Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification questions

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

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

Thank you for the clarification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recipients?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the committee was able to determine that so readily, why are they still unable or unwilling to reveal the source of the last leaks? Incompetence? Dishonesty? Something else? Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

• Comparing someone with pedophiles is just about the lowest personal attack I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• • What? Where did that come from? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Hawkeye, please either clarify what you a referring to or strike this comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is all the papers have been talking about for the last few weeks: the proposed Royal Commission into abuse and the "seal of the confessional". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he may have been referring to this comment. - SudoGhost 01:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how widely the news about this has travelled outside Australia, but in case some people are befuddled by some of the above comments, there is a proposed Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse here and there has been controversy about whether priests should be forced to reveal information about child abuse told to them in the confessional. Graham87 12:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but I fail to see how anyone has made any direct comparison between what happened here and pedophile priests. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So do I, frankly. Graham87 09:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No Confidence

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

Hi MONGO!

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

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

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

There is still no excuse for the leak. Absent a physical threat or likelihood of violence, privacy should be held at essentially any cost here. That is the entire reason for off-wiki communication with and between Arbs (and Oversight, and CheckUser, for that matter). Such a breach of duty is absolutely inexcusable. --Nouniquenames 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removed

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

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

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

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

• You should probably learn what the "Streisand Effect" actually is. Removing a motion that has little purpose from the middle of a very large and widely viewed discussion on the matter - and stating this up front - does not qualify. Resolute 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"only 11 arbs who signed"

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

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

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

And thanks from me too. :) PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Security of communications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I'd like all that and a technical block enacted. The privacy of ArbCom communication must be absolute to work as intended. --Nouniquenames 01:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could someone please point me to the on-wiki statement that says or implies that things on this mailing list should not be shared with anyone else (are under, as Elen calls it, the "seal of confessional")? I'm not saying whether this should or should not be true, but I'm just trying to find out why a large number of people think it is so obviously true that violating it should result in an immediate de-sysop, removal from the committee, or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Completely understandable to have missed them above, but they are here and here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Whistleblowing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only time I was asked for consent to publish the email in question was when the committee proposed to publish it in a draft statement circulated to me in email for comment. So no, I didn't consent to anyone quoting from it, and certainly not in the manner in which it was done. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think it matters. Not a lawyer, but fair use would allow Elen to use portions of that email for criticism.--v/r - TP 03:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't one of copyright, but of disclosure of material one had agreed in advance to hold in confidence. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And of the misuse of arbitration communication channels for despicable bullying and intimidation tactics, Jclemens. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really, no. No evidence of intimidation and bullying has been released. Electioneering or misuse of the channel, but not that. Further, that would be a far lesser evil than breaching the faith of the community as has occurred in the leak. Even if both wrongs occurred, to consider them on the same level is an insult to the community, as only one truely attacked the trust the community has expressed in electing the Arbs. --Nouniquenames 16:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. First, this makes the assumption that either one or the other are wrong. In fact both are. Second, no private information was released. A private conversation yes, but one that shouldn't have taken place there at all. Is is bad? Yes. Is it a breach of the community's trust of a magnitude like you seem to be making it? I beg to differe, and I'm not the only one. Third, I don't know about you, but I don't elect arbs to play playground bullies behind the scenes. This is yet another example of a very long list of conduct unbecoming of an arbitrator that we've seen from JC since he was seated. You think it's OK? I think intimidating others in that manner using a private list is extremely cowardly, and this kind of conduct is quite typical of behaviour seem with bullies. It most definitely shouldn't be ignored. Fourth, it seems that the practice of sharing stuff from that list with non-arbitrators is much more rampant than this whole circus wants us to believe. And last, there is one particularly cowardly arbitrator out there who also leaked the stuff anonymously. Let's not forget that either. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Terms of service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delayed elections

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

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

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

I can confirm what Risker, and I've been watching the EC movements on the coordination page, and staying out of their way.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And we're having elections in 17 minutes... MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disappointed

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

Motion posted

Just so all are aware, Courcelles has posted a motion to revoke Elen's CU and OS flags, access to all arbitration- and advanced rights-related mailing lists, and access to the ArbWiki and Checkuser Wiki until January 1st, pending the results of the election. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Two wrongs, no rights

This is not a situation that does anyone any credit.

Elen has quite clearly violated the confidentiality of Arbcom's communications. I would guess that she feels it was justified in terms of exposing unacceptable actions by another arbitrator (in effect, whistleblowing). While I do have some sympathy with that view, Arbcom cannot function if arbitrators selectively leak information against each other. The fact that Elen apparently thought it was right to do so is, in my view, a sign of unfitness to serve as an arbitrator.

Jclemens' conduct was also wrong. It's absolutely unacceptable for serving arbitrators to campaign against each other, publicly or otherwise, over decisions that they've taken. I can absolutely understand why some might have considered it to be intimidatory, even if that was not Jclemens' intention. Arbitrators should not take part in political activities of this kind; they're supposed to stand aside from wikipolitics. It's especially inappropriate that Jclemens should think it acceptable to campaign against his fellow arbitrators because he disagrees with their judgement. There's such a thing as collective responsibility; if Arbcom reaches a particular decision, it's a decision of the whole committee, not just a faction. One possible consequence of such conduct is that other arbitrators would be hesitant to come to a particular decision because they feared being publicly attacked by one of their colleagues. To put this in a real-world context, imagine if the US Supreme Court's recent decision on Obamacare had resulted in one of the dissenting judges announcing that his colleagues' judgement was so unacceptable that he was going to actively campaign for them to lose their jobs. Nobody would think for one moment that that was acceptable conduct. The fact that Jclemens apparently thought it was right to do so is, in my view, a sign of unfitness to serve as an arbitrator.

It's a good thing that both are up for re-election; I will certainly be strongly recommending that both bids should be opposed. They have both acted unacceptably. Their conduct is, in different ways, likely to have so poisoned their relations with the other arbitrators that neither Elen nor Jclemens are capable any longer of being effective in that role. Prioryman (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that a few arbitrators who took issue with JClemen's statement that he would "actively campaign" against them responded by actively campaigning against him on this noticeboard. Not too much moral high ground for anyone to stand on here. I suggest that the arbitrators try a little harder to keep their political disputes private. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable for those arbitrators to express their views on the matter once Jclemens' comments had been made public. The whole issue, including the leak, is ultimately the result of Jclemens' decision to play politics. Prioryman (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While I'm out of the loop for the later discussions on the topic, Cla, one of the motivating factors of disclosing the leak at all was that it was expected people would want to know about it, before the elections or not; it seems that the community has at least some claim to being informed on these matters, and so they should be, whether that makes the Committee as a whole or in part look bad. I can't speak to any other arbitrator conduct on the noticeboards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Following that reasoning, I'm baffled at the double standards here. Apparently until the "leaks" nobody thought that intimidation tactics of the sort practiced by Jclemens was something that voters might being informed of? But one of the targets of the bullying talking about it with a few people in confidence and statements and motions are posted within 24 hours? This reeks of dishonesty. Frankly, the biggest shame about this election is that more of you aren't up for being voted out. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In defence of Jclemens, I don't think it's inappropriate for Arbitrators to openly disagree with one another over decisions that they have made and actions they have taken. Given their intimate and extensive experience with both the Arbitration process and with their fellow Arbitrators I think that they should be allowed and encouraged to respectfully and civilly express their opinions on ArbCom candidates – whether those candidates are currently sitting Arbs or not – and I think that the community should be very interested in their input.

The problem with this situation, however, is that Jclemens wasn't publicly commenting on or questioning other election candidates, but was privately 'warning' (or warning off) potential candidates. Even that wouldn't necessarily be out of bounds, except that he was issuing his 'warnings' in such a way that no one on-wiki would be allowed to acknowledge or discuss them, knowing full well that ArbCom mailing list emails are held to a higher standard of secrecy and privilege than regular private emails. What he was doing wasn't ArbCom business, and had no place on their private, privileged mailing list.

Jclemens was able to threaten other potential as-yet-undeclared candidates with whatever unpleasantness he could muster, potentially discouraging them from running for a seat in the election and thereby improving his own chances of being re-seated on the Committee in the new year. Those potential candidates – then, now, and in the future – would be bound by the mailing list's rules not to discuss the reasons for their decision not to run; had the ArbCom not issued their recent statement Jclemens would have stood to benefit personally from his misuse of the ArbCom mailing list without anyone outside the list ever knowing about it or being able to weigh his conduct in evaluating his candidacy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's lynch mob mentality and the need for more ArbCom transparency

After reading all the discussion regarding to the ArbCom mailing list leak, the takeaways are clear. First of all, Elen's statement on her own talkpage clearly shows she understands the difference between public and private information and did not knowingly release private sensitive info. It would be an overreaction to crucify her in the middle of the election for blowing the whistle on Jclemens. Secondly, this incident demonstrates the need for 100% transparency in ArbCom communication unless it involves private info. Jclemens used off-wiki communication to slander and belittle editors in a manner that would be unacceptable on-wiki. If anything, this incident points to a larger problem. The problem is arbs resorting secretive off-wiki channel to communicate and make decisions. I was recently made aware of a series of unsavoury IRC logs in which several editors used off-wiki communication to make personal attack and stealth canvassing in order to coordinate a harassment campaign (including 2 Mfd and 1 frivolous sockpuppet investigation) against me during my own ArbCom candidacy last year. If anything positive could come out of today's incident, it would be making ArbCom more transparent.--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Transparency? Invisible people are scary. Unless they are fairies..., or married to Reed Richards. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• much wisdom from YOLO above. So ... off the top of my head comments. Nobody learned a damned thing from the email leaks of 2011. We still have these "super sekrit" email lists and IRC chats. No big surprise really. Arb. X uses said list to "campaign" for either "election" and/or sanctions on a person who isn't even up on a Request for a case or motion. Arb Y gets frustrated with the improper use of the email list, and vents. ex-Arb Z forwards info back to "super sekrit" list. Anon. emails float to and fro. Arbs make motion to sanction Arb Y ONLY. And ONLY Arbs. can sanction Arbs - how very convenient. Note: All 3 are currently asking for the community's trust this month in the election. (Am I close so far?). clue-tip 0001 This is "teh Internet" people. Once those things leave your own personal home and head out onto the internet - any number of things can happen, and MANY people can dip into this stuff. It's fine that we want to keep it all so secret that Randy actually does live in Boise - but really now ... From at least one perspective it's looking like a group who want to preserve "teh authortah" .. rather than providing a "service" to the community. Clue-tip 0002 Any "sekrit" shared between more than two people, ceases to be a "sekrit". For all the lip service given to "Transparency" - I really don't see much of that here. Perhaps we should take up a collection so everyone can get a time-share at Camp David, or rebuild Hitler's Bunker; then ya'all could just meet there once a month. Good grief. "SMH", *facepalm*, *headdesk*, and considering putting a few unmentionables into a vice while I'm at it. Simply amazing. — Ched :  ?  02:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There will never be a time when all such business is conducted in the open. By necessity functionaries, that is anyone with checkuser or oversight permissions including all arbs, are all bound by the WMF privacy policy Therefore they must discuss certain topics off-wiki.. I don't think the problem here is the very existence of the mailing list but rather that it was apparently misused and the privacy policy violated. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You want to hear some lynch mob mentality? Ellen needs to beg to not be banned while the rest need to walk away from arbcom. That statement was a joke. It was exactly what established admins do. They don't want to throw their counterparts under the bus even when they deserve it. The popcorn has been fun but everyone involved (leak to the joke of a "statement") need to get out. Hersfold arguing over the term "censure" is enough for me to think he needs to take a wikibreak.Cptnono (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Idea

Two of the most basic principles of good governance, are transparency and accountability. In any (well most) modern governments, you can read Hansard, court decisions are public, and government departments must comply with FOI requests. The major problem here, is not what happened, but the fact that it happened behind closed doors, and the effect that has on the rest of us who aren't behind those doors. You can't hold someone accountable if you don't really know what is going on behind the scenes.

