Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24

(Moved from main page) Application of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies

Oh, Lord, not this. I'm uninvolved, but I really believe that it would be good for Barberio to read the article at WP:CIVIL. It has no particular force in it. It says that people should be civil toward one another. Civility, like obscenity, depends upon the viewer's standards. Since each person can interpret any statement as civil or uncivil, we have to employ community standards, and this effectively removes blocking from the hands of any single administrator. I cannot block a person for not being civil because, first, the policy doesn't have blocking as an option, and secondly because, as a solitary individual I am making a private interpretation of that person's statements. I need to appeal to a wider community to find that comments have gone from merely indecorous to actually disrupting the civil function of the republic of words here. Similarly, "personal attacks" has no sanctions in it. The policy does not say, "Block 'em." It says that certain "extreme" examples "may" result in a block. Both of these "policies" are admonitory rather than penal. Both recommend that people be nice and civil. This is because the blocking offense is disruption. If a person is disrupting the editing atmosphere, he or she may be blocked, but "disruption" requires demonstrated effects, not the umbrage taken by a particular user. Some long time users may point to their duration and contributions when accused of being uncivil, but this is not because one overcomes the other: it is because the long time of editing shows that they have experience with community editing, and the person complaining is probably representing only him or herself (i.e. that they do not represent a community's point of view and are idiosyncratic). More disruption comes into effect from people chasing each other about with the "Civility" stick than from any one person being mean, in my opinion. Geogre (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from main page, please keep that section for asking clarification from the arbcom.

I'm sorry George, but I suggest you re-read these policies yourself. Specifically note that Civility is a core principle, that defines incivility as harm to the project. Admins are entitled to make blocks to prevent damage to the project. And the No Personal Attacks policy does explicitly note that blocks, or even community bans, may result from "a confrontational style marked by personal attacks".

"Pointing to their duration and contributions" is not a good demonstration that someone is currently being a productive community editor, or ever has been. You make the false assumption that experience equates to competence. Someone can spend five years doing something the wrong way. And frankly, in a project that's only seven years old, this isn't a wealth of 'experience' we're talking about. --Barberio (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was this moved from the main page? Editors who are not on the Arbitration Committe can post there, and have in the past posted there (for examples of such comments, look at the requests for clarification below the NPA and CIVIL thread). I suggest it be moved back. --Iamunknown 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I felt it was inviting a lengthy threaded "yes it is" "no it isn't" discussion if outside commenter's started in on this. If the arbcom or clerks disagree, they can restore it. --Barberio (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Request for clarification section is mainly intended for requests involving prior closed cases. General questions such as "Why won't the Arbitrators hear a case involving X" are better handled on the talk page. Thatcher131 01:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In which case, Barberio's request was missplaced, Geogre's answer was threaded properly, and the long time user told the newer one that it isn't so simple as all that (and got lectured for an answer, as well as moved). Hallelujah! Utgard Loki 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, the above was moved because it was inviting threaded discussion from others, rather than asking for clarification from the committee. I begin to suspect that I should retreat back into wikisilence. Incidentally, my first contribution to wikipedia was more than three years ago, and I have been involved with the restructuring of policies and guidelines, as well as helping a major wikiproject get under way. I dislike having to present my credentials, however, I yet again find that a combative and aggressive tone is seen as the normal practice, and attempts to belittle others substitute for logical argument. I hope for change, but sadly this project is sinking more and more under the weight of the obnoxious. --Barberio 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to invite threaded discussion, but, as yours was an outside view looking to apply a policy in a sweeping fashion away from a particular arbitration matter, I offered an outside view that suggested that the policies as written are clear enough. If you were involved in writing many policies and have been here for three years, then you know full well that "civility" is a goal, but the NPA policy intentionally has no consequences to it, that "civility" is impossible to determine, and that trying to do something like leverage a specific ruling one place onto a campaign for the reformation of manners (of anyone) is unacceptable, both from the point of view of arbitration and from the point of logic. Geogre 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not an 'outside view looking to apply a policy in a sweeping fashion', it was a question about arbcom precedents, directed to the arbcom and not the community at large.

And yes I 'know' that the NPA is 'intentionally' toothless. But this is solely because of the rise of editors and admin who don't want NPA to be enforced except when it's directed towards them, and prefer 'Civility' as a weak guideline so they can punish and berate those who 'deserve it'.

Also, if you want to accuse me of 'unacceptable' behavior, please don't circle around the point in a passive aggressive manner with that 'doing something like...' insinuation. Come right out and say you think I've done something wrong. --Barberio 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what is in your mind. Your actions appear to me to be those of a person trying to find a weapon. You seem not to realize how inherently ridiculous this is. You seem to want a policy (or, better yet, an acronym) to use to silence people who annoy you. To avoid anything passive, let me say that such is seeking out a weapon for combat. It is looking for some way of getting control or getting the other person in trouble. This is what's wrong with "Civility" as an invoked policy, rather than civility as a practice. Civil editors do not need to shout, "Personal attack! Personal attack! Now I block you!" "Rise of admins who prefer civility" is rather baseless. I've been here opposing "NPA" since it was first proposed, and quite a few others have been, too, and we have prevailed to the extent that some observing that began to invoke "civility" rather than NPA. I wish they had taken on board the actual lessons we hoped for, that sticks and stones don't exist on the web, and the names here are unlikely to hurt you. When they do hurt, when they are that far out, the account is already in violation of a score of policies. When a person is solely a trash-talking account, someone who does nothing but that sort of thing, then that account is doing something quite bad, violating many policies, and we don't need to obfuscate the issue by saying, "You have to be blocked for nothing you have done, but for being impolite." Citing "NPA" and "Civility" is most often improper, and trying to get ArbCom to widen a ruling to make that easier is an uncivil act, because there is little room for it to be motivated by anything but a desire to have the biggest stick. Geogre 12:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-11-19/News_and_notes#Age_requirement

I'm really sad to here about the age restriction imposed on Arbcom nominations. Please explain further why it is such a problem to show private information to a minor and why we can't change the privacy policy instead of turning into a bunch of ageists. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee lacks the authority to change the privacy policy; you'll want to take things up with the Foundation if you want any changes made. Kirill 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: I want to know what they were smoking when the Board decided on the privacy policy. I'm glad to see that administrators seeing deleted edits doesn't fall under this ridiculous policy, but it doesn't make any sense when you compare the two situations. Why do they treat deleted edits differently than Arbcom information? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, ask the Board, then. We're not privy to its reasoning.

(The Committee handles very private information, incidentally.) Kirill 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything more private than the name and contact details often shared on the help desk? Without sharing any details, could you give examples of the sort of info you're referring to? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In one case information is provided voluntarily, and in the other case information is retrieved without a persons consent with strict restrictions on how it can be used. That is a significant difference, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We've done without restrictions on arbcom since it was formed, so it seems odd to start now especially when that privacy was in place during the last elections. I did ask Jdforrester (spelling?) and I hope he'll comment here soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation significantly tightened the Privacy and Checkuser policies after the Essjay incident. Persons with checkuser access must be of legal age where they live and must provide their real identity to the Foundation. Thatcher131 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That we have to an extent failed to follow appropriate rules until now is a very poor basis for claiming not to need them. I am convinced that the newer rules are much better, although I certainly think that several minors who play active roles in the community here are would make very good Arbitrators (Cbrown, Sean W., and Messedrocker in particular), and I am saddened that they will not be able to join the Committee for a short while.

As an aside, although I posted the information, it was not my decision alone, but by the Committee as a whole. Would people stop thinking that I'm some despot making up the rules as I go? :-)

