcoming absence should be kept private on en-L at the discretion of the Arb involved, pending their chosen time to announce it.

I'm sure you noticed I explicitly acknowledge that the 'non-private' list still maintains the usual protections afforded by the privacy policy—your fellow Arbs would be in trouble if they told the community where and when to go to rob your house while you were away, regardless of where you posted your messages. Your fellow Arbs should also be able to demonstrate the responsibility and discretion to confine their "pics or it didn't happen" requests to a 'chat' list. Honestly, this new level of care may seem onerous at first, but I expect that you'll quickly get used to it. Further, there's no obligation to participate in, mail to, or even subscribe to the 'chat' list. If important business is appearing only on the -chat list, then there's something wrong.

In all seriousness, if you don't want to get stuck with another mailing list, make an alternative suggestion. When Jclemens abused your current list (in an attempt) to manipulate an important public Wikipoedia process – nominations for the ArbCom election – it took weeks for the ArbCom to come up with any sort of public statement, that came too late to be much use (inasmuch as it was released well after the close of the nomination period), and even then it appears that the ArbCom's principle concern was the leak and not the abuse of their private list. (In techincal terms, this is what we call 'not getting it'.) You're facing these proposals now because it's clear that having an absolutely-inviolably-secret mailing list is too much responsibility. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Right now we have three all-Arb mailing lists, plus the functionaries list to which all arbs are subscribed, plus the appeals mailing list to which almost all arbs are subscribed. Some arbs are also on the AUSC, oversight, and global checkuser list on top of that. What you're proposing is sending messages to a mailing list that...nobody even subscribes to? Nobody can ever make a joke with their colleagues in this brave new world, without risk of being publicly censured? Would you also ban introductory emails to the list? I am relatively certain that if we had done the "right thing" about Jclemens' inappropriate use of the mailing list (and there are multiple interpretations of what that "right thing" would have been, ranging from telling him not to be a jerk to banning him from the project, both of which were suggested by respected members of the community, with several points in between), a significant and equally loud portion of the community would have been just as ticked off at us for making a "political" decision about that, too. We "get" a lot more than we're given credit for. A separate mailing list isn't the solution, and wouldn't have been a solution even if it had been in existence at the time. It seems to me that the problem you're "solving" is the development of any sense of internal community within the committee, rather than how to deal with arbitrators who abuse their position wherever they may do so. Risker (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but I trust that you also understand that there's as much frustration outside the Committee. Based on Jclemens' comment in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Where were the rest of the Arbitrators during all this, and what do they see as their responsibility to the community?, the response of the Committee to his use of the mailing list for his own electioneering – attempting to intimidate potential competitors in the then-upcoming election – was a stern finger-wagging from "a few" other Arbs, followed by utter silence. The ArbCom (according to Jclemens) considered the matter "a resolved issue". Things apparently rested that way for five-plus days, until the ArbCom became aware of the leak by Elen—even then it took two more weeks for the ArbCom to release any statement. A sitting Arbitrator had made a credible attempt to use his privileges to manipulate an election for his own benefit, but the ArbCom was content to keep the community entirely in the dark on the matter.

As someone without access to ArbCom mailing lists, I don't know if this type of abuse is a regular occurrence or not. I doubt that it is, and I fervently hope that it isn't. But right now, the ArbCom is batting 0 for 1 in the sole case that the Wikipedia community knows about. The only thing that the community can see is that the ArbCom didn't take any visible action until weeks after they were aware the matter had been leaked.

You've said that if the ArbCom had handled the matter differently, there would have been a different pool of editors crying for your blood, and I certainly am not naive enough to dispute that. (Sometimes you really are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Being an Arbitrator can really suck, and I wouldn't stand up and volunteer for that misery even in the unlikely event that the community offered it to me.) The unfortunate impression that those of us on the 'outside' get, however, is that the ArbCom's initial choice in the matter wasn't between pissing off Group A and pissing off Group B. Instead, it was between pissing off Group A, and not doing much of anything while relying on the secrecy of the mailing list to protect everyone on the ArbCom from any fallout. To be clear, I doubt that anyone on the Committee was consciously engaging in that sort of deliberate political calculation; rather, I suspect that the ArbCom just plain failed to recognize that they needed to make any decision at all. We are told that "a few" Arbitrators took it on themselves to criticize Jclemens, but did any Arbitrator take any positive step to discuss or direct an appropriate response by the ArbCom as a whole? Forget bringing anything to a vote, did anyone even sketch a motion, or suggest in any more than the vaguest way that ArbCom might be obliged to make an announcement or take other publicly-visible, collective action? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I encourage the committee to do as much discussion and deliberation onwiki as feasible per the study referenced in the SignPost last October: ""the reported use of interaction channels outside the Wikipedia platform (e.g., e-mail) is a cause for concern." That said, arbcom-l must exist to handle information not suitable for public dissemination.
• With regard to the list itself: too much overthinking. Not supposed to a bureaucracy here. Existing policy, to wit,

Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties. is fine. What's lacking is simply a protocol to determine whether a arbitrator sent communication is "in the performance of their duties." Logically, only the committee can decide that because the rest of us shouldn't see it until a determination is made. So simply add a protocol that if one of ya'll think an email is outside the bounds of "performance of their duties" a majority vote can determine it can be revealed.