In that respect, I suggest that the arbcom mailing list be made more public. After an arbitrary period of time (e.g. one year) posts will be made public automatically. A second possible idea is some kind of FOI system, where you can request certain posts be made public, but I don't think that'd be as workable.

Currently, as I see it, there are two reasons why arbcom mail is private:

• Decision making. If everything was public while decisions were being debated, you'd have far too much undue influence, and people would be afraid to speak their minds. I think that the time restriction (1 year), should be enough to protect this.
• Private data. Quite clearly the most important concern here.
  • Emails would have to be reviewed before being released, and any private data scrubbed, or in some cases I'd expect the email/thread would simply be unable to be released. This of course leads to the question, who gets to review them?
  • To be honest, having never been on such a mailing list, I am unsure what is the most safest way of handling this. Is it possible to scrub private data such that a persons' privacy is still retained? Or is it the case that it will just be far too obvious who everyone is talking about?

tl;dr make the mailing list public after x amount of time

--Chris 05:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No. A lot of the information on the list would still be sensitive a year or so later (personal, confidential details), etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe Chris was actually explicitly saying personal data should not be released. The idea that Jclemens can intimidate other Arbs with a comment that has nothing to do with ArbCom business and be shielded from disclosure of his conduct as a result of posting it on the mailing list seems to be missing the point of confidentiality. It would be like threatening a priest and then trying to force the priest to keep quiet by citing the sanctity of confession.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is having to review every piece of email and determine what is and isn't referring to public data. I have used my current email account for wiki buisness only since January of 2010 (so, approximately, 34 months. In that time, I have nearly 12,000 TOPICS. Not emails, Topics (some of which go 100 or more posts). Now to be fair, at least some of them are from email lists other then arbcom-related (checkuser, oversight, and functionaries). But I would estimate I have at a very conservative minimum, 25,000 emails of Committee business. How long do you think it would take to go through TEN YEARS of committee business and "de-classify" stuff that's not private data? And let's say we can release parts of a discussion but not all... how do we do that? JClemens's comments were ill-advised and illbefitting the decorum of an Arbitrator, and he was called out on them by several arbitrators. However, the Committee must have free reign to disagree vehemently privately without fearing that their words being used without context. It's a good thought, but a complete nonstarter in the time it would take and effort needed to resolve. SirFozzie (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, actual governments who do this hire full time staff to declassify reports and answer FOIA requests. Just something to keep in mind.--Tznkai (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think part of the benefit of some of the CRM systems we're looking at (I mentioned above we're looking into new systems for handling incoming emails) is that we can flag emails based on their topic and sensitivity levels. In the future, this sort of "delayed declassification" may be possible. I emphasize may because that would have to depend heavily on the capabilities of the system we end up going with, and the diligence of everyone on the Committee to maintain those flags appropriately to ensure that only stuff that can be declassified is. So while this maybe a viable solution several years down the road... it's not at all feasible now. When we are actively engaged in business (a major case, or a big situation like these leaks), the mailing lists can receive up to and in some cases over 100 emails a day. I've woken up some mornings to find 40+ unread emails, even though I check them all before going to bed each night. Multiply that by 365 days, and that by the number of years these mailing lists have been in use... and the amount of data to sift through is so staggering such a task would be impossible at this point in time. (After edit conflict) - Tl;dr, what Tznkai said. We'd need a whole office of full-time staff to handle such a task ourselves, and even then it would take months or a full year for them to catch up to the present day. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd echo Hers' estimation of the situation. At this point the idea of publicly releasing emails requires a level of vetting and grunt work that could literally be someone's full-time job, the equivalent of some poor CIA staffer who has to go through years of documents and black out the stuff that's still sensitive or classified. In regards to mail systems I'm not that technically aware, but we've been punting around ideas since the *last* email leak about better ways of managing our mail. This idea can't go anywhere until there's a feasible way to make it happen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason for asking for the release of any Wikipedia e-mail ever. WP has plenty of publicly available discussion, and rightly keeps private e-mail. This is not a government. By definition all governmental functions are public and must be released to the public in a timely manner. Not so with Wikipedia. Someone commented that in a few generations anyone could buy a chip with all of the terabytes of instant messages of the 21st century on it. I recommend using encrypted e-mail so that does not happen with e-mail. All private communications are by definition private and need to be encrypted to preserve that privacy - forever. That includes e-mail and telephone conversations. Apteva (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Transparency is good but so is privacy

I do not like the very nature of this discussion in the previous thread that is light years long. There is lots of complaining and not enough productive input. No one will ever reach a consensus in this manner, only an agreement to disagree. My proposals are as follows:

• There should be a separate semi-public ArbCom mailing list where arbitrators discuss issues and observers are able to observe it. This second mailing list should be preferred over the private one. This would also allow people interested in being arbitrators themselves to have a better understanding on how ArbCom operates.
• No email sent to ArbCom private mailing list (whether it is sent by arbitrators or clerks or anyone else) should ever be discussed in public without the express permission of the sender. Privacy is more than necessarily in some circumstances.
• ArbCom's role should really be downgraded to just dispute resolution. ArbCom should not decide who has access to CheckUser and Oversight access. This would reduce the anxiety over ArbCom. I realize RfA is badly broken before anyone suggests that.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point on having separate public and non-public lists, the "public" list could even be a non-public list that just did not receive the heightened privacy protections granted the current Arbcom list. (Though fully public discussion would be better) The only thing that should receive those privacy protections are communications made from outsiders TO Arbcom, and discussions between members of Arbcom that are about the confidential communications from outsiders where the discussion cannot reasonably avoid including private information. However I disagree about the "never discussed in public" point, when using confidential information as the basis of a decision, the committee should work to summarize the confidential information in a way that can be revealed to the public without breaching the confidence of the person who provided the information. For instance: The committee has received confidential information, from a source that it believes is reliable, indicating that there are editors coordinating an off-wiki campaign of harassment against X. Such a practice would slightly (if done well) weaken the level of privacy afforded communications to Arbcom, but would greatly improve transparency. Monty₈₄₅ 14:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider cases where peoples personal info is being discussed. We have had cases where nutcases physically stalked people in the past. Communication and evidence containing that should be conducted privately. IMHO avoiding either extremes is important. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The above looks like a series of RfCs waiting to happen. Please drop me a note if I miss it should you decide to go "live" with these. - jc37 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with RfCs on these ideas. When would be a good time to go live with them? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If we want the RFCs to get anywhere, we need to plan them with the Amendment process in mind. I would suggest the goal of the RFC should to be to arrive at specific amendment language that the community agrees on by consensus. The consensus language should then be submitted to Arbcom to either approve and send to ratification, or to provide the community with specific reasons why it objects to the language. While the community can initiate the ratification process without the approval of Arbcom, the requirements to do so are sufficiently onerous that we should try to get the committee to approve the language before resorting to the alternative. As for timing, I would wait until at least the ACE2012 voting concludes, and we should expect the process to take at least a couple of months. Monty₈₄₅ 16:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators are of course welcome to participate in the discussion to draft the language for the RfC however, I cannot agree to any process that requires ratification by ArbCom. We users can come up with what we want ArbCom to do and not do. ArbCom exists to serve us, not to govern us. This is exactly why I feel ArbCom should have no say on who gets oversight or checkuser access. Arbitrators can of course vote like anyone else. As for the timing I also feel the RfC should be sometime after the voting so as to avoid diluting either vote. Perhaps we can start discussing matters though like we are doing right now - strictly unofficially? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that current arbitration policy defines an amendment process. If the proposal is not approved by Arbcom, we need 100 signatories on an amendment petition and then to ratify it by simple majority in a vote that has at least 100 participants. If Arbcom does approve the proposal, we need only ratify it with a simple majority in a vote with 100 participants. If Arbcom refuses to submit the proposal for ratification, once it has gained consensus, without a really good reason, it will be alot easier to get 100 signatories on the petition anyway. Monty₈₄₅ 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Where should we start drafting an RFC, somewhere in Arb space such as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Amendment RFC 2012? Monty₈₄₅ 03:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No benefit to being hasty. Better to wait until the new committee is seated and the angst of the moment has passed. NE Ent 11:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

@Monty845 That is interesting, where is this written? I am worried of ArbCom overriding community decisions as unlikely that can be. Also I think we would easily exceed 100 votes probably more than 2-fold. @NE Ent Sure waiting is fine, I merely am trying to discuss the technical aspects like the one mentioned above. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification_and_amendment where it states Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. Highlighting added. Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

@NE Ent, at least as I envision it, the process would take 2+ months, starting with a pre-RFC discussion on drafting the RFC, then an RFC for a month, then time for the new Committee to review the RFC results, then if necessary a redraft or petition, and then a ratification vote. I don't think starting the drafting discussion, with a goal of initiating the formal RFC no sooner then ~2 weeks from now is that hasty. Monty₈₄₅ 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The last revision took over two years to get through, and I don't see any likelihood that a future one would take less than 8 months. The issue isn't just one section, it is that once the discussion is open, there are all kinds of things people want to change, and their recommendations need to be considered. It is a long and challenging process. Don't misunderstand me, I think it is always worthwhile to review policies to ensure they can do what they need to do. But I'd never support allowing recusal on a suspension/removal motion, because by definition every member of the committee has some form of conflict of interest in such a vote (i.e., the conditions under which they work would be materially changed). Risker (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have established some individual topics to start with. An actual RfC phase as mentioned is months away at best as mentioned. We can disregard technical issues such as the committee approval for now as we are at a "we are just talking" state. I propose we take the discussion to a separate perhaps Wikipedia namespace page (perhaps even the red link mentioned above) since we are discussing the issue anyways. This would reduce the load on the noticeboard which has uses other than this tread and I feel we are kind of disrupting that unintentionally. We are in no hurry for anything but I think it would be a waste if we were to artificially delay discussion on the topic as long as we do not impact the election process in any way. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing the point?