James F. (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• The Essjay incident could simply be avoided by confirming his identity. Why make the additional requirement for someone to be of legal age? Minors can share their identity with the foundation with parental consent and if they are trustworthy enough to be voted into the position there's no real difference for the person whose details get shared. I'd be equally pissed if whether the info is known by a 60-year old librarian or a 14-year old student. (last bit of message added after edit conflict) - Mgm|^(talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As this was a decision by the Foundation, not the committee, it would be more appropriate to bring that up with the Foundation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The privacy policy was the board's decision; applying it to arbitration committee members was the committee's own decision, based on James F's earlier comment, so I think they are the ones to raise the issue with. Picaroon (t) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Our local ArbCom made the rather sensible (in my mind) decision not to have a two-tiered system, with a separate mailing list for issues involving checkuser (and other private) information and minor Arbitrators automatically recused from all cases involving checkuser evidence (at a minimum). Thatcher131 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is that a minor is incompetent in the eyes of the court. So there is not the same level of accountability for a minor. Without this accountability, it is not in the best interest of the user, Community, the Committee, or the Foundation for a minor to have access to the non-public information. This in no way reflect on the merits of individual minors who of course may be Super Competent and Extraordinary People. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about under the Florida law that the Foundation works under, but Michigan law states that any contract made with a minor is legally unenforceable, and thus minors can't be held accountable for breaching contracts, including privacy violations. Rdfox 76 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Those last two responses are the best explanations so far, but they still don't explain why the contract can't be co-signed by a minor's parent or guardian to avoid the problem of accountability as mentioned by Rdfox 76. As far as I can tell parents are already legally responsible for their children in other cases. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've emailed the foundation and referred them to this thread. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two longer threads on this topic on the 2007 ArbCom elections page and we probably ought to keep the discussion in one place for continuity. For what it is worth, I do not believe that a minimum age restriction on arbitrators is required by the current wording of the Foundation resolution or for any other identified reason. The Board resolution adopted earlier this year imposing a minimum age requirement on checkusers and oversighters is understandable, but it still represents a derogation from our community norm of recognizing equal rights and opportunities for every editor, and its application should not be expanded any further. A narrower construction of the resolution is readily available that distinguishes between providing that a younger editor who is legally a minor should not unilaterally decide to run a checkuser, and having a younger editor (who has been elected with the overwhelming trust of the community) as one member of a 15-member committee or a 40-member mailing list. However, the decision appears to be a fait accompli at least for this year, as very few editors have questioned it since it was announced, the two candidates who were forced to drop out of the election appear to have accepted the ruling (with better grace than I might have had if I were they), and voting in the election starts less than a week from now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce "appeal"

Perhaps we could remove this request as unconfirmed and as possible trolling until and unless we can verify that the message is actually from Burntsauce. Something seems off about this, and it's out of process. Although the message comes from an established user. Burntsauce, for all his disruption, was (and claimed to be) very familiar with Wikipedia policies. This so-called appeal, addressed to an uninvolved user rather than ArbCom, has quite a few unnecessary flaws. The timing is suspect. We cannot be sure that the editor who posted it isn't trolling, or being trolled by Burntsauce, or being trolled by someone who is not Burntsauce. I see little chances of this succeeding even if it is for real. Everything about the original case and the underlying conduct behind it involved weirdness, e.g. one administrator supporting sockpuppets and another operating sockpuppets to try to disrupt Burntsauce's arbcom case. Two or three ArbCom cases have already arisen out of Burntsauce's disruptive behavior. There is no harm in waiting, and asking Burntsauce that if the message is his he can email a confirmation to ArbCom from an email known to be his. There is a harm in continuing this if it turns out to be a hoax. When the wider community discovers this there is certain to be a lot of consternation, and possibly disruption to other ArbCom cases. Wikidemo (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd leave it up and let the arbiters decide if/how they want to handle this. A clear rejection or acceptance by the committee would probably be better than just making it disappear.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce has posted essentially the same message on his talk page, so I think we can take it as authentic. Thatcher131 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thatcher. Yes, I wouldn't dare delete a request from the arbitration page - that's for the Committee or its clerk. But I do hope they deal with authenticity and propriety of the request for reconsideration quickly rather than risk this becoming yet the latest flare-up here.Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you or any other editor would unilaterally remove it Wikidemo. I meant that it would probably be preferable for the arbiters to actually reject or accept it, even if only to reject it as an out-of-process request, rather than a clerk or arbiter simply removing it as out-of-process.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The clerks are quite within their authority to remove requests by banned users as the instructions and banning policy both clearly say that banned users must appeal directly to Arbcom by email. However we (Brad a clerk and me a former clerk) both seem willing to leave this up for the time being. If it becomes a troll magnet I doubt it will survive. Thatcher131 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a question of your authority to do so... I agree that any clerk would be absolutely within the bounds of process to remove it as a proxy request on behalf of a banned editor. I'm just stating my personal opinion that, in this particular case, I think it would be preferable to have the finality of a decision by the committee on this matter. Sorry if that wasn't clear. That said, I also agree with you that if it became a troll or drama magnet, that would change the situation completely.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the authenticity, anyone who wants a copy of the email (including full headers) need only ask via the e-mail link in my signature. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to CheckUser me if you feel it necessary, as long as you don't publicly release the IP addresses I edit from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Even the email headers don't necessarily prove the request really came from Burntsauce unless one already knew what his address was. The post on the talk page is the best confirmation. Thatcher131 00:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mailing List Confidential?

Are items sent to the arbcom mailing list confidential? It appears the list is compromised. Spatalker 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The email investigating user:!! was sent to multiple people. Eventually Giano got a copy, and someone also forwarded it to Arbcom-L. Giano posted his copy on wiki. There have been no leaks as far as I know of material sent only to Arbcom-L. Thatcher131 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not accurate. wr/index.php?showtopic=14172 Spatalker 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what is going on here. There are three lists:

Arbcom-L private and confidential for Arbcom business, confidential by Wikipedia and Arbcom policy

WPcyberstalking for discussion of cyberstalking of editors and how to deal with it. Subscription by invitation and private by convention of the participants

WPinvestigations for discussion of sockpuppet investigations. Subscription by invitation and private by consent of the parties.

If someone who is subscribed to the Cyberstalking or Investigations list forwarded messages or a membership list outside of the list, that is the business of the participants in the list. Nothing that originated on Arbcom-L or was sent to Arbcom-L has leaked from Arbcom-L unless the original sender also sent it somewhere else or if it was non-confidential information that was intentionally cc'd. (For example, when I was the only clerk and I proposed the appointment of some additional candidates, I was cc'd on some of the messages in which Arbcom discussed the proposed appointments.) To the best of my knowledge nothing that was meant to be confidential has ever leaked. Thatcher131 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Had the Arbcom as a body seen that evidence before I posted it ANI - yes or no? Giano 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, on wiki-en-l this morning, Kirill Lokshin posted that the Arbcom mailing list received a copy of the blocking post a few hours before you posted it on-wiki, and that it was sent to them by a person "not involved in the dispute." I don't know how to link to that, but perhaps you know how to look that up. Risker 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

bearing in mind the debate here[1] above ref: "kiss my ass" were they able to understand the gravity of the situation? Giano 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The conversation did not go in that direction, to be honest. My own take is that there has been some pretty strong resistance on the part of the community to an activist Arbcom that selects its own cases and develops its own evidence, and the currently sitting Arbcom felt constrained to pursue this case without somebody giving it some form of mandate. Mackensen has referred to their frustration of not having the case brought to them sooner. Ultimately, it was a former member of the Committee, who perhaps had a better understanding of the committee's difficult situation, who filed for consideration of the case. It was a tough call all around. Risker 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand anyone's reluctance to become involved in a case. Giano 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Early this year there was a discussion on one of the noticeboards in which a few of the Arbitrators asked whether they should initiate cases or wait for cases to be brought to them; the majority of responses were that the Committee should not open cases on its own. Hence for several days Arbcom could only watch in frustration, until someone offically filed a request to hear the case. Thatcher131 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin has said they first received the e-mail after the block and four hours before Giano posted it.

Just to clarify, I don't think the e-mail was ever sent to the investigations list. And the version Durova sent to the cyberstalking list is not the same as the version that was leaked. The version that was leaked is the one Durova sent out to people after the block. So I don't believe this leak originated with anyone on the cyberstalking list.

I also want to clarify that no arbitrator responded to Durova's thread when she posted the e-mail to cyberstalking. So there's no suggestion any arbitrator saw it before the block.

The timeline is:

• Nov 3, Durova sends the e-mail to the cyberstalking list. There is no proposal to block !! and no further e-mails in the thread after Nov 3.
• Nov 3-18, Durova said after the block that there had been other private e-mails and chats about !! during this period. Recipients unknown.
• Nov 18, Durova blocks !!
• Nov 18 or thereabouts, after the block, Durova sends a version of her e-mail to at least two other editors, but not the version she sent to cyberstalking.
• Nov 18 22, someone sends the e-mail to the ArbCom.
• Four hours after it's received by ArbCom, according to Kirill Lokshin, Giano posts it. The version posted is not the original version that was sent to cyberstalking.

I'm posting this in response to the suggestion above that it may have been someone from the cyberstalking list who leaked this. Given the different versions, I'm fairly sure no one did. I also think the gap between the Nov 3 posting and the Nov 18 block suggests no involvement on the part of the cyberstalking list. Indeed, had any of us looked at the links, we'd have spotted that !! was known by Giano, so none of this would have happened if Durova had told us she was going to block. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right. This would be more correct:

• Nov 22, someone sends the e-mail to the ArbCom.

There's a four-day gap between the time when this first started and the time any useful information came to us. Kirill 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this again, I'm not sure I have the timestamps right. If I'm reading this correcly, Giano first posted the email on AN/I at 11:59 AM EST on Nov 22, while the Committee received a copy at 2:17 PM EST on Nov 22—two hours after it was already posted. But I'm not entirely certain whether the second timestamp is EST or UTC; if it is the latter, then we received it two hours before it was posted.