• I do not care about, and would actually prefer not to know, details of the "potato salad" nature. TMI. NE Ent 14:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I compare and contrast the approaches in my suggestion and in TenOfAllTrades', a lot of it comes down to technology versus human judgment, and that's actually something that also arises in Risker's first reply to me. I kind of think that anything that relies on technology, whether that means two separate lists as TenOfAllTrades proposed, or various technological upgrades to the list system, as have come up at various times before, won't really get at the key issue. What matters is letting a consensus of Arbitrators determine whether something on the list should be made public or be kept confidential. I trust collective judgment about that, in a way that I don't trust the judgment of any single individual. If you look back at the archived discussion, you'll see an exchange between me and SandyGeorgia, in which we both agreed that: (1) a single Arb should not decide unilaterally to release something, and (2) a single Arb should not be able to unilaterally prevent the majority of the Committee from releasing something. If there's a decision about which of two lists to post to, that decision will always be made by a single individual. I'd rather have something like a majority vote of Arbs, to decide whether to lift confidentiality for any particular message. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Timestamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this might have run its course. There are a number of cases etc taking up the attention. I think the solution is much simpler.

1. There is a list.
   
2. No-one should send personally identifying information to it, because any mechanism that fires messages into the private mailboxes of individuals is by definition not secure. Send it to an Arb you trust, and tell them not to share it, only to summarise it
   
3. The list should only be used for official business. Any use for other business should not expect the level of privacy afforded to official business, and should be showered with sardines.
   
4. If someone announces that they are unavailable due to surgery/visit to Venice etc, and other Arbs want to know more information, that's what personal email is for.
   
5. my personal view is that it's bloody ludicrous that Arbcom should expect to keep its own deliberations secret after the fact, and I don't know how it ever got from the base premises of the Wikipedia founders to that position. But that's my personal view, and not relevant here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Elen – as always, it's good to hear from you. I certainly didn't expect that to be the reaction to my timestamp. In my opinion, what I've proposed has not run its course. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Although we don't run a justice system per nojustice, we can choose to be informed by concepts taken from justice system. In the context of the US Constitution 6th Admendment, a Connecticut public defender notes:

"The right to an open court in criminal proceedings is “an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power,” In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270 (1948), which functions for “the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned.” Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984).

and Wikipedia specific research has found "ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities." NE Ent 23:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the end of the content that had been archived. The following has been added new, after the restoration of the thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In a justice system, you get to see the evidence presented against you. You don't get to read the judges' notes during the case or listen in on the conversations they have with their clerks. NW (Talk) 02:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but what should be done when one judge is using the tools of his office to secretly manipulate the selection of his peers? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd venture to say whatever it is, it's not "each of the other judges gets to personally select the excerpts they think make that first judge look the worst, and submit them anonymously to one reporter of their choice, under the condition the reporter not write about it" or "all the other judges publish the entirety of the case's notes, discussions, and private evidence, with no eye to which items are relevant to misuse." That is to say, any system of handling questionable mailing list (or just routine "FOA"-type disclosure about what goes on on the mailing list) use needs to be a) concerned with retaining privacy in any issues that require it b) determined by the committee as a whole, not presented as a fait accompli by the first arb to decide a message is "misuse" and release it.

I do happen to agree, however, with those who are urging Arbcom to focus more on onwiki deliberations. Private matters need to be handled privately, but everything else - and I'd venture that that "everything else" is probably a vast majority of the discussions that go on - should be happening onwiki. That includes proposing draft/working motions; fighting with each other over which remedies, FoFs, etc should pass; hashing out the wording of things; etc. There is no benefit to keeping those things socked away on a mailing list just because there's a tradition of posting a mostly-cohesive PD onwiki at a later date instead. The community knows you all disagree a lot; for most disagreements among arbs, it is of benefit to the community to see who thinks what and what is going into the committee's convergence on a given PD/motion/etc.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Your point about leaking as a respone to misconduct is one that I touched on way back in November—"I hope I don't...see this mailing list dispute turn into Team Jclemens versus Team Elen. In practice, both of them screwed up in different ways, and neither deserved to be excused for their conduct nor held up as a 'victim'." Pretending that either of them handled themselves particularly well, or that either's conduct should be a template for future policy, is obviously ridiculous.