I tried to make this point at the motion community discussion space, but it was not noticed. I believe the whole discussion whether Elen can be trusted or not is pointless. Yes, some people trust her and some do not. (I personally find the suggestions to block her absolutely ridiculous, and I would probably on the side of those who do trust her, but this is not important). It is not really important whether the info she shared was "confidential enough", and how she handled the situation when it was discovered. What is important is that an average Wikipedian, who has no idea who Elen is, and who Jclemens is, and who MF is and what the whole thing was about, gets a message that if they communicate private info to arbcom it could be leaked out. This is what follows from the statement. There is no way this message could be reverted. The only thing to do now is to send another message - that there was indeed a problem, and the problem was taken care of, and from today (or from January) on the messages are safe again. If it does not happen, the Arbcom can become disfunctional and untrusted. And is the arbcom is not trusted anymore, the whole our dispute resolution system gets broken. This is smth we should absolutely avoid. As I mentioned, the easiest way to send this message is if Elen resigns as an arbitrator and also from the elections. I understand that she might want to proceed for many reasons, for instance, to get the support from the community. However, the support of the community here would not solve the problem of the distrust to arbcom - especially if we have 50% + one vote needed for election. Even if we have 30% who believe the arbcom mailing list is not safe - we are still disfunctional. This is how it looks strategically.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Another point we should learn from this is that arbcom mailing list is not a trash can. It should contain messages with private information, and it should contain deliberations of the arbs on the cases, but everything else has no reason to be buried in the closed list. If this is to enhance drama - erase it. If it contains useful info/suggestions/smth - publish it with the consent of the sender. I was twice an arb on Russian Wikipedia, and there the arbcom acts differently - but we even used to post the (slightly redacted) version of arbs deliberations public after the decision was taken. Just because Wikipedia should be transparent. The problems here originally came because of the grey area - this was an arbcom posting, but Elen took it for almost public, or intended to be public, and shared it. I am pretty sure she would not share real private info like real names or smth. Whereas I find it unacceptable for the reasons stated above, this is a grey area which should be removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that no system technical or otherwise will ever actually be able to prevent an arb with legitimate access to the list from disclosing information? When it comes to guaranteeing the reliability of the people who inherently must have the information, no system is safe agains their failure. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fact that we have no way to 100% technically prevent any arb from leaking the mailing list is all the more reason we shouldn't be continuing to allow access to it to someone who's proven that they do leak the mailing list. That is, if we can't have technical security preventing it, we're forced to rely on the trustworthiness of the people we give access to it - but for that to be reasonably reliable, we have to remove people who we know to be untrustworthy enough to leak. If we cannot secure the list technically, and we refuse to secure it "socially" (for lack of a better word), we're abdicating our responsibility to keep the list private in the first place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that Elen did not post anything today, I assume she has taken time to re-evaluate the general situation. I still hope that she would resign voluntarily, this would prove that the system works, and would keep her motivation and keep her here as a highly respected user.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This is exactly my point. Let confidential info to arbs, remove arbs who disclosed info, elect such arbs who would not disclose anything, and remove non-confidential info from the confidential lists, it just does not belong there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for expanded summary

I've read the Noticeboard post several times, but it's pretty vague, so is there anything more detailed around? I've been trying to sort through all this, but it's going on on so many pages, with so much heat and smoke, I feel sort of like a bystander who's watching an argument from outside. I see a couple people in the middle, Jclemens and Elen of the Roads, loudly defending themselves, I see a crowd around them with pitchforks, I see the magistrates (ArbCom) reading off proclamations, I see plenty of people in the peanut gallery throwing their own comments into the mix, but I'm having trouble figuring out just what the heck happened. Has anyone posted a timeline anywhere of the original incidents? Example: On "date", Jclemens said <whatever> on the ArbCom list. On "date", Elen copy/pasted part of that to <someone>. On "date", Elen was asked whether she'd leaked, and she said <comment>, which was later contradicted on <date> when she said <comment>, etc. Thanks. --Elonka 17:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on this page runs 15,500 words, and the one on the motions page runs 11,800 as I write this. If printed out, it would run about 60 pages in 10 point font. For ease of reading, I tend to temporarily copy-paste long discussions like this to Word, which has nice little word counts and page numbers. Let me assure you, I wouldn't mind a summary either. The information that is in the statement is what we are able to confirm, and the timeline that is built into it is what we are providing. We will not be providing any information that is not able to be confirmed. Risker (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "This is what happened" statements from Jclemens and Elen of the Roads? I'm assuming they're around somewhere, but everything I've seen is jumbled, like, "It's just like I said above," and I can't sort out the strands of spaghetti. Which I guess helps me a bit anyway, because if someone can't clearly and concisely write a statement of, "This is what happened, in terms that are understandable to someone who was not involved with the dispute," then they probably shouldn't be an arbitrator anyway. --Elonka 21:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You can look on their talk pages, where I believe both have already responded, and you can weight their responses as you see fit. Having just condemned one of our members for sharing messages from the list, I don't think you'll find anyone on the Commmittee willing to publish any messages received from either of them. Risker (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Someone can feel free to correct me on this, but I believe the sequence of events has been as follows:

• November 6 to November 7 - Jclemens makes several comments regarding the upcoming election and his intention to bring up the Malleus case. In one of these comments (disclosed here), Clemens states on the mailing list that he would be "actively campaigning against" anyone who did not vote to ban Malleus and that this would involve quoting Malleus to each candidate to challenge their decision to not ban Malleus. More "forceful e-mails" were also apparently posted to the list by Jclemens during this time per Hersfold's disclosure.
• Around November 8 - Elen vents to two editors in separate private chats regarding the comments from Jclemens, quoting excerpts from this e-mail and another e-mail (possibly unattributed) to Worm That Turned (see disclosure here) and providing a full copy of the e-mail's contents to another editor (possibly Sven Manguard given this public exchange).
• Sometime around November 13 - This information is shared with unnamed parties that include several candidates, and the Arbitrators are notified of the leak. One of these candidates was apparently NuclearWarfare who seems to be the one who notified ArbCom. Per Elen's disclosure, the e-mail to NW came from the person with whom Elen shared the full e-mail.
• November 13 - Elen acknowledges the disclosure of a few sentences, apparently referring to her conversation with WTT.
• November 19 - An anonymous g-mail account forwards a modified version of the full e-mail from Jclemens noted above to Coren, who promptly notifies an arbitrator not running in the election. All Arbs deny having sent this e-mail.
• November 25 - Elen admits to having shared a full copy of the contents of Jclemens' e-mail with another editor.
• November 26 - The matter is brought to the attention of the community.

I suspect, given the disclosures and other comments, that the private chat with Sven is what led to the leak spreading. Given Coren and NW's statements lining up with two separate incidents, it appears there were other candidates notified around the time the Arbs became aware of the leak on November 13 who have not disclosed their receipt of this e-mail. Jc37 and Guerillo, however, have each stated that they have not received any e-mails ([4] [5]). No other candidates have made public disclosures from what I can surmise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I can endorse most of this as accurate to the best of my knowledge. I won't comment on the bit about Sven being Elen's contact, though - while I do know who Elen provided with the full email, it's up to them to come forward when/if they're comfortable doing so and I won't feed into speculation as to their identity. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one precision: while the email I received proved to not be identical to that which Jclemens posted on his talk page (which I can only surmise is the original), the differences are extremely minor: There is on paragraph break that is not at the same place, and one change of capitalization. — Coren ^(talk) 01:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

TDA, thanks very much for putting that summary together, it helps a lot. It would appear that one of the more damning elements regarding Elen is this diff,[6] where it's revealed that when questioned about the leak she gave only a partial answer, and did not expand her answer until later. A further question though, if I may. When Jclemens was talking about campaigning against the Malleus supporters (or at least those who declined to ban Malleus), which arbs in particular is he referring to? For example, is it the list of those who opposed the ban in the Proposed Decision here? Or was there another case/motion/clarification that seems to be the focal point of the dispute? Thanks, --Elonka 05:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It was the more recent motion in the amendments & clarification page, Elonka. For what it's worth, I also endorse the timeline as matching my understanding of the events, although I have no knowledge of Elen's statement of 25 November: it was not provided to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Elonka, the base of the discussion which JClemens refers to is here, scan up to see the prior motion as well as the one that passed. SirFozzie (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any plans to release them? It seems odd that the community should be expected to judge this situation when such an essential piece of information isn't accessible. --Mors Martell (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The only email that has been released is the one which has been widely circulated. The unrecused Arbs have made a statement that parts of another email has been released, but declined to provide any evidence to me of such a portion of a second email being leaked. As such, the widely circulated email--the one which was so offensive that certain arbitrators questioned whether this particular email was justification for Elen's leak--is the only one I will release. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If it helps any, my part in this was fairly low key. Around 7th of this month, I sensed Elen was having a tough time and sent her an email asking if she was alright. She replied, discussing some issues which she was having to deal with on-wiki (all of which were freely available on wiki), then mentioned an arbitrator actively campaigning in a 'to top it all off' manner. Having since seen the email, her comment was paraphrased and non-specific. I did reply, but did not get a further response. Worm^TT(talk) 13:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the 'more forceful e-mails' visible in public anywhere? I haven't read this entire discussion, but the only email I can see is the one linked in the summary above. --Mors Martell (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Risker (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(in reply to SirFozzie) Thanks. So if I am reading the Motion properly, there was a debate in October on whether or not to ban Malleus from the project for six months because of his continuing pattern of misconduct. Arbitrators in support of the Motion were SirFozzie, Hersfold, AGK, Jclemens, and David Fuchs, with PhilKnight wavering. Arbitrators opposed were Casliber, Elen, Kirill, Risker, and Courcelles. So Jclemens' warning on the list that he was going to make this a campaign issue would seem to have been targeted at Casliber and Elen (and possibly PhilKnight), as they were the only arbs who opposed, who were also up for re-election. As it turned out, Casliber and PhilKnight didn't run, so Elen is/was the only real target, unless Casliber and Phil felt somehow "bullied" by Jclemens and chose not to run because of that (which I doubt is the case). Am I understanding all this correctly? --Elonka 15:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, that's pretty much my understanding. I seem to remember that SilkTork also changed his mind in regard to the Malleus vote, but he isn't up for re-election. As it happens, I had already indicated on the mailing list that I almost certainly wasn't running, so I didn't interpret Jclemens' comment as applying to me. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen has disclosed some more details.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Question to all Arbitrators about leaked information

Quoting from the current motion at WP:A/R/M.