In either case, the Committee obviously had no chance to respond in any fashion before Giano posted on AN/I. Kirill 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At least 3 members of the Arbcom had had the mail for days if not weeks. What were they waiting for - me to die of old age? Giano 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to ask them that. The Committee, as a body, was not aware of the circumstances here until about the same time as you were. Kirill 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming they realized that the message in question was one they received 3 weeks earlier on the cyberstalking list, and assuming they saved it. Thatcher131 18:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And again, no arbitrators responded to Durova's thread on cyberstalking, so there's no indication any of them even saw it at the time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What a pity none of these three Wikipedian celebrities feel able to descend from Olympus and speak to us common people themselves, or are you and Thatcher their appointed spokesperson? Giano 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to, but if you mean people on the cyberstalking list it's because there is nothing to say. The e-mail was received, there were few responses, no block proposal, no reason even to read the links. Bear in mind that Durova was trying to show a group of experienced editors how to spot sockpuppets. But we all know how to do that already, plus it's often a high-traffic list. So the e-mail wasn't read carefully, if at all. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"wasn't read carefully, if at all" .. Now that has more implications that I care to expound on. Lsi john 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did Giano get the document from? The timeline makes a leak from the Arbcom-l most likley, no? Given the clear statements being made against off-wiki conspiring, why is only one type of conspiring problematic? Has a definitave list of members of Arbcom-l ever been published? Spatalker 18:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of the subscribers at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Mailing list. Sam Blacketer 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That list is quite long. I suggest the current Committee should spend some time revetting this list, given the 4 hour lapse between information arriving on this list and the same information being widely distributed, vs. the 19 day lapse between initial publication of the information and it's eventual distribution. Spatalker 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it a really good idea to go searching for whoever sent Durova's post to Giano? I'm not sure a leak inquiry would find the culprit, but if it did, then I don't see any reason to start restricting them. Sam Blacketer 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The archives of Arbcom-l have checkuser data in them. Release of checkuser data to third parties is a bad thing. If someone is forwarding documents from Arbcom-l to not-arbcom-l, they should not be authorized to view checkuser data. Spatalker 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I find these insinuations that the Committee leaked material to Giano—out of a nigh-suicidal urge to bring the wrath of the project down on ourselves, presumably?—preposterous and insulting, particularly coming from someone hiding behind a throwaway account. Kirill 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire comittee would not need to agree to leak it. One ex-arbitor would be more than enough. Do you vouch for each and every member of your list personally, or are they responsible for their own conduct? Dosen't it seem possible that message emminated from the arbcom list, given the timing? At the very least, please cease discussing checkuser data on the arbcom mailing list untill it's security can be reviewed. Spatalker 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill. I think the idea that Giano has access to confidental information due to a leak in the Arbitration Committee mailing list is insane. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'll ever know who leaked it. Durova sent it to several people after the block between Nov 18 and 22. They in turn may have sent it to others before it reached Giano. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was me, of course. Who else? I did ask Durova to send me a copy in the hours after the block,[2] but she did not. If she had, I would have considered myself bound by the confidentiality I offered her when I tried to initiate an off-wiki discussion about the block. But she didn't. Someone else sent the text of the e-mail (not the whole thing) to me in the aftermath of the block. See further at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision. -- !! ?? 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So if !! cares to tell us who it was that sent him the email, and so forth, we would presumably eventually find the source of the leak. I doubt that information will be forthcoming, though, as there are asses that need to be covered here. Someone, somewhere abused the trust afforded in them, so I'm not holding my breath for that person to step forward. If there is anything to be learned from this, its perhaps that Wikipedians in general are not very good at keeping private correspondence to themselves. Rockpocket 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me add what I know about this:

• Tuesday Nov 20 14:21 UTC I asked Durova for a copy of her report.
• Tuesday Nov 20 19:42 UTC Durova sent me a copy of her report.
• Tuesday Nov 20 20:23 UTC I asked Durova if she had sent her report to Arbcom-L.
• Wednesday Nov 21 01:51 UTC Durova answers that no she hadn't.
• Thursday Nov 22 18:41 UTC I asked Durova for permission to forward to the Arbcom-L, her latest email to me which contained a copy of her report.
• Thursday Nov 22 18:58 UTC Durova gives her permission
• Thursday Nov 22 19:17 UTC I forwarded a copy of her email to me, to Arbcom-L.

So according to my records, my recollection, and Durova's statement above, the first time I recieved the report was on Tuesday Nov 20 19:42 UTC and the first time the AC mailing list recieved the report was on Thursday Nov 22 19:17 UTC.

Paul August ☎ 22:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: since !! has now said that that he was the person who passed the information to Giano, I can now add a bit more. From a comment !! made to me, I believe that he had access to the "report" prior to Durova sending me a copy. From this I conclude that unless someone other than !! passed this along to Giano, Arbcom-L could not have been the source of the leak. Paul August ☎ 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who leaked the email, the cleanup of ArbCom-l is long overdue

No one is suggesting that the email was leaked by a member of current ArbCom. The list, however, includes a whole lot of people in addition to the ArbCom members. This just makes no sense. There is no reason why anyone but the ArbCom members should have access to the lists. Arbitrators Emeritus (what a term coined by Kelly!) should not be on confidential lists. They are just editors not bound by the implicit arbitrators code of conduct. For instance, they may write and post "statements" to cases and take part in them. Does anyone else see a problem when someone who can listen to the private deliberations of judges can also to take part in the court proceedings?

It took a huge effort to have Kelly ejected from the list overcoming her resistance after she resigned "under cloud" and it was long since obvious that she has no community trust to have access to confidential information. Right now, for instance, subscribers include David Gerard. Was community vetted ever on whether this person is trusted with Confidential info? Mind you, Essjay was on the list too without being even voted on being trusted. Perhaps this incident is a good opportunity to remind to take a long overdue action on formulating a set of rules on who can and who cannot be on the list. --Irpen 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reality check time.

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:27:08 -0500

From: "Kelly Martin" <kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com>

To: arbcom-l-owner@wikimedia.org

Subject: unsubscribe

Delivered-To: kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com

Please unsubscribe me from the arbcom list. I don't remember my password.

Kelly

Note the date. Compare to the date that the resignation of my adminship became effective, according to the log at meta. This discussion may or may not have merit, but it certainly will not have merit if it is driven astray by flatly false claims about the state of reality. Kelly Martin 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Former members of ArbCom and others aren't bound by ArbCom rules. Maybe the list could be limited to only ArbCom members who stand a chance of being able to participate in the decision? John Carter 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious that you ask if David Gerard has ever been vetted for handling confidential information. You are not aware, presumably, that he holds Checkuser and Oversight powers, and in fact was Wikipedia's first checkuser (and for a long time its only one). I would suggest, Irpen, that you're being a little over-ambitious, and although I know little of your history I think I detect a certain animus against the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that David Gerard is on OTRS and Communications Committee. He has access to far more dangerous things than Arbcom private information. I think he's well proven his trust. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No animus at all, Tony! Not against the committee at least but against certain individuals with the history of backroom deals. As far as DG goes, I am well aware of his CU and Oversight powers. But you, perhaps, misread what I wrote. I never said that he has no powers. I said that community was never vetted on giving him those powers. All ArbCom members have those powers too and their election voting page is the proof of the community support for them to have powers and access to sensitive info. There is no such indication for David Gerard, there was none for Essjay. And if we are talking about people getting the sensitive access without vetting for the community trust, here is another recent example.

I am not against ArbCom, Tony. Although I emphatically disagreed with some of its members, I treat their position with respect. They all have gained their positions with a wide community approval and I respect the community approval regardless on whether I agree with the community on those individuals. But I am talking about cases when no community approval was expressed (or sought.) --Irpen 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it's definitely true that someone leaked information about posts I had sent to the ArbCom to Kelly Martin and Cyde. Cyde actually told me himself on one occasion that he knew what I had written to ArbCom. I've raised this issue elsewhere too, and wouldn't have raised it myself in public, because it unfairly smears all the members of the ArbCom who can be trusted with confidential material. But now that someone else has mentioned it, I have to say that I myself would not send anything sensitive to the ArbCom mailing list. That's a great pity, because we need a group of trusted, senior editors we can confide in. The knock-on effect of not having such a group is that Jimbo gets asked to deal with a lot of issues on his own, which isn't fair to him. The bottom line is that the ArbCom does need to get its own house in order. No one expects them to be paragons of virtue, but leaking material to someone who is likely to stick it on her blog — and who has allowed what she thinks is the real name of someone else on the ArbCom mailing list to be published on her blog, without that person's consent — is the height of folly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In total agreement with Slim. We need to restrict access to the sensitive info only to members of the community who are trusted by this community. I am not aware of any better way to gauge this trust than the ArbCom election itself. Those who have never went through it cannot claim to have been trusted. Same applies to "arbitrators emeritus". Trust cannot be eternal. Someone who have been trusted 5 years ago or so (when the vote for that person took place) cannot be guaranteed to have this trust forever. By restricting the ArbCom list to the current members, we would make a huge step to make the privacy of the ArbCom list truly meaningful. This should not be misconstrued as an attack on all the former ArbCom members. I checked their list and I have a huge respect to many of them. But we need clearly spelled out rules and they should be followed. Wikipedia privacy policy needs to be upheld to the highest standards. --Irpen 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds all sensible, Irpen, until I look at what you're actually saying. You're claiming that David Gerard has never been vetted by the community, yet he won the sixth highest number of votes in the December 2004 arbitration committee elections, in a field of 34 candidates. Moreover, the arbitration committee itself decides who is to be a member of the arbitration committee list. If you personally don't trust it and think someone has leaked information, send your evidence, including any mail headers you may have, to the committee. And he comes from a period when checkuser was not widely distributed. He was the only checkuser for a long time. Moreover he is a regular spokesperson for Wikipedia in the UK and Ireland, and even further afield. Trying to kick fellows like that off the commmittee mailing list really isn't sensible. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to focus on individuals here. And what you say about sending emails and headers, Tony, is pointless. That information is obtained confidentially and so obviously it can't be used as evidence. I could forward my email from Cyde but you know as well as I do that the ArbCom wouldn't take it seriously. After all, what can they do with it? It doesn't tell them who the leaker is.