As a matter of the ArbCom's response to the situation, misuse of the mailing list in an attempt to manipulate the candidate pool for a public election was insufficiently serious to prompt a public statement, motion of censure, or any other address to the community. (As far as I can tell from the mostly-stony-silence we've been getting from the ArbCom, nobody even considered making any sort of public statement.) Release of material from the mailing list – material which wasn't related to ArbCom business and contained no personal information – was considered sufficiently serious to prompt a public ArbCom response. I don't know if that's because the ArbCom thinks leaking is more serious than misuse of the ArbCom tools, or if the ArbCom only wants to publicly acknowledge misconduct that's already public knowledge, or if the ArbCom was just plain asleep at the switch and hasn't got a clue how to properly respond to Arbitrator misconduct. So far, though, I'm still waiting to see any Arbitrator offer a suggestion about how to approach any of those possibilities, or offer any alternative explanation for the way they handled things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to let explanations of what happened in the past go as water under the bridge, but I strongly agree with TenOfAllTrades that it really behooves the Arbitrators to start commenting publicly (here would be ideal) on what they will do in the future. That's really what I'm trying to get to by pushing this discussion.

It seems to me that the kinds of problems discussed just above arise when a single person on the Committee decides to leak something, and the other members are left having to figure out what to do after it happens, or when a single member of the Committee believes that the community would be served by making something public, but cannot. We know that some things on the mailing list need to be kept private, and some other things do not.

I think the way forward does not lie in anything technological, but rather, in human judgment. But the judgment should be collective, and I trust the Committee, as a group, to make those judgments (perhaps other editors disagree). What I want to avoid is: (1) one Committee member decides unilaterally to release something, and (2) one Committee member can veto the release of something that the Committee as a whole believes ought to be made public. My pre-proposal in the yellowish box near the top seeks to avoid both (1) and (2). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

[]== Edit needed? ==

The lead section states: "Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents, nor Wikipedia executives."

In view of Coren's situation, could use some wordsmithing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Made an edit to address. NE Ent 18:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren is a contractor, working in a technical role, not an employee, agent or executive of the Foundation. Coren no more represents the Foundation than an electrical contractor working on my house represents me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I accept your point that he is a contractor, not an employee. Agents are typically not employees; I don't know whether Coren is or is not an agent, but I can imagine that he might be. In any event, the NE Ent edit, if it sticks, resolves the problem.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent's change to WP:AC was this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerning a particularly punitive block, and an appeal against it.

On 23 January ArbCom received an appeal from an editor in which he made a pretty strong case for an unblock and topic ban lifting. He was informed at the time that it could take a week or two, because in the words of the replying arbitrator, Arbcom was very busy at the moment; it had a single on-project case at the time.

Almost 6 weeks have passed, and this editor is still being subjected to what is quite obviously a punitive block and topic ban, and Arbcom has only gotten busier.

In fact, if you look at onwiki Arbcom work, I see that numerous Arbitrators are acting in timely fashion at places such as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, but in this case one is only hearing crickets from the place where Arbitrators should be heard.

You know, and I know, and many in the uninvolved community knows, that the block and topic ban was a complete and utter over-reaction and blatantly punitive in nature. You have seen the evidence on just how punitive this block and topic ban are, and here is Arbcom seemingly deliberately dragging its feet on the issue, only extending the punitive nature of the block.

Arbcom is able to hear complex and lengthy arbitration cases with a 2.5 week time frame from the beginning of the case to a proposed decision; yet here Arbcom is unable to deal with a clearly punitive block in a timely fashion.

Either Arbcom deal with this immediately, or allow an uninvolved admin to step in and do what needs to be done; in which case the editor would have been unblocked months and months ago. This community - this project as a whole - is only losing by keeping this editor blocked.

Arbcom, for the love of whatever deity you happen to worship, Step up to the plate, and do the right thing.

Fish^Barking? 22:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have submitted this plea on behalf of the appellant, then it would be fair to the people who watch this page to specify the appellant's name. Although no non-arbitrators will, I think I know who you mean—and if we are thinking of the same appeal, then I can confirm we have moved to a vote on the matter. We prioritise cases and on-site proceedings over ban or block appeals, particularly when the appeal concerns a ban or block that has itself already been appealed to the community, which explains the delay. Also, in this case and by an unhappy coincidence, we had one other matter to dispose of that was very urgent and time-consuming (but that would not, as a matter of confidential nature, be apparent to the appellant or editors not sitting on the committee). AGK [•] 22:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)