"If I had a penny for every time an arb ever shared something they weren't supposed to with me in private chat, I'd be financially independent by now." (diff)

I must admit this quote has me concerned. I would like to ask that all Arbitrators—both current and former—to please comment on the above quote. I believe the community would like to know about the security of Arbitration Committee communications and how rigorously the various arbitrators adhere to the related policies such as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency and confidentiality and wmf:Privacy policy. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. It is very much appreciated. Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an Arbitrator, but I can tell you that the security of communications was extensively discussed in public a while back, after the arbcom-l mailing list archive was cracked and extensive leaks released from it. Those discussions are in the archives of this page, just search "leak". Regarding adhering to policy, well, there's a saying "A secret one person knows is a secret. A secret two people know is no secret. A secret three people know is knowledge shouted to the world.". The vast majority of the Arbitrators may be paragons of probity ... but if only one, just one, not so much, then that's sufficient for a leak. There's been a few times I've thought of sending something privately during a controversial case, but decided against it, as it wasn't worth the chance of it being leaked and thus my becoming a target (in fairness, what I would have sent almost certainly wouldn't have mattered anyway). There's something of a logical paradox in what you ask there, as rarely will anyone in a position of responsibility proclaim that their colleagues leak like sieve (note I'm not saying this is the case, more that hypothetically there's many reasons it might not be said even if it's true). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think that that was a poorly-phrased figure of speech or (to be somewhat uncharitable) drama-mongering, but I would hope that Bishonen would have reported any truly inappropriate disclosures; if not to the full Committee, then at least to the Audit Subcommittee. Speaking for myself, I have never provided the content of an email on any arbitration- or functionary-related mailing list, and have certainly never disclosed any data that would be covered under the privacy policy. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the replies. I recall the leak kerfuffle very well. I also recall that security was going to be improved (changing passwords, possibly changing the mail list software, etc.). What I was looking for here was more of a general response rather than specifics.

1. Do they feel the quote above is an accurate description of the situation
2. How does each Arb view security of communications on a personal level (i.e. they take everything very seriously, they give more concern to personal info as opposed to general info, etc.)

I don't want them to talk about any specific situation and I especially don't want them to talk about each other. I believe the community is interested in the security of ArbCom communications in a general sense—an overview if you will—so they know what to expect when they send stuff to the committee. Thanks for for helping me clarify that. Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 15:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Bishonen's claim is accurate. Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that someone could leak information from the list to a small number of individuals, and if those individuals never come forward, then the Committee will never have any way of knowing... so what I think may not be representative of what is actually happening. I hope it is. As to my view of security, I take it very seriously and believe any breach of security - such as this - is grounds for removal from the Committee. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Another quote from the current motion at WP:A/R/M.

I also know that there are other Arbs quietly squirming and hoping some of their own similar actions don’t come to light – they are of course, the minority - those with a sense of shame.[7]

I wish the Arbs would clarify what their standards really are. The impression I get is that of a circling of the wagons around the issue of "chats" and other unauthorized disclosures of private information to non Arbs. And that there is a tier system: those that have been here for a long time are privy to this confidential information in the form of "chats" and emails from Arbs and "only" pass it on to their "friends". Elen had the misfortune of not choosing her friends well, in that they turned her in. It's still not resolved who sent the many gmail copies or to whom they went. (Have all who received them admitted it?) Was it another one of the Arbs in an unrelated act? Or one of the trusted "friends" in an attempt to protect the same editor that Elen was worried about (according to her talk page) or what? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that a concentrated effort to look into and rewrite/clarify our policies regarding list privacy and the consequences for leaking is on the agenda for the new year. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Without making a specific comment on the circumstance at hand and the alleged leaking of information, I'd like to comment in response to Bishonen's allegation here. In my capacity with the WMF, I probably have more interaction with the Committee than anyone else on staff. I'm one of the two designated liaisons from the WMF to the committee. My experience has been quite the opposite of what Bishonen asserts. Rather, Arbs take confidentiality very seriously, and - even when it would be convenient for me to know something in advance, etc - they are very careful that I am not provided with anything that's non-public, and I read about decisions and motions at the exact same time the community does. Even for this situation, in fact, I had no advance knowledge of what was in the resolution (for full disclosure, because the committee approached the WMF to verify that the email archives had not been compromised, I had a suspicion that something was going on, but no details and did not know any names of people involved). Sometimes, frankly, this makes my life more difficult than I'd like. But neither I nor the committee would have it any other way. Confidentiality is paramount to this committee - even to the extent that those of us who hold the master password to the mailing list system are technologically restricted from the committee's archives. I'm a master password holder, and I couldn't read them if I wanted to. There are multiple layers of security with unique passwords and logged access. Regrettably, that has not always been the case, but we've made some strong strides since the last round of leaks.

So, if Bishonen has sources that leak that repeatedly, I'm impressed. Because I've never found the Arbs to be willing to leak anything - rather, my interactions with the committee have been very professional and in all cases, confidentiality was respected. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Is the membership of the arcom-l mailing list only current Arbitrators? (i.e. are there other people on it, e.g. from WMF roles?) 2) While your experience is significant, and I believe you are reporting it accurately, I'm less than convinced it's dispositive. It strikes me that you're not in a political position where you'd be looking for leaks, or leaks would be looking for you. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seth, to the best of my knowledge, the list is only members of Arbcom. I do not have access to the list to see the membership to confirm directly, but that is my understanding. I can't imagine what other WMF role would require subscription to that list. As to your second question, I think I can be confident in saying that while a "leak" would not be looking for me, "advance notification for convenience" or something similar would, and it has never happened. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jimbo is subscribed to the main Arbcom list. He's been unsubscribed from the secondary or tertiary lists when the need arose, however. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of proportion

An Arbitrator violated the rules by sharing content from email messages that, according to a strict reading of the rules, were supposed to be privileged. She shouldn't have done that. It showed bad judgment; confidentiality rules ought to involve a bright line. I cannot help thinking, however, that the reaction from both Committee and community has been rather out of proportion, considering the apparent nature of the content involved in the transgression and the context in which it was inappropriately revealed. One might reasonably presume that Arbcom's confidentiality rules were intended to protect private information and facilitate candid discussion on matters having to do with the cases it hears, not to enable its members to send clandestine election-related polemics to one another. If that presumption is largely correct, then the spirit of the rules was not violated, only the letter. Does that make what happened okay? No. Should it make it something less than a heinous offense? Yes, I think so. Personally, I'd advocate trading in pitchforks for rods and reels and going off in search of a particularly large trout. No doubt the fishy odor would remain throughout Elen's next term, should she win another, providing a useful reminder to her that bright lines are bright lines even when they're painted in stupid places. I'd hope the odor would persuade the Committee as a whole to look long and hard at its rules with a view to rewriting them to expressly prohibit the sort of nonsense in which Jclemens engaged from taking place under the cover of official confidentality.

tl;dr: No actual harm done; let's go fishing, then go voting, then go edit some articles. Rivertorch (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether the communication was privileged according to a strict reading of the rules varies depending on who is doing the interpreting of said rules. (see prior discussion) NE Ent 13:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No doubt. According to my reading of the rules, everything on the mailing list is privileged, at least in theory. But it shouldn't be—not when the purpose of the mailing list is abused, as it surely was. A mere technical violation (as I see it) on Elen's part highlighted both a much more serious violation on the part of Jclemens and a broader problem involving the rules governing the way Arbs communicate with one another. Rivertorch (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Added: Rather than seeing an Arbitrator who has served the project and the Committee well hung out to dry for a technical violation that was intended to cause no harm and in fact caused no harm, I'd prefer to see a focus on clarifying the rules to unequivocally exempt communications involving improper use of the mailing list from confidentiality requirements. Rivertorch (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Most reasonable statement I've seen yet in this discussion. Λυδαcιτγ 05:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Where were the rest of the Arbitrators during all this, and what do they see as their responsibility to the community?

Based on the timeline of events here, and the schedule at WP:ACE2012, I can't help but believe the sitting ArbCom members (in particular, the ones whose terms carry on past the end of this year) have some explaining to do.

It seems to be the consensus that Jclemens' emails – both the one that was leaked and the "more forceful" messages that he has declined to reveal – fell well outside the bounds of what might be considered an appropriate use of the ArbCom mailing list. Jclemens' messages were sent on November 6 and 7, and the nomination period during which potential ArbCom candidates were required to declare their candidacy opened on November 11 and closed on November 20. From the timing and content of that one (already-leaked) message Jclemens has officially shared with the community, it is plausible that such messages might have influenced the decision of one or more potential candidates to run (or not) in this year's ArbCom elections. It is also reasonable to assume that Jclemens – being an intelligent person and a veteran of two previous ArbCom elections – should have been aware that his messages might elicit such an effect.

The pool of candidates for ArbCom elections typically isn't very big: hovering around 20 for the last few years, and not all of those are what one would think of as 'credible' or 'serious' candidates. The number of seats is, relative to the number of candidates, quite large: 8 this year. Finally, the threshold for eligibility to be seated is quite low—just 50% approval is needed (far lower than the bar for, say, adminship). Given these three facts, a candidate – particularly a candidate who expected from past experience to be right on the borderline – might reasonably conclude that persuading even one or two other potential candidates not to run could significantly improve his own chances of being seated in this year's election.

In other words, both Jclemens and the rest of the ArbCom should have realized that Jclemens' email messages to the ArbCom mailing list – targetting his fellow potential candidates – had a very real chance of influencing the makeup of next year's ArbCom. Absent any leaks or public declarations from the Committee, the Wikipedia community would never have been allowed to have any idea that Jclemens had misused the privileged ArbCom mailing list to attempt to influence the election in this way. (From Jclemens' subsequent refusals to release or discuss any of his as-yet-unleaked messages, it is clear that he believes that even abusive uses of the ArbCom mailing list should be protected absolutely from disclosure or discussion, and that these messages should enjoy a higher level of secrecy and protection than a regular email between Wikipedia editors.)

The ArbCom as a whole (at least, the non-recused Arbs who are not running in the current election) failed to release any statement regaarding Jclemens' emails before or during the nomination window. (They had two weeks from Jclemens' first message to the close of nominations.) The ArbCom only just managed to squeak in a public statement less than a day before the election itself and three weeks after they had received the emails. Further, that statement seems largely focussed on the leak, rather than on the misuse of the ArbCom mailing list for secret campaigning.