So moving away from particular individuals or examples, what we do know is that someone from the ArbCom is forwarding material to some irresponsible people, who are in turn alluding to it publicly, and spreading it around in e-mails. The question is, what can be done about this, in general terms? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony, there is no reason to believe that someone trusted four years ago retains the trust today. This is why we have term limits. I brought up DG merely by example although, I admit, I was not aware of this ancient (by WP standards) history of 2004 vote. His name in the list caught my eye specifically because I have reasons to consider this specific person untrustworthy due to the incidents that took place onwiki in the open and that may be just me. We can discuss it, Tony, at your (or mine) talk page. Moreover, I tried to get answers to those questions and deafening silence was unsettling. I would me more than happy to receive the answers at any point of time and would happily see the plausible explanation if offered (I cannot come up with any.)

The issue at hand, however, is more important. The rules that regulate the access to sensitive information need to be clearly spelled out and enforced. Those rules should be sensible and meet a wide community consensus. --Irpen 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your suggestion that David Gerard, OTRS, Checkuser, Oversight, Communications Committee, is in any way regarded as untrustworthy by the community quite extraordinary. You're going to have to try harder than this, Irpen. If you have any evidence against him, submit it to the arbitration committee and stop making baseless allegations. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And I think you owe both Kelly Martin and David Gerard a good, honest apology, Irpen. Please don't bandy about these loose accusations if you expect your arguments to be taken seriously. --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we instead just focus on the problem? There is a perception (right or wrong) that the ArbCom mailing list can't be trusted. The effect of this is that arbitrators are not being kept in the loop, and that Jimbo is having to deal with certain issues himself. I think everyone can agree that this is a bad state of affairs. So the question is: what can we do about it? Are there any suggestions? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think that we could focus on a problem, but really what I'm seeing is two editors making pretty serious allegations, which they explicitly refuse to support, against members of the arbitration committee mailing list. If you can't be bothered to forward your evidence to the right place, then I can't be bothered to care. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that you would find that there is not a consensus that the ArbCom-l list cannot be trusted; in fact, I suspect you will find that the number of people who hold that opinion may be counted without resorting to the removal of footwear. Please, take your paranoia and be gone from here with it; it has become tedious and annoying. Kelly Martin 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's likely to continue being tedious and annoying, so try to get used to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what he was trying to imply was that there are individuals on that list who are not members of ArbCom. Also, at this point, saying that all the members of that mailing list can be completely trusted is kind of like saying that you knew the barn door was locked several hours after all the livestock ran off. I don't myself think that any particular individuals were necessarily specifically mentioned to call those individuals into question, but maybe just to provide examples. However, it does seem clear that at least one person on that mailing list can't be trusted as much as they evidently were. I'd like to apologize to anyone who thought they were individually being singled out for criticism, by me or others, and hope that the discussion can continue about whether the mailing list could be adjusted to maybe ensure greater accountability among those who receive it. And my apologies if my phrasing of any of the above was inappropriate. Diplomatese ain't my strong point. John Carter 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What can be done to ensure accountability, or at least improve it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly and truly baffled that restricting ArbCom mailing list access to standing ArbCom members is controversial or offensive in the least. Vassyana 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I can't see any real objections to that idea myself. Doing so might make it easier to find anyone who does leak information, and would probably make it more likely that, if one of the ArbCom does leak, someone would be willing to name them on the basis of their failure to live up to their obligations. It won't necessarily prevent similar events in the future, but with any luck it might make them less likely. John Carter 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to see this from Jimbo's perspective, I think he likes the idea of having a group of trusted editors he can turn to for advice and feedback. He also likes having some continuity between the old ArbCom and the new, so that more experienced people can advise the more recent ones. The problem with the situation is, in part, that the list is getting ever-larger, and so leaks become more likely. Also, once someone is on the list, they're on it for life, as it were, unless something really egregious is shown against them. And it only takes one to destroy the trust people have in the list.

What I'd like to see instead, if Jimbo wants a group of people to turn to for advice, is that he set up such a group -- chosen by him, not elected -- of people who can be trusted absolutely not to forward information to people who will post it on blogs, hand it to attack sites etc. It's never possible to trust someone 100 percent in every regard. But there are lots of experienced editors on this website that I know would never hand confidential information to someone who might publish it, or forward it to someone who might harm the subject of it. Jimbo should choose a group of people that he feels he can say that of, and leave the ArbCom to discuss cases that are brought before it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. The vagaries of elections can be unpredictable, and longstanding familiarity with an individual volunteer (which everyone here is) is probably a better predictor of character. And, considering that the list isn't necessarily directly tied to "official" wikipedia, those individuals could be just "drafted" onto the list. It might help to give those individuals some sort of quasi-official status, though, somehow, to prevent future aspersions of elitism. John Carter 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The current situation leaves Jimbo in a position where he has to choose arbitrators from an elected list, which may consist of people he has absolutely no knowledge of. All he can see is they're willing to give their real names (and we have no way of checking that), and that the community seems not to mind them. None of that tells you whether someone can be trusted. You need quite a substantial amount of interaction with someone before you get to know their quirks, and start to get instincts about "I can trust them regarding this type of thing, but not regarding that type of thing." When it comes to deciding who should handle very sensitive information, it's that level of prior interaction that is needed, and which the current system can't deliver. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What you've said there actually reads like an argument against giving the current AC confidential information. I thought you were arguing for the community-selected group - David Gerard 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's clear someone on the ArbCom or its mailing list has leaked information to someone who couldn't be trusted with it. I'm also saying I think this is inevitable where you have a situation of people being elected who may have interacted with Jimbo only sporadically or not at all, and that it's therefore likely to get worse, not better. So I was suggesting separating the advice role of the ArbCom, which Jimbo likes, from its main role of dispute resolution. Elect a small group of people to do dispute resolution, and Jimbo can appoint a larger group of people he actually knows to act as a confidential sounding board, if he feels he needs one. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the worst idea I have ever heard mooted on Wikipedia. Giano 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Slim, Jimbo is a big boy. He can have as many mailing lists as he wants, on and off Wikipedia, to receive advice and banter with various people. I don't think there is a single person in the project who believes the only people he talks with or listens to are members of the Arbcom mailing list; and if he is relying only on the people he "knows" then he's missing out on an awful lot. The mailing list under discussion is primarily for the use of the Arbcom members, it reportedly has an akashic record, and frankly if they want to kick someone who is a non-serving Arb off the list, they can. If you or anyone else have a concern about privacy violations, please advise the Ombudsman[3]. Risker 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason is for institutional memory and advice. Presumably Jimbo and the AC will continue to maintain the list as is useful to him and them - David Gerard 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like what might be being proposed here is potentially making ArbCom at least somewhat "officially" tied to Wikimedia. That might not be a bad idea. Would there be any way to make the ArbCom a bit more "officially" tied to the Foundation? John Carter 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Institutional memory is a good thing, but when people won't send the ArbCom confidential material because they don't trust it to remain confidential, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be solved. No point in ignoring it, and David, this is not a matter for the ArbCom itself. It's a matter for the entire community if the body they're electing representatives to has a problem as fundamental as that. Sometimes people are required to interact with the ArbCom. Therefore, we have a right to know that it's fundamentally trustworthy. It's in the ArbCom's interests to sort it out too, because it means you're not being told things that it might be quite useful for you to know. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Where in hades did this come from, Sarah? The former members are on the list for the purposes of institutional memory, and providing some non-binding advice to the incumbents. I can safely say, as one arbitrator emeritus on that list, that the former arbitrators there have, on numerous occasions, talked current arbitrators over the years out of making some pretty bad decisions - put another way, without that private advice there, I think public perception of the arbitration committee would be a whole lot lower. The email that Giano posted had, by my guess based on the information posted above, probably been through the inboxes of about fifty different people by the time it got to him. Anyone could have leaked that email, and frankly, I could care less who it was. There is simply no evidence to suggest that anyone has leaked anything from arbcom-l at all, much less to attack sites or blogs. Sarah, I've regularly agreed with you in the past, but you seem to be really jumping at straws lately. This allegation that arbcom-l is leaking has been dreamed up out of nowhere, and has zero substance behind it. Rebecca 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, I know this is a long thread, but Sarah stated above that an email she sent to Arbcom-L was leaked to Kelly Martin and Cyde. You should probably ask her privately if you want to know the details. Thatcher131 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, first of all, I'm not implying I think the ArbCom leaked the e-mail to Giano. Secondly, Kelly Martin has just confirmed by e-mail that someone has, indeed, kept her informed of ArbCom business from time to time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I also seem to remember something about e-mails being leaked to SV, no? Still, I see no reason to assume that the leaks are former arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 14:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Institutional memory is a good thing, but it doesn't require all former members to be on the list. The ArbComm already has three tranches. So one possibility is just having the current members on the list - they provide institutional memory. This (or any alternative) could be supplemented with an former-arbcomm list that the current arbcomm can ask questions of should a case from before their time. There are early resignations and inactivity, so another possibility is having the current and prior year's members on the list. Another could be a rule that anyone who loses or resigns any bits in controversial circumstances also is removed from the list - at least some of those we have specific reason to doubt the community trusts them would be removed that way. Another alternative is to automatically prune anyone who is a party to an accepted case, and restore after the case only if no sanctions are proposed against them on the proposed decision pages. There are lots of ways to keep institutional memory available while pruning out members who have lost the community's trust, provided the committee chooses to use them. The choice of whether and which is the committees. GRBerry 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

