Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Original announcement

Climate change case amendment
Original announcement

"3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues."

The bolded part makes this a problem by bringing this in conflict with WP:IAR. There always has to be a safety valve allowing compromized articles to be repaired. There has been an issue with the monitoring of all the CC articles by the non-topic banned editors. It was precisely one of William's notifications of an unnoticed problem that led to him being blocked. Count Iblis (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, Mister WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, apparently you missed point. This modification was made make it clear that the back door is not open. In case you didn't notice, that block was upheld. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dense? What happend to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keeping the back door locked is a violation of WP:IAR. The issue is simply that if a page is vandalized and it hasn't been noticed in a reasonable time, a topic banned editor should at least be allowed  to notify someone. In fact, the Wikipedia rules on topic ban allow topic banned editors to correct vandalism themselves. But that isn't necessary to maintain Wikipedia, a mere notification suffices.


 * Having some experience in the CC area, I really do not see how this could lead to trouble. Let me do my best and imagine an editor who I typically disagree with on CC, say Cla68. Suppose he notifies me about a problem on an article, e.g. suppose that on a BLP article an edit is made labeling a sceptic to be a "kook" and that this edit has gone unnoticed. Then even if I agree that this person is a indeed "kook", I can still see that this is a BLP violation that needs to be corrected. Leaving such an edit uncorrected is not good for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you are deliberately ignoring the message here. These users have been told repeatedly that they are a net negative in the CC area and that their contributions in that area are not welcome regardless of their merit. If we are violating IAR with that then we can invoke IAR and ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he is ignoring the message. He is pointing out that the message is inconsistent with normal Wikipedia processes, not to mention antiproductive and unwise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be what you two think, but it is not what ArbCom or the community at large has said. Those who violate the topic ban will be blocked. Most of them have accepted this and moved on. Those who cannot or will not do so can expect to longer and harsher blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "The community at large" does not even know of this case. ArbCom has made bad decisions before. Sometimes they were wise enough to correct them,sometimes not. And replacing civilised decision with robot-like repetition of block threats really is helping consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a threat, it is an accurate interpretation of the meaning of this decision. If you want to appeal for yet another amendment that reflects what you and the count want, be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The banning policy recognizes exception to topic bans for reversions of obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations (obvious as in something no reasonable person would disagree with) unless they are explicitly included in the ban, and I personally would not block for those (again, unless they are explicitly included within the ban). That said, banned users perform those edits at their own peril: often their perception of obviousness is different from that of a user not involved in the topic area, which is why it may not be a good idea. There's your safety valve. T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The best thing would be for topic banned editors to remove the relevant pages from their watchlists. They don't need to be looking for vandalism to repair.   Will Beback    talk    23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been beating that drum for a while, but certain involved persons have relentless advocates who believe that those certain persons are too important to these topics to be subject to the full breadth and scope of the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins should really follow best practices. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing climate change for the moment, but I've noticed with some dismay that people are still claiming or implying that only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol the climate change articles. This is nonsense; I'm not topic banned and I used to do it myself without much effort.

Just pop the articles into your watchlist or use my list at User:Tony Sidaway/Articles under climate change probation. The talk pages are also listed so using related changes on the list gives something very similar to a watchlist. Remember to set the option "Enhanced recent changes (requires JavaScript)" in the Recent changes tab of your preferences.

Add articles (and their talk pages) to the list as desired. As long as you keep the list up to date you won't miss a single edit. --TS 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "I've noticed with some dismay that people are still claiming or implying that only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol the climate change articles." - to help your dismay, I don't think that that is correct. I don't think anybody is claiming or implying that - I'm certainly not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I must have misunderstood the following sentence: There has been an issue with the monitoring of all the CC articles by the non-topic banned editors. (Count Iblis (talk) on 10 November)