Before the ArbCom was notified of the leak on November 13, it appears that they had been sitting on Jclemens' messages for a week. During that time, what steps had the sitting Arbitrators taken to address Jclemens' misuse of the ArbCom mailing list to potentially influence the outcome of the ArbCom election? Prior to becoming aware of the leak, had any sitting Arb taken any steps to inform the community of this problem? Was there a draft statement in the works – that got shelved for two weeks(!) and then discarded – when the leak was revealed? Was the ArbCom just going to sit on this and keep the whole matter secret? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

After I made the leaked and now disclosed posts, a few arbs said "Wait, that's not what the list is for" in various ways, some of which I would consider far less polite than my paraphrase. Then I said that I disagreed with their assertion but would drop it, and did. It didn't come up again because it was a resolved issue: I used the list for what I thought was appropriate discussion, several disagreed and got various degrees of bent out of shape about it, and I scratched my head and shut up, and aside from a disclosure and subsequent intentionally misleading responses to direct questions, that would have been it. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Misusing the ArbCom mailing list – in a way that could only benefit your ArbCom election campaign – is abusing the tools that you were granted in your role as Arbitrator. Just how many messages did you send to the mailing list before you "dropped it", and what were their contents? You mention "disclosed posts", plural, but as far as I know (and based on your own remarks) you have only released the contents of one message. I should think that in the interest of transparency and honesty, you would want Wikipedia editors evaluating your candidacy in this election to have all of the relevant information.

The issue isn't "resolved", in that your private mailing list activities could have influenced a very public election process; if your fellow Arbitrators decided to protect you from the consequences of your misuse of ArbCom tools, that's something that the community should know. (If the Arbs involved sat uselessly on their thumbs, that's something that the community should know as well.) You don't get to decide on behalf of the community or the rest of the ArbCom whether or not your own conduct – or the ArbCom's reponse to it – was adequate or appropriate.

I still await the comments of any Arbitrator who was involved in evaluating Jclemens' messages or contemplating the response to them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno, I think I have at least as much right to describe it as resolved (since there were 5+ days of no conversation on the matter before the leaks came to light) as you do to call it abuse. Hey, I've got another idea: since you're concerned about how this was perceived by the rest of the committee, why don't you call on them to post their emailed reactions to the message I've already disclosed? I've already hinted that I perceived some of them as less-than-polite... don't you want to know what those messages contained? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I think that's pointless at this stage; your candidacy is clearly toast, and I expect Elen's is as well. Rather than rehashing the details of what happened in this instance, it would be more useful to focus on what can be done to prevent situations like this arising in future. Prioryman (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Accountability, transparency, checks and balances

Individuals with the most power, should be most accountable, transparent, and subject to the necessary checks and balances. ArbCom's private mailing list is incompatible with all these basic principles.

There can be no open discussion about this matter, nor any other, while decisions are made behind closed doors, and there is no obligation for Arbcoms to explain themselves (too many cases have Arbcoms making judgements with no indication that they've even read through the case, let alone indicated what they have based their judgement on). I would insist that:

• All Arbcom business is conductor publicly.
• Arbcom splits into teams of 3 or 4, so that their time is deployed more efficiently, and to enable better discussion of cases. --Iantresman (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The WMF privacy policy, which binds all users who have CU and/or OS permissions, demands that certain kinds of material be kept confidential. So I think the answer is pretty much going to have to be no to your first point. There will always be matters which arbs and other functionaries are not free to discuss publicly. Keep in mind that the same policy protects you and everyone else as well from having checkuser data or personal information that has been suppressed from being shared. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So let's get the private stuff into something that doesn't spray emails into private mailboxes, the discussion into somewhere accountable, and the chitchat, jokes, rants, election manifestos etc out of the equation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are certain kinds of material that should be kept confidential. But discussing general Arbcom cases should be in public. Other material should be logged in general terms, noting who instigated it, who is discussing it, and why. --Iantresman (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you envisage splitting ArbCom? Interestingly, I gather this is an area where Elen and I agree. I wrote an essay outlining some ideas called WP:ArbCom reform. PhilKnight (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Elen on her talk page: "It is the view of some members of the Committee that everything an Arbitrator ever sends to that email address - bad jokes, gossip, laundry lists - is under the seal of the confessional and can never be repeated or referred to elsewhere." [8] Does the Arb email list contain a fair amount of "election manifestos, bad jokes, gossip and laundry lists" as Elen suggests? i.e. it's not primarily a serious forum for the discussion of Arb topics? And violation of some of the strictures is understandable and that what should be kept confidential and what is plain silly is obvious? If this is the case, will the situation Elen describes be addressed by Arbs and cleaned up? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On the motion page, Hersfold described how the list is used for what I guess I might paraphrase as commiseration amongst the Committee members. It does indeed seem to me that the spirit of the rules is that the confidentiality should pertain to material with which the Committee deals in the course of carrying out its responsibilities. I'm not convinced that electioneering, commiserating, or general chit-chat are ArbCom responsibilities. It may be more a matter that such stuff shouldn't be on the list to begin with, than that it should or should not be confidential, but I realize that we are dealing with real and thus imperfect people here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As past leaks have shown, the list does contain a fair amount of snarkiness. I'm hardly shocked, shocked, that this is the case. Personally I was more amused than offended for myself in what I saw, but I could see some people being unhappy regarding some of the remarks. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean it's not "primarily a serious forum ...". And the specific matter here does seem reasonably related to, err, vigorous dispute over the outcome of a case, so legit on that score. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to appoint a "court reporter". A non-Arb, (non-admin?) user who gets access to the mailing list and once every two weeks or so summarizes the going-ons on the list in, say, the Signpost (or a new special page or something). The key word would be "summarize", and I'll add "paraphrase" to that. No quoting, except with permission. BUT, you still get outside eyes on the goings on which should prevent the kind of misuse as is alleged in Jclemens' case. Or similar. So no "seal of confessional" but no inappropriate leaking either.

The procedure for choosing this gal or guy could be similar to the way clerks are chosen. Of course s/he would be bound by the same rules of confidentiality regarding privacy that apply to CUs etc.  Volunteer Marek  00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

With the lack of trust some are having with the committee members themselves, it might be more trouble than it's currently worth. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I rather like this idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Turning Arbcom into more efficient smaller teams

@PhilKnight, :@Elen of the Roads (per your comments above). In my opinion, the Arbcom process is very long and protracted, because

1. You have to wait for at last half the committee to review a case
2. If there is more than one case, then the time available to each Arb is reduced proportionally
3. The process is adversarial, tends to be accusatory, and there is no indication whether your points are taken on board.

How do I envisage splitting ArbCom?

1. Three Arbs hear a case. (a) Whoever brings a case make their choice of a single Arbcom. (b) The other main editor(s) named in the same case, also gets to make their choice of Arbcom. (c) A third Arbcom is chosen (the next one at the top of the list? Randomly?)

Then the case itself, I would like to see:

1. More of a discussion than an accusatory process
2. Uninvolved editors can not take part (but may be asked for their evidence)
3. Editors' contributions must be subject WP:V via WP:RS (ie. diffs) which will reduce unfounded acusations and opinions
4. Every question must be answered/commented on by all parties
5. After the main parties are satisfied that they have made their cases, and their questions answered to their satisfaction, the three Arbs vote on the outcome.
6. Sanctions are strictly escalating, ie. bans for 1, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2, 3, 6 months, one year. No need for appeal; lets not waste the Arbcom's time. If the editor is that bad, they will quickly acquire accumulating bans.

It would also help that the editors and Arbs involved indicate that they are available during a certain timeframe. I would suggest a small working party to discuss, perhaps a couple of Arbs, and at least one editor who has been on the wrong end of Arbcom decisions (of course I'm thinking of me). I can provide concrete examples of where I think Arbcom has failed. --Iantresman (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Net result: Nothing

After all the kerfluffle over the last few days over this incident, the motions regarding the incident have been closed, and the motions page is empty. We have potentially serious issues at hand here with inappropriate use of resources, leaks, lying to the committee and more. The net result? Nothing. We are to expect this to all be sorted out by the election, with a voting public that by and large knows nothing about this event at all. I'm not an advocate of doing something, ANYthing. But to simply dump this serious issue and sweep it under the rug can not be the right answer. We elect ArbCom to handle the most intractable disputes on the project. This one is certainly difficult. That doesn't mean ArbCom should simply sidestep it. What are ArbCom's plans (if any) for addressing the serious issues raised by this event? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As I've indicated on the arbitration talk page, the committee was already well into a process of evaluating alternate software that the WMF will support that will allow us to significantly reduce our dependence on mailing lists; indeed, if not for the events involved here, we might have completed our review and been ready to implement before the end of the year, although that is still the target. (It would be easier for new arbitrators to have to learn only one system, rather than start learning one system and have to switch in a short time.) We have been looking at three systems (two CRM systems and a ticketing system), have already eliminated the ticketing system, and are now comparing the two CRM systems for ease of use, ability to manage them independently, and many other features such as the ability to manage multiple segregated "email" streams so that only a single platform is needed. It should allow us to reduce our dependence on other software as well, including much of the information retained on the Arbwiki, and (probably) moving suppression requests out of OTRS. Both of the CRMs allow deletion of material that is no longer needed so, for example, we could flag all suppression requests to be deleted in 30 days or something like that. Documents in other formats can also be stored there, with layers of security attached. Access to each "stream" would be limited to the appropriate users. While we probably would continue use of the mailing list for quick messages and personal exchanges related to the functioning of the committee (e.g., "I'll be on holiday for two weeks" or "My family member is ill, I won't be available until further notice"), most of the requests and discussions can go into the CRM system and retention protocols established.