One other point. There are two related issues here, each of which deserves consideration. The first if that there are people on the list who are not actually trustworthy, then things sent to the list will leak. It is stated above by SlimVirgin that this has happened. Even if everybody on the list is actually trustworthy, the second issue still exists. The second is that if there are people on the list who a significant portion of the community does not trust then material that could be important won't be sent to the list in the first place. Regardless of jayjg's trustworthiness, can we really say that his presence on the list won't tend to prevent pro-arabic editors from sending material about the perrenial middle eastern disputes to the list? If we are honest with ourselves, we know that a lot of them think he is a problematic editor. That example was obvious from glancing at the list, and those disputes are likely to last beyond the tenure of the members we are electing next month; but any other issue where an Arbitrator or former Arbitrator has/had to recuse has the potential to be similar. GRBerry 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An important clarification: not all leaks are bad. Leaks are neutral. What is done with a leak is another matter, but leaks are both inevitable and ethically neutral. They occur because the leaker believes either that the project or he himself will gain by the leak. If the former, it can be good or bad. If the latter, it's almost surely bad in the case of someone who is an arbitrator. Remember: Dick Cheney insists that everything that has been on his desk is secret. This is problematic, because he is asserting the right to determine all laws and all rights. When courts eventually get around to considering the matter, they will undoubtedly disagree. A project like Wikipedia would disagree from its very founding principles. Therefore, if someone leaks a "secret," like "the US has invaded Cambodia" or "the President sent missiles to Iran in exchange for money to circumvent a law forbidding funding the Contras" or "it is a secret that Congressional pages are complaining about being hit on by Mark Folley," then the betrayal of the "secrecy" is valid, because the matter could not be properly secret. It is not untrustworthiness, but trustworthiness that a soldier refuses an illegal order and that a person outs material that should not be secret. Where Wikipedia falls down is that it has no idea except agreement on what should and should not be "classified."

If an arb says, on the list, "I've got the flu, so I'm not really feeling up to this case" and another arb quotes that, it's obviously not something we care about. If one says, "This document, showing that the Foundation is about to accept advertising, is a matter for all Wikipedians to know, and I don't think it should be secret," then we're closer to legitimate. If one says, "Oh, user:Bobo is using Verizon Wireless for editing, and Checkuser says it resolves to Bahamas," then we're in deep doo-doo.

We can't treat all information as "properly secret" and all whistle blowing as bad unless we have standards for what should be held confidential first. Geogre 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Amusing anecdote: a close friend of mine graduated tops in his class at one of the US military academies. He was sent to MIT, then to a nuke school. He told me that they got a classification notice saying that everything they did in that class was Classified. Since the beginning of the class was "review," he said he could neither confirm nor deny Ohm's Law. Once you do "everything here is classified, and if you breathe a word, we'll prosecute," you're setting up for absurdity, if not atrocity. Geogre 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who leaked the email, the cleanup of ArbCom-l is long overdue (section break)

1. The very only thing I will say about this subject is that I have believed and stated publicly that "former arbitrators" should not be on the mailing list. This is simply because the usefulness of the list is in discussions of the current cases, and those who do not sit on current cases need not be there, and so long as "former" arbs are on the list, confidence in it is shaken. Since a few former arbs have lost the trust of the community, the mailing list's privacy gets harder to respect when they retain discussion on current decisions.
2. This said, I know that many, if not all, of the "former arbs" on the mailing list have been quite useful and helpful. However, they can still be sought. It is still possible, if the mailing list were purged, for a subscribed member to send a digest to a former arbitrator, seek an opinion, and post it to the list. Subscribed members seek clarification and information from outsiders under their own names and accounts, as they should, but if the list has a seal of privacy about it, then that seal cannot be respected with former arbitrators having full access.
3. Finally, this mailing list is a point, but it is not as important a point as the "reform" sought in general. When discussions of changing arbitration committee procedures can be stymied by extraneous votes from "former" and "respected" arbitrators, the ArbCom will not be able to adapt and respond to the needs shown by a crisis. It also will not be able to maladapt and show its worst face. The presence of all who came before on the decision making process makes change all but impossible, and this is good and bad. I think it is generally bad.
4. For those shining a light on this issue and those worried about privacy, the arb-l list has always leaked like a Swiss cheese canoe. It will continue to do so. Myself, I take this as a sign of good. I take this as testimony to the arbitrators having enough humility to look for input (and yet they're cosseted by position and "secrecy" so that they have to pretend otherwise), enough pettiness to seek to play to the audience (and yet get the smug and dirty pleasure of saying that all is private), enough outrage to protest an abuse by leaking (and yet being tied down so that they cannot confirm or deny the abuse's existence). "Former arbs" should not be on the mailing list, in my own opinion, as regular recipients, although getting a digest would possibly be fine (dang... I try not to offer practical advice), but arbitrators would be well advised to try to reform their reform process. I say this only as a friend. Geogre 12:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But leaks to someone likely to use it to harm people, or post it on her blog, are completely unacceptable. That can't be classified as "seeking input." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the ex-arbs really don't have a vote (per your point 3). We can most strongly advise (as in "I feel I must point out to you that you are approaching the edge of this cliff at this speed and will land this hard in this many pieces, so you probably don't want to do that. Really really"), but ultimately the current arbitrators are always in the hot seat. If Jimbo and the current arbs want things to work a particular way, they get them that way.

I might also note (as a somewhat interested observer) that this entire present call for reform appears to be chasing phantoms. I note a severe lack of actual verifiable backing for the claimed need - David Gerard 15:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Kelly Martin just confirmed it, albeit only in general terms. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, at the risk of repitition of myself, I wonder if it might be possible to change the existing nature of the ArbCom from it's current structure as being primarily elected by editors to a semi-official "function" of the foundation itself. I'm not myself aware as to how active ArbComs are in other Wikimedia entities, but it might make most sense to create a single ArbCom for the entire foundation, with its members perhaps nominated by editors of the various entities but actually selected by the Bureaucrats, Jimbo, or some other party or parties, to perhaps function across all wikimedia entities. And, in any event, while I personally have no objections whatsoever to having individuals sent copies of e-mails from the ArbCom list by other editors on the list, the fact that such already happens could be seen as being yet another indicator that they don't need to necessarily receive all of them as part of the regular mailing list, and that it might even make most sense, if this is even remotely possible, to encrypt the ArbCom mailing list in such a way as only a few can decode it, those being the sitting members, although any member of the committee could ask a clerk to send a copy to someone else, at the risk of that request being recorded somewhere. I don't know if such encryption is really a viable option, though. John Carter 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't learn the history, then I predict that no matter how valuable your ideas, you won't be on the path to convincing any of the people who could change this of the value of them - David Gerard 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are the people who could change this? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That'll be the first time you believed something because Kelly said it, then - David Gerard 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're denying it, given how obvious it is from her blog, and given she has now confirmed it herself. Why are you so prickly about the idea that someone is telling her what's being discussed? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard, you are helping neither yourself nor your cause when you smugly say, "Where's the evidence?" When you then insult a newer user by saying that he hasn't learned the history and so won't be listened to, you ironically beg people like me to point out the history of this issue. Remember the fun you had with the brouhaha over IRC? "Where is the proof there was bad talk? I demand you show it! If you show it, I will block you, because it's private! If you do not show it, there is none! I say there is none, and I demand that you be blocked for saying there is!" Even a pre-teen could see the childishness of this double standard. You're inviting a wider discussion when you fall back to that tired and logically vacuous position.

The mailing list has no privacy. It may have trust, but not privacy. It has leaked for good, and it has leaked for bad. Slim is right on the mark, but she is hardly the only one to be "gossiped" about with sensitive material. Material from the list (presumably) or CU has magically gone into blogs, attack sites, and coalitions of attacks on-Wikipedia. I blame the "secrecy," myself, and this bad cess of "tee hee, this is super sekret" when there is no actual trustworthiness to the content, the recipients, or a limitation to it. Of course I also have no hesitation in expressing personal distrust of several people with access to that list, but I'm just some dude. Geogre 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"If you show it, I will block you, because it's private! If you do not show it, there is none!" - if you're going to put that in quotes, you could perhaps produce a waffer-thin diff with said meaning, or withdraw it thanks. My statement about learning history is that the present discussion strikes me as unlikely to convince either Jimbo or the AC that they are wrong (see comments in next section from current arbs), though of course I could be wrong about this - David Gerard 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

However, if I offer a diff, am I not disrupting by bringing back an old argument and re-introducing a time when you really showed yourself ill? The quotation was, of course, of the argument. I can explain direct and indirect discourse, if you're unclear on what they are. Also, you probably intended "withdraw it. Thanks." The ploy, though, of demanding quotations of "private" material to disprove an implicated party's statement that there are none, and then a prosecution on the issue of showing "private" material, is obvious. It is beneath any adult to take it seriously. Please take that into consideration when you demand proofs. HTH HAND. Geogre 15:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a little footnote

The list of members of the list has been published for all to see on the page describing the Committee for six months now. I just updated it yesterday. If there are individuals in whom Slim (or anyone else) has doubts of the probity, please contact me (or whomever) and we will consider your request. James F. (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever passed information about me to Kelly Martin, James? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have ever passed privileged information about you to anyone. In short, "no", of course not.

James F. (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You qualified your answer with "privileged," so let me rephrase. Have you ever gossiped about me to Kelly Martin, and do you think you may have done so in a way that alluded to information sent to the ArbCom? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of clarity, it might help to indicate what particular reason you might have to ask such questions, so that anybody else who isn't familiar with the subject will have at least a clue why you ask such questions. John Carter 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me for answering the question I thought you had asked, given the context. :-)

I have not "gossiped" about you, either, though as that is a prejudicial term in this line of enquiry, and evaluation against it is subjective, our judgement on that may differ. Certainly, I have discussed you (along with countless other members of the community) with fellow members, both former and current, of the Arbitration Committee in the course of my duties there, both in cases and in the larger stewardship of issues. The general flavour of these discussions have been the expression of frustration that you and I do not work together more productively; if this is, to your eyes, "gossip", then I am sorry if you have felt in any way slighted, betrayed, or under-mined. I have certainly not leaked information about you, nor given any further information relating to you which is otherwise inappropriate; it would be fundamentally wrong of me so to do.

Sadly, given that you've been insinuating that this is not the case for over a year now - that, indeed, I have violated the trust placed in me, and have since lied about it several times, both to you and others - I doubt that you will ever believe me. As well as creating "political" difficulties for me, this is something I regret on a personal level. However, after many attempts to discuss this, I don't see much point in yet again re-igniting the stale embers. After all, discussion is a two-way process requiring good faith.

James F. (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that qualifies as a response to the question I asked above. Thank you. John Carter 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder which sitting arbitrator Kelly was referring to then, in her e-mail. I can't think of any other arbitrator who would give her information. The problem with passing gossip to gossips, James, is that gossips gossip. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone who is not a reigning Arb to be on that list! Giano 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't necessarily disagree, as I have stated above. The down side is so far as I can tell ArbCom itself doesn't necessarily decide who's on the list. That could be somewhat problematic. John Carter 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I find former Arbitrators' input to be highly useful, particularly in the field of the very privileged information to which some object to them having access. For example, David and Dominic are very active in the area of CheckUser; Jay, Rebecca, and Sean keep us grounded in the editing community, from which some of us (me in particular!) are somewhat disconnected.

Also, we don't "reign", but "serve". But that's very minor. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't think what made me think of reigning! The list does leak, we all know that and it has to stop. Let's not have an inquisition just work out ways of tightening it from now on, restoring confidence and moving on. Giano 22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But we can't be sure whether the leaks don't come from sitting members of the ArbCom itself, and that is a bit of a problem. Would there be any objections to just limiting the general list to only active ArbCom members, with them having the option to request a clerk to forward certain notices to select non-members? That might be one of the few reasonable compromises available here. John Carter 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By "active", do you mean "current"? Or "active"? If it's the latter, it's a non-starter; we're not going to remove people from the list because they want to take a few weeks vacation; but even the former isn't really going to fly. Having former members of the Committee on the list is extremely useful for the current members; we're not likely to cut off our nose to spite our face here. Kirill 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no reason why former members cannot be consulted, in confidence, in specific instances when they have a specialist knowledge of a particular subject. However these instances should be logged and recorded. A former Arb upon expiry of office shoule once again become an ordinary editor. The position is not pensionable. Giano 22:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another reason why former arbs should not be on the list is that former arbitrators may take part in cases, launch them, be defendants, comment, etc. Their being able to do that knowing what goes on inside the chambers puts them into a whole different league of users with respect to cases they choose (or are forced to) to take part as involved parties. No way case participants are allowed to go in and out of jury room in RL and there are good reasons for that. --Irpen 22:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that sitting Arbitrators may also be parties to cases, yes? Kirill 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, just a curiosity.. are those members then removed from the list for the duration of their involvement as a 'party'? Or are they left on the list with access to more than the average editor? Lsi john 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kirill of course, but my recollection is that access to the list is retained, but information concerning the specific case is communicated to uninvolved arbiters (who are not a party to the case) through means other than the list (I assumed email). R. Baley 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They are left on the list with the understanding that they will not take part in discussions related to that case, if any. Removing them would unacceptably impede our other work (the case to which an Arbitrator is a party is typically one of many that we're dealing with at any point); and, in any case, Arbitrators are trusted to act with the proper discretion and decorum in such matters. Kirill 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Lsi john 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Current", sorry. And by having the mailings made available at request to any other editors, potentially including trusted editors who were never part of ArbCom, and having such requests "logged", it might help address some of the concerns about knowing where any future leaks might come from, within ArbCom or otherwise, and there seems to be some real concern that the leaks might be come from non-current members of ArbCom. Having never been on the group myself, I don't know how difficult it would be to edit the ArbCom notices, but I would think that if any current ArbCom member had a standing request that party X receive notice, then that person would still receive notices, but at least there might be a bit more of a belief that the individuals receiving the mailings are actively trusted, and I think that the automatic reception of the current mailing list by some parties might be one of the concerns here. John Carter 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out that, even reduced to current arbitrators only, the arbcom list would consist of 15 people. If we rather conservatively assume that there is a 10% chance that any given arbitrator will, at some point during the year, mention something that is happening on the list to one of their friends (remembering that we do not discourage Wikipedians from becoming friends) then there is, even with just the current arbitrators, an 80% chance that there will be a leak. And that 10% is pretty conservative. I would, in practice, guess that the certainty of arbcom list leaks is around 100% assuming that there is actually a mailing list of arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not discussing arbitrators talking to their friends, so long as they know their friends won't pass it further; we don't expect people to be paragons of virtue. We're talking about an arbitrator passing information to someone who has tried to out a fellow arbitrator on her blog, among other things, and who has published information from the ArbCom before. To continue to keep that person informed is incredibly irresponsible. If one or more members of the ArbCom mailing list are so friendly with Kelly that they're unable to act responsibly, that's fine. No one is saying don't have friends. But please resign if you're not willing to stop passing confidential material to her. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if anyone is to resign at this point, it should probably be you. Your aggressive mudslinging is serving no benefit to this encyclopedia and its community other than tearing it to shreds. --krimpet⟲ 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can sense how frustrating it is to suspect that people are having conversations about you behind your back and behind closed doors, imagine how !! must feel. He still doesn't know who said what about him, who was told what, who agreed with what, and whether the sleuths will continue. Let him among us who hasn't engaged in such clandestine discussions cast the first stone. --Alecmconroy 06:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alecmcconroy, in Sarah's defence, neither does anyone else. The only person who seems to know who these mysterious "five sleuths" (or anyone else who actually supported this block) are is Durova, and since she's refusing to tell anyone who they actually are, I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that she made them up, and blamed the mailing lists to confuse matters. Rebecca 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a possibility. I should clarify, I don't mean to accuse SV, I was just pointing out that however mad SV is, !! must feel that times a billion. --Alecmconroy 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that only person publicly accused of leaking information is James. I find that accusation to be without merit, and as a foundation for this discussion rather silly, given that James was and remains a sitting arbitrator! If this is some effort to take the fallout from someone else's list going to pieces and blow it back towards ArbCom, I'm unimpressed. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, that really isn't worthy of you. This is a discussion about how some members of the community (perhaps foolishly, but there you go) have no trust in the ArbCom, because someone from the committee has passed, or continues to pass, information to Kelly Martin and Cyde. Now, if I were on the committee, I'd want to do something about it, rather than post dismissive replies to the people raising the concern. At the very least, I'd want to make clear to my colleagues that it must never happen again. Do you at least agree that, if it has been happening, it must stop? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if I believed that there was a "leak" from arbcom-l of any substance, and that leak contained information of a privileged nature, and said leak had a negative impact, I would be concerned. I would move to do something about it. I would not start by publicly questioning the integrity of respected users without any evidence, and by rehashing old allegations that have never been sustained. I can't help but be suspicious of the timing, either, and you must grant that your timing in raising this matter is unfortunate. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask whether you've taken any of these steps in response to the material Kelly has already published on her blog? And I did not raise the issue, Mackensen — someone else did, and I responded, so the timing is immaterial. I fail to see the connection anyway. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Steps? Should I circulate an email, inquiring if any is leaking negative information about one third party to another third party? Based on hearsay, some of it over a year old, and all of it unproven? Someone is leaking confidential material--what if it's an arbitrator? Then we've ejected other trustworthy minds out of paranoia! I won't go down that road. Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, get over yourself. I don't see how I'm relevant in this at all. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't really actively done anything on-wiki in over a month. You making up nonsense about me, on the other hand, might persuade to get involved again. --Cyde Weys 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note to all participants. This thread is full of personal attacks and of allegations of privacy breaches directed against specific individuals. There's obviously a lot of bad blood here, but really this is shameful. All the allegations here are unsubstantiated and probably unsubstantiatable (is that a word?). Parties accused here cannot possibly clear their names, and insinuations without details are unacceptable. Whatever the truth, (and IANAL) this thread is bordering on the legally actionable. I strongly advise all parties to take the discussion away from a public forum, unless they can publicly substantiate their accusations. This is frankly contemptible.--Doc^g 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc, in response to an e-mail I received from Kelly Martin this morning, I asked James a straightforward question, and he was unable to give a straightforward answer. It is something that needs to be discussed. Someone has been leaking confidential information to a woman who has been publishing serious personal attacks on Wikipedians; and it's a complete mystery to me why she's allowed to continue editing after that behavior. We ban people for a lot less all the time.