As well, this change will be an excellent opportunity to establish new or clearer "ground rules" about what is and is not acceptable behaviour in committee-related communication forums. Risker (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

While it's good to see the ArbCom is willing to explore alternative technical approaches to help them to do their jobs most effectively, I'm not sure I see how anything but the very last sentence in your comment here is relevant to what Hammersoft is asking. The current problems have nothing to do with any technical limitations or failures of the mailing list, and lie entirely with the conduct of the Arbitrators involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that part is at least partially up to the community, whether or not any of the current arbitrators who are candidates will be re-elected. Subsequently, and depending on the results, a newly constituted committee will be able to examine whether or not any specific former arbitrator should retain advanced permissions, or access to various restricted mailing lists. There is always a change of culture as the membership of the committee changes; it's possible (although admittedly unlikely) that the community might decide to send us a majority of completely new arbitrators, as happened in the 2008 elections. That marked a very significant cultural change in the committee, starting with moving former arbitrators off the mailing list, appointing trusted community members to manage the bulk of checkuser and oversight requests, creating the AUSC and BASC, and completing a major overhaul of the arbitration policy. I am indeed hoping to see some new energy and ideas come January. Risker (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

@Hammersoft - the election will be the litmus test which shows us what the community wants, and depending on that is how we fine tune policy. To do anything before then is premature. The actions fall within a grey area that involves some interpretation. we'll have a result in three weeks and we can get cracking then. No problem and the sky isn't going to fall in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The election can not be interpreted as any mandate regarding this event, regardless of its outcome. As I noted, most of the voting public knows nothing of this event. To presume the results have any interpretive meaning regarding this event is an enormous stretch. As for fine tuning policy, I believe it was Risker that noted it took two years to get the last policy changes put in place. In reality, there will be no mandate, and no policy change resulting from this event. That is what will happen unless ArbCom changes course. If ArbCom is not willing to change course, I suspect the community will change course for them. There are a large number of people who are seriously angered over this event. This can not be overlooked. It can not be swept under the rug. It can not be quietly ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft, please don't misinterpret what has happened here as complacency on the part of the committee. I can quite assure you that, without exception, every single arbitrator is extremely unhappy with the behaviour of their colleagues in this episode, to the point that we even managed to pull together a public announcement about it. It's probably the one thing that we've pretty solidly agreed upon this year. Frankly, if I see signs that the soon-to-be-elected iteration of the committee is going to be as poorly behaved as this year's, I'll resign. I've spent too many years working to put the needs of the encyclopedia over my own preferences when it comes to dispute resolution to want to have to live through another year like this. Arbcom is *not* Govcom, and every time I see an arbitrator comparing what we do to governance, or advocating that we completely change the community with rulings from the bench that do not relate to issues genuinely before us, I want to trout them. There is very definitely a place for a GovCom on Wikipedia, but this isn't it. The committee's failures this year have been (in my mind) almost completely because individual arbitrators have insisted that things need to be *their way* and they have been unwilling to work to come to consensus or to some middle ground that serves the project. Arbitrators too need to understand that not everyone can have a pony, and that lack of understanding has caused most of the problems this year. So....ball's in your court, community. Find us people who want to collaborate, not advance their personal positions, and we'll be able to move ahead. Elect a bunch of people who are inflexible or feel that the mere fact of winding up in the top 8 gives them a personal mandate to change the entire structure of the community, and you'll have another year like this. Risker (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That "people who are inflexible or feel that the mere fact of winding up in the top 8 gives them a personal mandate" as an attitude that showed up quickly led me to a feeling of repulsion long before this issue surfaced. This is a grand post, I agree with just about all of it, but Risker, how are we to know in advance how to measure "inflexible" when we are sometimes looking at candidates who are freshly-minted admins? I've opted this and past years to vote for candidates who had strongly different views from mine on past cases, but showed a willingness to reflect and re-evaluate their positions. I've opted for what I perceive to be "calm" deliberators over the not-so calm. I've decided to never again vote for a candidate who hasn't been in the trenches, establishing a track record, for a good while. But a problem is, unless more motions and votes are put out for the community to observe (the benefit of the Elen Motion, regardless if it passed or failed), the community can't know what factors are contributing to this fractured ArbCom. After the election is over, tell us what else we need to look at ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) What will it be a litmus test of, Casliber? For Jclemens, is it a litmus test of his infamous "not a Wikipedian" comment? Or of his attempt to manipulate the election using the ArbCom mailing list? Or of something else? He's only barely been seated two elections in a row; if he isn't re-elected, is it just because there happened to be one more acceptable candidate this year? Most of his mailing list electioneering remains sealed; the community is in no position to judge the tiny bit of hearsay.

For Elen, is it a litmus test of her leak of Jclemens' message? Or of her decision to block another party in an Arb case in which she was involved? (That last is something that has gotten other editors desysopped, though for a sitting Arb it apparently only warranted a finger wag.) To be fair, at least in Elen's case the community has a reasonable apprehension of what all of her actions were.

If either candidate is re-seated on the ArbCom, will it be because the community deemed their actions acceptable (or at least tolerable), or because the community didn't have full access to their actions in order to properly evaluate them, or because a lot of voters just weren't aware of the whole mess, or because there are just too many empty seats and too few credible candidates (and too low a bar for eligibility)? Calling the election a 'litmus test' is a convenient excuse for sitting Arbs not to take responsibility for the ArbCom's conduct, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• What deeply troubles me is that Elen openly lied to the committee on at least two occasions regarding the leak, and maintained the lie for nearly two weeks [9]. She directly hampered ArbCom's investigation into the leak. If any of us mere editors were to do something like this to ArbCom, the retribution would be swift and painful. But no, we're to leave this all up to the election, with a voting public that largely knows nothing of this. If Elen is re-elected, we will have a sitting arbitrator immune to censure from the committee due to the then-recent election who has openly lied to the committee and hampered its investigation. Yet, because of the abysmally poor way in which ArbCom's policy is written, they won't do anything. I am not after a pound of flesh here, but this situation is absolutely, categorically absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I say above, a different motion might well have had a different result. Aside from the election, the community could also have provided various sanctions, but instead they looked to us to do it. Perhaps the discussion should have been on AN instead... Risker (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The standard of conduct you (ArbCom) are now saying is that lying to ArbCom is not actionable. What reason does anyone have now to report the truth to ArbCom when asked? If you can't take action against one of your very own for lying, you can't take action against us mere editors for lying to you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did we say that? You're conflating "not actionable" with...well, I'm assuming "sanctionable". The lying was certainly actionable: it has resulted in a public statement by the committee on its noticeboard and multiple other locations. Sanctionable is a different issue; whether you want to believe it or not, we figure that editors are lying to us pretty often, and we don't ban them all, either. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, no matter what we did with this situation: the community keeps telling us they want first crack at any dispute resolution, so hypothetically even the motions that did not pass were probably jumping the gun in the minds of those who believe the community should address behaviour problems in the first instance. Risker (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I understand the pickle you are in. There are a number of conflicting problems here. Nevertheless, the message...whether intentional or not...is that lying is acceptable. You (ArbCom) have sanctioned people before for deceiving the committee [10] when you've been aware of it. This was just a few months ago. Yet, you can't act now due to the constitutional conflict. This generates a situation where the ArbCom member is immune. If an arbitrator is immune from sanction for a particular action, everyone in the community should have the same immunity. Are you equal to us editors or not? I can appreciate the difficulty of the situation you are in. It is highly complex. Yet, that is what you were elected to do; untangle such messes and protect the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I would say a public statement by the Arbitration Committee that two of its members have behaved very badly is a form of sanction by itself. We certainly don't make statements when User X or User Y does it, except in the context of a case. Remember, we're generally yelled at for taking action outside of cases (and appropriately so, for the most part). I entirely understand that several of my colleagues wanted to suspend or remove one or both of the two arbitrators involved in this behavioural problem; however, there were other steps that could have been taken instead of that which could have achieved the level of support to be enacted. It goes back to the comment I have made above, where collaboration and brainstorming would probably have led to a response more effective and more satisfactory to the community than what wound up happening. I have to ask - if a different motion that resulted in a form of sanction was to be posted and voted on today, would it make a difference? Risker (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think it would. As it stands, it is currently acceptable for a member of ArbCom to lie to the committee and hamper its investigations. Stating someone behaved badly is the most that ArbCom can now apply to any member of the community that openly lies to the committee again. Doing anything else would be hypocritical and elevating members of ArbCom to an elite status immune from real sanctions for such acts. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• When you say the community could have actioned it, that's wishful thinking. Last time an arb was blocked for an egregious personal attack, the block didn't stick and was reverted within minutes without discussion (sounds familiar), the arb learned nothing of it, and some on the committee apparently discussed desysopping the admin who stood up for the principle that arbitrators must be held to the same standards they set for others. It has barely been a month. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Concur. The community is powerless to do anything about this. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, Risker has a very good point. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elen of the Roads is a redlink. I'm not saying that putting up an RFC now will solve anything that an election won't solve, but Risker's point is valid. We asked the arbs to do something about problematic arbs, when we coulda/shoulda done it ourselves (and at least a year ago, when she lodged attacks on one editor and blocked him while she was a party to the case). It's kind of too late now, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• MLauba's point is that it won't stick. ArbCom will override the result, and possibly desysop anyone who tries to make it stick. In my opinion, if ArbCom can't police their own, they have no business whatsoever policing us. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to any cases where there was a strong community consensus, with an undisputed formal close, that Arbcom has directly overridden, let alone one dealing with disciplining an Arbcom member? If there is no precedent, its just speculation. I would also speculate that such a circumstance might actually lead to Jimbo intervening. Monty₈₄₅ 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Related; a no confidence vote in regards to Jclemens was held here. 50 editors voted in that (admittedly) informal vote. The vote was 33-17 in favor of no confidence. Jclemens didn't step down. The point here is that even an RfC with 50 contributors isn't going to cause ArbCom to do anything, much less have someone step down. The community is powerless here. ArbCom's power is absolute. If ArbCom won't address it, it will remain unresolved. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• A poorly attended comment (not even on the RFC, but on a talk page), that didn't even suggest a remedy, with a divided result (33 to 17), so close to an election where the issue would be settled anyway, is hardly a good example. Monty845 asked for an example of a strong community consensus, in a formal case ... we don't have that here. Had there been an actual RFC, requesting he step down or some specific remedy, well attended by the community, and not so close to election, we might have something to talk about. Claiming this is an example where "arbcom's power is absolute" or even that "arbcom won't address it" is wrong. ArbCom tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• My point is that it is indicative, and indeed it is. This no confidence vote was ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow up process question

So does this mean that there is still arbitrator discussion going "behind-the-scenes concerning this situation?

If not, does this mean that arbcom considers the matter "closed"?

I've seen it asked elsewhere whether arbcom is ineffectual to deal with itself. Was this part of why the motions ended?

Is it the typical requirement that the issue requires the procedural action of a request for review from the community?

If the last, would Arbcom require an RfC or other WP:DR first? Or would, since this concerns the practices of Arbcom, would a direct request be acceptable?

Based on the diversity of perspectives laid out above and elsewhere on this topic I would be surprised if the community is not still looking for review of this situation. - jc37 02:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion (mine, and only mine), is that we've explored the various things we CAN do here, and while it's definitely not closed, there's a limit what we can do here. The motions ended because there was no chance of their passing. All 10 arbitrators would need to vote support for the motion to pass, and there was already one firm oppose, and one abstain (that would be counted as an oppose. Even those of us who voted to support the motion realized that it was an empty, symbolic vote at best. I think that we need to review the procedures for this sort of situation, to try to get this to a comfort zone where the barrier is high to remove an arbitrator (to allow it for serious malfeasance in their duty, but not let it be used for political purposes). Such a motion should never pass with only five supports, which if we were not doing a suspension/expulsion motion, is the situation we found ourselves in. I don't think that a case request would work, we'd just end up in the same situation. I think the community has it in their hands now, with the election. In short, if you think arbitrators actions fall short of that you expect from folks here on the Committee, vote against them. If you disagree, think they can still do a good job as an arbitrator, vote for them. I think the current sense is that while the Committee has strong opinions on this issue, since we've reached the end of what we can do, we're willing to let the community inform us on the next steps to be taken here, through the election and the discussion resulting from the election. SirFozzie (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside the event specifics, and just looking at this from a general process perspective, what if this was february and not november? Would Arbcom still be suggesting that the only thing they could do is wait for the election?