It really doesn't matter who the leaker is; that person clearly doesn't have the courage to step forward. What is clear is that reform of some kind is needed, because the community has very little faith in the arbitration committee because of this kind of thing. Reform is in everyone's interests. This is a situation where the interests of the community and the majority of the arbitrators identical. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I have no idea. But you can't substantiate any of that, and those you are accusing can't refute it. By all means ask JamesF - but do it privately. Or report the matter to the Foundation. This is not the way to go. You cannot hide behind a pseudonym and make actionable accusations about identifiable people - that's what our BLP policy is all about. Now take this elsewhere - or I will delete this page per WP:BLP.--Doc^g 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as if James' answer above lacks anything in straightforwardness. He has explicitly said that he has not shared privileged (i.e. confidential) information obtained from the arbcom list with her or anyone else not on the list. What more are you asking for? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Matthew! You don't think it lacks straightforwardness? It had qualifications and equivocations. Now me, I believe Kelly Martin about as much as I believe Dick Cheney, but I don't think there is anything 100 miles of BLP going on here. Within the context of the general discussion, "The list leaks, so what?" we have SlimVirgin offering a gigantic "so what."

I have no hopes at all that my view will gain traction -- that members of arbs-l will adopt limitations of their own privacy to their discussions, and I have little hopes that my general point -- that Wikipedians work a policy where we acknowledge that matters used for Wikipedia actions affecting other users abrogate their seals of privacy. However, we have leaks for good and ill. The good, I think, is like the leak of the Durovagate portfolio (and I really think many arbs would agree that the leak of the information was not a problem, even if they think that Giano's posting of it was a policy violation) or the leaks previously of irc logs showing personal attacks and plans to "kill" users. The leaks for undoubted ill would be ones like this.

If leaks can't be stopped (and no government has ever eliminated them... even the dictatorships), then reasons for leaks and consequences for leaks and methods for handling inappropriately classified material have to be in place. One step in that direction is finding out who leaks for ill. If Kelly is telling the truth, then that's some serious stuff. Geogre 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration cases during the ArbCom elections

Just a few thoughts here. Both of the ArbCom cases or requests I've been following (the Durova one and the request regarding Adam Cuerdon's blocks of MatthewHoffman) have involved, or came to involve, current candidates for the ArbCom elections. What is the feeling generally about this? Should this be taken into account, or should things proceed as normal? I note Adam made a plea for things to be postponed until January, citing exams and some other reasons, but he could equally have mentioned the elections. Durova was a candidate but withdrew, and Giano was (and still is) a candidate. Some people have noted that this can cause appearances of impropriety, and I'm actually sympathetic towards that view, despite being so concerned about the MatthewHoffman case that I considered opening an RfC, but that was pre-empted by Charles (Matthews) going straight to the RFARB stage. There was also a set of enforcements discussed in the Durova case that proposed postponing a proposed block of Giano (which didn't pass) until after the elections. Has this sort of thing (several candidates ending up as named parties in ArbCom cases) happened much before? What, if anything, should be considered and done in such cases? Carcharoth 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• To my knowledge it has never happened before. One solution would be to automatically suspend arbitrations involving candidates, but I think that's open to objection on several fronts. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's not difficult to come up with ways to game any such system like that. Bad-faith additions of arbcom candidates as parties in order to suspend a case. Or troublesome editors on the verge of an arbitration case, or involved in an RFARB that was about to open, putting themselves forward as a candidate in order to suspend the case. Obvious gaming would be less of a problem than the borderline cases. My feeling is that the arbitration cases should proceed as normal, with people in both places (the arbcom pages and the election pages) keeping an eye out for overspill either way. The arbcom pages definitely shouldn't turn into election pages. Discussion of the arbitration case at the election pages would be legitimate, but could get disruptive. One point to make to arbitrators as they vote to accept or reject, is that they might want to consider the motivations of the people filing a case if the filing seems to have been timed to coincide with the election. Anyway, maybe something to keep an eye on over the next month? Carcharoth 01:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Tied to this, of course, is the question of whether arbitrators should vote in these elections. If we had a secret ballot this wouldn't be an issue, but a public vote makes anyone's vote a political issue. I don't think it's a good system but it's not my call. If an arb voted for or against a candidate, then should they recuse? I'll probably vote, but I'm standing down and refraining from active participation in the next round of cases, as I doubt they'll finish before the elections do. For a continuing arb that's an issue, though, and the precedent is mixed. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Cases have been closing much more quickly over the past few weeks. It's obviously up to you, but there's now no reason to believe that a case that opens on December 1 won't finish by December 31, and in any event the rule is that an incumbent arbitrator is allowed to finish out any cases that opened before he or she left office. Newyorkbrad 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Some people have pages explaining their votes and endorsing particular candidates, and link this from their votes. It can be interesting seeing how other people vote. Last year I left voting until the end, wanting to see what others said and not having made up my mind yet, let alone read all the statements and questions, and possibly wanting to concentrate my votes where they have the most effect. Some people take the opposite strategy and vote immediately voting opens, presumably hoping to sway the votes of others. This is, in my mind, another drawback of the open ballot, but seeing short and civil comments by others is an advantage, as opposed to, say, the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections. Anyone concerned about having a political effect with their vote can vote in the closing hours of the election on the last day (sitting arbitrators from the other tranches, for instance, could quietly chose not to vote against someone who looks like being elected to serve on the committee). Carcharoth 11:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Personally, I will not be voting in the elections, but there is no rule on this; it has been hitherto left to the individual arbitrators. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Outsider view: Geogre:
  • You know, it really should be somewhat irrelevant. I hate to be Plato and talk of the perfect voter, especially since there is such a massive problem with ArbCom elections now (don't worry... you'll see it in a day or two) that doing anything about this will be unlikely to help, but if the presence of arbitration or the naming of parties to an arbitration has any relevance to the election, then there is an automatic incentive to name every disliked candidate to every open case. In my view, Giano should never have been named as any part of Durovagate. This is not because there was no issue that the arbitrators wanted to address with Giano's actions -- apparently several arbitrators were quite worked up -- but because it was an unrelated matter. A separate arbitration focusing solely upon the issues that were related to Giano's actions might have been possible, but he got tacked on. It would have been as easy to tack on Guy, or Mercury, or SlimVirgin, or whoever had a "history" that any of the arbitrators had even a word of praise to offer. The unscrupulous could then use these agglutinations to affect ongoing elections.
  • Also, people "in" arbcom cases are often there as the people about to be vindicated and thanked and hugged by ArbCom. Being a party shows that you're interested in issues and involved in disputes -- either as disputant or resolution.
  • (Oh, and for the problem? You'll see. If anyone has forgotten the last elections and what happened, I have no intention of reminding them. I predict we'll see a repeat, but I hope we will not.) Geogre 13:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators opening cases

Quoting Thatcher131 from somewhere up above: "Early this year there was a discussion on one of the noticeboards in which a few of the Arbitrators asked whether they should initiate cases or wait for cases to be brought to them; the majority of responses were that the Committee should not open cases on its own." (does anyone have a link to that discussion?) I'm putting this in its own section because this reminded me of something I had intended to bring up. Earlier today, Charles Matthews, one of the arbitrators, filed a case. Am I right in saying that an arbitrator filing a case is normally quite a rare event? Thatcher's comment had been in response to some mention that the ArbCom had been frustrated that no-one had filed a case regarding the Durova incident. Is it time to have this discussion again? Carcharoth 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• My impression is that Charles Matthews is acting as a user in this matter. This is unusual, but I wonder the odds of any one person from a group of 15-20 people filing a case over a period of one year. Probably pretty low. If ArbCom were bringing the case, as has happened with Jimbo-referred cases, we'd go right to evidence without the formality. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me it should be editors initiating ArbCom cases and not the committee itself. But of course, if an arbitrator strongly feels a case needs to come to the Committee, he/she should be able to initiate, assuming, of course, that he/she is willing to recuse as an arbitrator for that case. (Jimbo is, of course, a special case in that he can more or less tell ArbCom to take a case, as Macksensen suggests). That seems to me to how things are now, and I don't see that we need a change. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is an obvious dispute between Adam Cuerden and Charles Matthews concerning a poor response to an inquiry about a block. I believe this case is properly filed, Carcharoth. Charles does not lose his opportunity to file cases just because he serves on Arbcom. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. That was an example. I really brought this up because Thatcher's comment above reminded me of the debate over whether ArbCom should be more proactive in opening cases. In this case, Charles, as one of the parties, can obviously file a case. I'm thinking more of cases where arbitrators, looking in from the sidelines, think "this needs sorting out, let's get a case going". This seems to be what happened in the Durova case, given the comment by Risker in the same thread: "Mackensen has referred to their frustration of not having the case brought to them sooner. Ultimately, it was a former member of the Committee, who perhaps had a better understanding of the committee's difficult situation, who filed for consideration of the case. It was a tough call all around." And I still can't find that previous discussion, though I remember it taking place. Was it at a village pump, at the administrators' noticeboard, on this talk page? Carcharoth 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some significant dissent here. Charles Matthews may be acting as an user, but he isn't one, so long as he is on the mailing list and retains standing as a member of ArbCom. I do not believe that ArbCom can be the police. ArbCom must never become Batman, standing on the rooftops, looking down at the teaming city, seeking out malefactors. They are intended as an arbitration board. I normally support the idea that an arb is just some dude when not wearing his hat, but this is a case of judge bringing a case to his own circuit. Surely there was/are other persons who wish resolution of the issue Charles is involved in? Surely an "uninvolved admin" can be involved? Geogre 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious amendment: There are steps prior to RfAR, as ArbCom is quick to point out. If an arbitrator is in a dispute, all of those should be employed. When those fail, will not the other individuals wish to move to RfAR? I do not like the idea that there is any shorter path for an arb than a newbie. Geogre 13:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter, Charles could have contacted any friendly user about filing the case as a "stalking horse" and no one would have been the wiser; the fact is that Charles is involved in a dispute and was open and transparent about the process; surely a good thing over all. Whether Charles has taken a short cut is a matter for the Arbitrators to judge. The dispute was discussed on the noticeboard, and Adam was clear in his opinion that he did nothing wrong and that Charles was bullying him, despite the presence in the discussion of other admins who agreed that the indefinite block was excessive. Arbcom is the venue of choice for disputes involving administrative judgement; was anything further to be gained by making them run through an RFC first? Thatcher131 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious amendment: When a single Arbitrator is involved in a dispute I believe the only appropriate course is for the Arbitrator to file a case and recuse from it. The question referred to above is whether ArbCom should open a case about a situation that concerns them but does not involve the Arbitrators as individuals (such as the Durova case or wheel-warring). Thatcher131 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the brohouha about the arbcom mailing list, such recusal would obviously extend to not commenting on threads on arb-l. But in some cases, even being able to read the discussions of the other arbitrators could put said arbitrator who has recused in a difficult position. What if they were actually named as a party against which sanctions were proposed? Surely they would want to defend themselves? Would they step down for the duration of the case (that would encourage frivolous cases being brought against arbitrators), or should there be some sort of immunity. Three years of immunity is a pretty big incentive to run for ArbCom! Carcharoth 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, so to Thatcher.) We are in broad agreement, and I surely support Charles being transparent. I still believe that it requires another user. This is not because of impropriety, but because the involvement of another user acts as a tacit endorsement of the seriousness and intractability of the situation. It protects the project from too impassioned a move. It makes someone silently count to ten, as it were. The short circuiting to arbitration is probably moot in this particular case, but it's important in general and on principle.

However on the second issue -- ArbCom swooping down from the rooftops -- I think status quo, for all its creaking joints, has an enormous advantage of being the thing we know, the thing we know with flaws and strengths. ArbCom, I think, cannot be policing, even of issues that are administrative behavior. While it might be that an AC worked solely in the most blatant cases, it would license trivial or controversial enforcements. I can be seen being accused of bullying on my talk page right now. I was no doubt being intimidating, but I'm unrepentant. If any of the current arbs made uncomfortable by my arguments here were of a mind, would they be flying down to arrest me? As slow as the status quo is, I believe in festina lente. Geogre 14:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Neatly tying various threads on this page together, I get the sense that at least a couple of times a former arbitrator who is on the mailing list has filed an RfAr because (among other reasons) he had the sense that the arbitrators were ready for a case on a topic. Compare Dmcdevit's opening statement in the Durova case, or David Gerard's filing the Henrygb case (where the alternative was the announcement of a conclusion reached on the mailing list, without a case). Newyorkbrad 14:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, if you were representing a client and one of the parties to the dispute was receiving all the arbitrators internal correspondence and your client was not, what would you do? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad, if that's the case, then it really is improper and brings us right back to the critical issues: transparency and being arbitrated for what one is doing, rather than what one is rumored to have done. Without access to evidence and without facing one's accusers, we overturn the basis of due process going back to the 13th century. This is not merely Western, either. I understand that folks can simmer for a while, but I maintain it still: the moment things brooded upon are occasions for present action is the moment people have to really chase phantoms. Geogre 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, but these in a way were special cases. For example, the Henrygb case was virtually ex parte: Henrygb (an admin who had been caught socking and multiple-!voting) had announced that he was boycotting the proceedings, and the choice was either someone from the list opening a case or else the committee desysopping him after discussion off-wiki and then just announcing it, a la Runcorn or Everyking. Perhaps in this context, some transparency and on-wiki discussion is better than none. This certainly isn't the best practice when there are alternatives. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Supreme Court

Timely discussion about law: "Arbcom." will ultimately and most assuredly be forced to function as an Appellate Court of the "States" within Wikipedia. Therefore, there must be an actual Supreme Court that abides by real life; real world laws, if the litigation herein is ever going to be credible to the real world at large. The members of The Wikipedia Supreme Court must be appointed by none other that the prime members of the ruling body of Wikipedia, namely Jimmy Wales and / or the WMF board.

I suggest people with real live law degrees and experience in real live law preside over the Supreme Court. Service to that court, as well as, the Appellate Court of Arbcom. must be under the same laws as normal courts within the jurisdiction of U.S. (California law.)

If there is a "list," then anyone on it must be held accountable as having the ability to be served with papers, and requests for hearings. All cases from Arbcom. will be subject to the jurisdiction of The Wikipedia Supreme Court. Said court would have final rule over all policy and guidelines at WP. Appeals to the said court would be, of course, very few and far between. The Wikipedia "Constitution" will have (If not already written) all of the current policies and guidelines and prior case law as a platform for the Wikipedia Supreme Court.

Press on and be... Nice 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)