Something else to consider that I don't think anyone has brought up. This will sound kinda funny, but it's not intended to be humourous. AFAIK, User:Jimbo Wales can remove an arbcom member at his discretion, and in particular in a time of community concern (even if it be temporary). Has anyone considered asking him to assess the situation? - jc37 04:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think it would. One of the problems here is the conflict between the Conflict of Interest guidelines that are forcing the recusal of nearly one third of the Committee and the requirement of a two thirds majority of the entire Committee (there's no wiggle room to consider recusals on the votes to suspend/expel one of our members). As for what I've heard termed the nuclear option, that is a request to Jimmy Wales.. there's nothing that says you can't, but I tend to think Jimmy will say "I'd rather let the community speak on this in the elections" rather then to push the button here. Again, only my opinion SirFozzie (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nod, though I must say, this kind of situation really seems like a situation of why he still retains his "god-king" powers. Among other things, for such a time where Arbcom's ability appears stymied. Obviously not meant as an offense. As you noted, we have a series of conflicting policies creating a mess. And unless we have some massive RfC, he's pretty much the only one who can cut this Gordian Knot, afaict. (Incidentally, I dropped him a note on his talk page.) - jc37 05:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to start working towards an amendment RFC shortly so that hopefully things will be clearer if a situation like this ever reoccurs. Monty₈₄₅ 05:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jc37 - yes, if it were not election time, then we'd have enough people to opine on a 2/3rds majority....and at election time...we have elections. I suppose it would have been trickier if the arbs involved had not been up for re-election. In any case, the community will deliver us some feedback pretty soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If it was February there wouldn't have been election campaigning traffic on arbcom-l in the first place. NE Ent 10:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

5 in favor, 1 opposed = not passing

How does the motion to remove Elen from the ArbCom (and her CU access) "fail" when it had 5 in favor and 1 opposed? This is truly chilling. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy requires a 2/3rds majority of all members to remove a member from the committee. 10 in favor, regardless of who recuses. The community ratified the policy, Arbcom cannot change it on its own. Monty₈₄₅ 04:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It was obvious that the motion would not receive the necessary majority to pass. As Monty says, as much as folks would like to consider Arbs as all-powerful (ha), we are constrained in our actions by the policies and standards we've worked out with the community. I think that this issue showed some holes that need to be fixed in the policy, but even if I could change the policy unilaterally, it would be a violation of our compact with the community if we made up the rules as we went along. SirFozzie (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One can also consider whether a differently worded motion would have had a different result. The motion that was put before us was a suspension motion in all but words, and was clearly interpreted to be that by at least some of the supporters. I think that the community is better served by making this decision at the ballot box at this point in time; if it was February, I think there would have been a different result, and it probably would have gone even further. If the motion had been to remove advanced permissions and their attendant accesses, for example, there may well have been a different result. Risker (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator Recall

Back in 2009, ArbCom was supposed to be developing a system whereby an Arbitrator could be recalled. Despite it being on the agenda for 9 months of that year (at least), it never happened. It was quietly dropped as an idea. If such a recall method existed now, the community could have acted to recall Elen (or JClemens) if there was sufficient support for such a move. An obvious safeguard would be that a community recall motion could not be initiated without support from some Arbitrators - perhaps even a majority of non-recued non-COI arbitrators. This system would work even now when the 2/3 supermajority is impossible for ArbCom-mandated expulsion is impossible, it would work even if elections are in progress, it would work in any month, and it would work through the community rather than by Jimbo acting independently or in the case where ArbCom is divided. Is developing a safe but practical community-decided recall process something that can be brought back onto the agenda? EdChem (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that when the new Committee is seated in January, that looking at this policy, and how to tweak it, clarify it (or as needed, massively overhaul it) will be on the table. SirFozzie (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen and JClemens obviously think that have not done anything to warrant stepping down. If Elen and JClemens cared about the community then they would open up RfCs regarding themselves before January. If editors want them to step down they should. If consensus says otherwise then they can feel comfortable being vindicated. Relying on convoluted rules that side step what is key to Wikipedia (consensus) portrays them, this situation, and the entire project as garbage.Cptnono (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You do know there's an arbcom election going on right now where both of them are candidates right? Why start an RFC "so the community can express their opinion" when there's an election where the community can already do that? -- KTC (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In the RfC on the current election, I proposed that a recall vote be allowed, and (as with all Wikipedia discussions) the form of the final ballot would have been determined by the community. My proposal lacked support. (There was a recall discussion or at least votes of no confidence at the discussion on the Civility Enforcement clarification request, which has substantially more support than my suggestion.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point a vote of no confidence really has in practical terms, though. For all its inspirations from judicial and government structures, Wikipedia doesn't operate like a parliament. I missed your recall comments in the RfC, Kiefer, but insofar as workable solutions to addressing grievances I think some variation along those lines is the only option (of course, I'm not sure how effective recall could be on an arb level, given that it's already so problematic for admins.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you're naming both the victim and the perpetrator together, Cptnono, should be an indication that the system would be abusable from the start. I never leaked anything, nor did I mislead my peers about anything related to this sad, sorry mess.... yet here you are, naming me along side the admitted leaker. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• So. On almost every case I vote on, I get emails from people that say things to the effect of "if you vote to ban XXX, I'll make sure you never get elected again"...and also "if you DON'T vote to ban XXX, I'll make sure you never get elected again". Now, when elections are every two years, these threats can be ignored, and arbitrators can vote on the evidence instead of the threats. But if there's a constant (and I do mean constant) threat hanging over every arbitrator's head that they're going to have to spend days and weeks fighting off recall motions every time they do something that someone doesn't like, then they can't do their job. Arbitrators already get more abuse than the average Wikipedian by a long shot (take a look at any decision page), and you know as well as I do that there are people at every decision who vociferously oppose it. Before I was elected, I would have thought that an arbitrator saying what I've just said was exaggerating, and I would have been incredibly wrong. You can count on any recall provision being used as a threat to directly affect voting on every case from the time it is approved. Risker (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, one of the major obstacles to admin recall is that it can be abused and used to threaten. However, I think this is much less problematic with arbitrator recall because a strong threshhold requirement can easily be constructed. Suppose we construct a process where a recall motion doesn't go to a vote until endorsed by (say) three current arbitrators. Then, all those threats you mention (and I do believe there are a stupidly large number of threats) can continue to be ignored. I wouldn't favour a recall procedure which was a constant destabilising threat to the Committee, and sitting arbitrators would not endorse recall even being debated / voted without very good reason. However, I would favour one that could have been used to see if the community were unsatisfied with Elen's continued service, or JClemens', or FT2's after the secret case mess. Does this seem practical to you? EdChem (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One could also imagine a hybrid removal system, wherein the committee could initiate a recall election for a particular member by motion, without meeting the much more stringent conditions for direct removal. I would say an active majority of the committee using the standard rules would make more sense then just have X arbs endorse. The one issue is that having such a process would probably result in more calls to use it in response to minor grievances. Monty₈₄₅ 14:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the simple majority of arbitrators as a possible threshhold in my original post. I would prefer the hurdle wasn't that high, however. If the Committee of 15 can find a majority (8 arbs) to support the community having a recall vote then there are likely the 10 votes needed for an expulsion. Take Jclemens and "not a wikipedian", there were likely a few arbs that would say that the community should be allowed to judge whether this was conduct so unbecoming of an arbitrator that he no longer had the support to continue, but I think needing a majority of the committee would be unreasonable. A recall mechanism with a 3 arbitrator supporting the question being put to the community would allow the community to weigh in when the committee is divided or to allow quick action if the community is in uproar. I think needing 3 arbitrators would ensure only really serious issues could trigger a recall vote, but also ensures that the committee would also practically never be unable to act (as is the presently the case). EdChem (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Normal as in recused and inactive arbs aren't treated as opposing, as is the case for the current removal process. Would have been lower then 8 in this case. Monty₈₄₅ 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Risker: I am not sure this would help, since probably you have already thought about it, but still: when I was first elected to Russian Wikipedia arbcom, the same day I put a template on my user page saying that I reserve my right to share all communications sent to me using the closed channels with other arbs, and, if I find it necessary and if the communications do not contain private info, with the general audience. In my two terms, I only got one request when the guy who was a party of a case insisted that we vote exactly as he wants. We told him to mind his own business and voted how we thought it would be appropriate. I can not recollect any other instance anybody tried to pressure me. An open system is difficult to cheat.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• If such a recall process were to come about, I'd be interested to hear how it would deal with conflicts of interest. When Arbs hear a case, any who have some sort of past conflict or connection to those involved are expected to recuse themselves, yes? Would there be an expectation that any of those who wish to vote on a recall petition must be free of conflict as well? Tarc (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I think the hope would be that those with a conflict would either recognize it themselves and not vote (unlikely) or that the votes would be drowned out by the votes of the uninvolved community. Monty₈₄₅ 14:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think hoping for either self-restraint or to have a lot of sensible votes counteract a bad one is not a feasible way to proceed, if we're talking about a system of removing an elected Arb from his/her post. Such voters would need to have their votes stricken. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What would be the threshold for vote striking? Being a sanctioned party in a case the arb participated in? What if the arb voted in your favor? Outspoken critics of a particular arb? Critics of the committee generally? Conflicts with the arb outside the arb capacity? Having commented on the election in a way that is negative to the arb? Voting against the Arb in the election? I don't think there is an obvious line, and without one, such striking would generate endless controversy. Monty₈₄₅ 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to over-engineer things. Arbitrator recall should not be triggerable for the normal performance of their duties, but limited to conduct unbecoming. Personal attacks (even impeccably polite ones), electioneering on the wrong forum, breaches of privacy would all be covered. For the rest, I know this will get a lot of sighing from some parts, but to ensure more even-handed decisions, perhaps it is time to rethink the "arbcom is not a court" approach and formalize some of the procedures a lot more. Limit evidence pages to avoid a month-long abuse fest by the peanut gallery for instance - arbitrators should lead an enquiry. Prohibit any remedies to be submitted absent a finding of fact that needs to be remedied. Stipulate that no finding of fact can be advanced as long as it is not based on a principle. And limit the scope of what can be done in response for clarification and amendment requests to rectifying what the request is about. Any of these would go a long way in restoring the confidence in the committee. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I always enjoy reading EdChem's well considered posts, but I don't support the notion that any sort of arb recall proposal would be helpful. I do think it would be harmful, for the reasons Risker points out. The arbs have dealt successfully in the past with similar situations, with arbs resigning as a result. Two arbs who resigned so as not to bring disgrace to the Committee were subsequently re-elected; one would not likely ever be re-elected. We have this time a unique situation of a problem that resulted from a past RFC that forced us to grow the Committee and elect arbs about whom we knew little on low support tallies. The community has a means of resolving this issue: Oppose more often at the ballot box. We do NOT need to be filling up the Committee to some arbitrary size set by community RFC.

I also note that for what she has done here, Elen of the Roads has opened herself up to an awkward position: that she will become the darling of prominent, vocal off-Wiki folks who might perceive benefit in having in their confidence, and the support of, someone who is known to divulge arb business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Announcement of changes in CheckUser status

Original announcement

Replace ArbCom with ad-hoc Community Arbitration Panels

While answering Begoon's question on my candidate page, I started to wonder whether this elected body is a good idea for a community based society like ours. Broad based consensus is the lynchpin of our decision making process but, with ArbCom, we're putting way more responsibility on a small group of editors than is probably a good idea. Do we really need career arbs? So, here's one suggestion, based somewhat on the way juries in the US work, which I'm going to throw out and which may lead to more broad based decisions:

1. We maintain a list of eligible arbitrators based on the following criteria: a minimum of 20,000 edits over the most recent 3 year period, with a minimum of 2,000 edits in each of those three years, at least 30% of their edits should be in article space, and at least 20% in wikispace (that way they have content as well as policy awareness), and a clean block log over the same three year period. A bot could generate this list every day/week/month.
2. When a case shows up, we select 11 editors at random from this list and they serve as arbitrators for that case (picking random substitutes if someone cannot, because of prior involvement or personal reasons, serve). A bot could handle the process of picking arbs and substitutes, giving editors time to respond. It might even be better to give people a few days to post evidence before they know who the arbs are going to be. Or clerks could assist the bot to streamline the process. The danger here is that we get a crazy editor or two into the committee. But, the odds on getting 5 or 6 crazy editors is low in a random draw so we should, mostly, be fine. (And, needless to say, our current system not only picks a crazy editor or two but institutionalizes that person for a long period of time!)
3. Or, we maintain a separate "availability" list where available and willing editors can add their names and the bot picks editors from this list. This will make the selection process faster and smoother (though, as I say above, that's not really necessary) but we'll end up with some amount of self-selection bias, a situation best avoided.

I think it is worth thinking about moving to this sort of a system. Institutionalized decision making is what we're currently getting and that's not where we want to be. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• So basically you suggest that the cases should be considered by users who have no community support (and many of those eligible would never ever be voted to become an arbitrator). This is an interesting idea, but I do not think this would ever work.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a large contingent of eligible and willing editors who could do arbitration, it begs the question of why the candidate pool every year is pretty small (the only reason I ran in 2010 was because until around 48 hours before the nominations period closed, I recall there weren't as many candidates as seats.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, the temperament of a potential arb matters more then their experience. The proposed selection method totally ignores that aspect. Such an ad-hoc system would also not deal with many of the functions of Arbcom other then deciding full blown cases. Monty₈₄₅ 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This, and Ymblanter's comments are right on the money. Taken in isolation, the idea certainly has merit. But in reality, if I was ever picked to sit one of these juries, I'd immediately recuse. We've had some spectacularly unfit candidates run for Arbcom in the past few years (including this) that fit the basic numbers requirements, and they should be nowhere near any sort of 'jury'. Resolute 16:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The biggest problem with it is the assumption that editors would be at all interested or willing to do this. Realistically, only about 200-300 editors have any genuine interest in dispute resolution, most of them as "interested bystanders" as opposed to having to take personal responsibility for their decisions. Exactly why would the average editor want to have to spend weeks of their wiki-life dealing with a dispute they don't care about, with a side order of being yelled at no matter what they do? Pretty sure if you polled the community that never shows up on admin noticeboards or arbcom pages, you'd find out that's because they want nothing to do with them.

  This is an encyclopedia. Dispute resolution at this level is a tiny side area that the overwhelming percentage of our community cares nothing about; most of them don't even participate in the Arbcom elections. They're busy building an encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  (@Ymblanter) The flip side of your question is that we're assuming that people voted in as arbs are the only ones that can make good decisions. I'm not sure that's true (even if we ignore what we're currently seeing). The point is that different people will make decisions in each case and that's a good thing. If a decision is appealed, then a different panel of 11 editors will decide on the appeal. If two sets of randomly chosen editors in good standing make the same decision, then it's probably a good one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 15:57, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

I've kind of suggested the reverse of this [11] - a 'committee of enquiry' reads the gazillion diffs and makes findings and recommendations, and some community method decides on acceptance. Like the Leveson Inquiry but with the community rather thanDavid Cameron deciding what to do with the outcome. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) ArbCom is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Since its peak in 2006 when it heard 116 cases, there has been a 95% 90.5% decline in cases heard. Yes, you read that right. 95% 90.5% decline. Yes, there are motions and what not and I don't have figures for those handy. But, the 95% decline in cases is telling. So what's happening? The community has by and large already taken over ArbCom's past responsibilities. The bulk of ArbCom's work in the past is no longer being handled by them. If the current trend of decline in ArbCom holds, by this time two years from now they will have heard just 6 cases for an entire year. Right now, ArbCom hasn't closed a case in 1/3rd of a year. There will continue to be a need for a body to handle checkuser and oversight appointments (which, too, might be handled by the community) and to handle disputes that require confidentiality. Such a body will see very little work, even though needed. ArbCom as a dispute resolution body is going to end, and most likely soon. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're probably right to be honest. Adding - the community may wish to have a panel examine a protracted dispute, but you can already see them taking over most other disputes with other mechanisms Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"To be honest" is usually redundant; it may not be, if one is habitually dishonest though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Something tells me your figures are wrong. A 95% decline on 116 cases would argue that ArbCom heard only 6 cases in 2012. Given I was involved in two, I doubt very much that there were only four others. Also, you admit to the major flaw in your own argument - the increase in handling cases by motion rather than full hearing. So you are painting an incomplete picture of how busy the committee is. That said, I do agree with your general conclusion that the community has been better able to resolve issues before reaching Arbcom, and that is a good thing in my view. Reaching a point where an arbcom is no longer required is a worthy goal. Resolute 16:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There have actually been 11 cases, so a 90% decline. Slight exaggeration but Hammersoft wasn't far off either. Wizardman 16:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Whoops! My bad. I saw .094828 and my brain mapped it one too many decimal places to the right, and it was inverse anyway. So, ~90/91%. Still precipitous. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from RP, but there's two issues with that. First, cases are only about 10% of what arbs do; are you suggesting we keep AC for the other 90%, and if not, what happens with that stuff? Also, the number of people who fit into that window are both rather slim and likely people I would never want near arbcom matters. (As an aside, for people complaining about CU/OS and that it should be community-based, we tried that and it was a terrible idea. Keeping it as is has been entirely fine.) Wizardman 16:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point wizardman. But, cases are an important part of what AC does and have the longest reach. What we have now is a bunch of arbs chosen from the very small set of people who have the time and inclination to put in a two (or longer!) tenure into the arbitration process. Ymblanter talks about community trust but we've set up a process that essentially excludes the majority of trustable editors (they have neither the time nor the energy for this) and automatically self-selects editors who want the job. David Fuchs says that not many people want to do the job, and that's true. Not many editors want to spend two years reading up long statements in evidence and making decisions on various matters that they know nothing about. Not to mention having to stand for an election, answer lots of questions, and discover what other people think of them :) But, it stands to reason that there may be many more editors who wouldn't mind doing this once every now and then and without having to run in an election. People complain like crazy about being called up for jury duty but, once selected, almost everyone takes it seriously and responsibly. There is no reason to believe we won't see that here as well. This is just a thought anyway. The idea of elections and choice is seductive because it gives us the illusion of control but it's always worth thinking about whether we really need this or not. --regentspark (comment) 17:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As I discussed recently on my embryonic wikiblog, there has been a major trend in the past few years for disputes that might formerly been resolved at arbitration to be now resolved in other forums, whether through a block by a single administrator, or through an AN or AN thread, or a community-ban discussion. There are pros and cons to this, some of which I discuss there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Good news, and a solution

I just checked. Go outside. Look up. The sky is not falling. The Earth's rotation is not stopping. Pages are still getting editing, folks are still squabbling, and somewhere an MOS expert is fixing some factually correct but wrongly formatted edit. What we have here is the continuation of a pattern of both this community and this committee throwing out words loosely, pretending we all agree out what the mean, and having sparks fly when we get down to brass tacks. Words like civility, automation, talk page bans, and most recently, arbcom-l privacy. The world is not black and white, and we actually enshrine the gray in one of five conceptual foundation pieces: "not bureaucracy." One arb deserves a trout for misusing arbcom-l, and another deserves a trout for dealing with poorly, and the rest of 'em deserve a trout for not dealing with it all (or not effectively, whatever). The best solution to arbcom hijinks is Vote da bums out.

There's a specific problem -- arbcom-l privacy and appropriate use -- which we can address specifically. Here's a sketch:

1. After the new committee is seated, harass them until they hammer a specific policy for use of arbcom-l. It should be used for case discussion and evidence which needs to be private. (And no, "make everything public" isn't gonna fly.)
2. Form a 6 or more arbcom-audit group which has read only access to the list. Active auditors don't participate in cases, they just guard the guardians. They get read-write access to a new list (arbcom-audit) for their deliberation, and the AC gets read access to the new arbcom-audit list.
3. Obviously arbcom-audit has to identify to the Foundation.
4. If a 2/3 majority of the audit list determines an AC post is not legit per the privacy/appropriate use policy, they notify the committee as a whole. Individual arbitrators are then released from the vow of silence and can do with the out of bounds post however they see fit.
5. They audit team never reveals any contents of arbcom-l outside of their discussion on arbcom-audit.

Note: I don't care whether "the list" is a email list or a CRM or whatever. That's not really the issue this addresses.
Problem solved. NE Ent 23:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A bureaucracy to deal with the bureaucracy? I dunno, but I think the last thing we need are more sub-committees. - jc37 00:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it another way: the community is a "committee of the whole". The less we have exclusive sub-committees (committees made up of, or open to only a few), the better I think. - jc37 00:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with NE Ent on this one. (If nothing else, I appreciate the sky-not-falling message!) I think that ArbCom is having a lot of problems with the list, and I think an approach somewhere along these lines is worth considering. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)