 * This was, I thought, the reason why the strong topic ban was held by some editors to be bad for Wikipedia. If no such issue exists then I don't see what problem remains. --TS 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly do believe that over-aggressive topic bans and enforcement are bad for Wikipedia. However, I believe this on general principles of reducing friction and drama, enabling efficient communication, and reducing friction. Also, of course, there is a big difference between "only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol" something and "every article is patrolled as effectively as possible". In particular, it's perverse if any editor is prevented from listing factual errors and vandalism in a non-disruptive way. As CI correctly pointed out, one of our five pillars explicitly says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project. This principle passed during the Durova case, and applies even more to this one. The current bans may not be in line with normal Wikipedia practices, but there is no viable alternative. Everything else has been tried, so now we simply have to say "Leave this topic area, we don't want you here. No exceptions." The Wordsmith Communicate 16:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Everything else has been tried" - wanna bet that I can come up with 10 things that have not been tried, at least one of which is reasonable? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can come up with a viable alternative to draconian topic bans for everyone (that will still solve the problem) then I will endorse your request for an amendment. I do not think any such alternative exists. We tried warnings, community-based general sanctions, article probation, sourcing restrictions, page protections, asking nicely, and even requesting that certain editors voluntarily recuse from the topic area. None of that worked. The community is tired of the drama, and we will end it by any means necessary, even if that means excessive force. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me propose this very minor proposal: Editors topic banned under remedy 3 are allowed to notify non-topic banned editors about an unambiguous problem on a CC article, if the problem has not been corrected in 24 hours time. The notification must be limited to a single sentence and can be posted on talk pages (e.g. the editor's own talk page). A maximum of two editors may be notified by posting on their talk pages. Discussions about the issue the notification is about are not allowed. Editors who use this as a loophole to engage in disputes will have this notification right revoked and may face further sanctions.


 * The reason why we need this is evident if you look at the recent problems on the Global climate model page. This page did not appear on TS' list. There was a subtle Scibaby-like edit on that article that William noted on his talk page. Such notifications got William blocked. The large number fo voices at AE saying that "William should move on, he should stop watching the CC pages", let me to believe that from that moemnt onwards all the CC pages would now be watched (a bit disingenuous as William did notify about uncorrected problems, but ok. if other people start to watch the CC pages, William doesn't need to notify anyone anymore).


 * The Global climate model would obviously be the last page I would have expected to see any new problems on. However, when I checked a week ago I saw to my surprise exactly the same type of subtle problem that at that moment was uncorrected for about 6 days. That page is now on my watchlist, but the same problem can occur on many pages. Count Iblis (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those edits to Global climate model would not have qualified as "unambiguous problems" though, since by your description they were "subtle" (insertions of the word "estimate", which is not unambiguous vandalism or POV pushing). Is there a better example you can give as evidence why this is needed? alanyst /talk/ 23:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Subtle but no less problematic than straightforward POV pushing. In fact, the subtle nature makes this a good example of why my proposed setup for notification is needed. What happened here was not simply a constructive edit to point out that climate models are not very accurate. Such good faith efforts could, of course, also lead to a degree of POV pushing, but that is part of the normal editing process here at Wikipedia. What makes this edit not ok. is that it suggests that predictions based on climate models are not accurate, simply because they involve computations using a finite element method. Now that is ridiculous. Climate is average weather, so you are not interested in the exact physical state of the atmosphere at some moment in the future. The reason why climate models have problems has to do with the fact that a lot of relevant physical processes can't be captured well in the simulations (cloud formation etc.), but William and Boris are more qualified than me to comment on that.


 * I do know that in some fluid dynamics simulations one works with effective variables that don't correspond to real physical degrees of freedom. In general, in mathematical/computational physics, one uses all sorts of techniques allowing one to come up with a reasonably accurate answer using intermediary results that look horrible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More often finite-difference and (pseudo)spectral methods than finite-element methods, but your basic point stands. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're all missing the point here. A POV pusher is obviously at work, his edits don't enjoy consensus, and he's using multiple users or IP addresses to try to game the system. That has nothing to do with the climate change probation, it's straightforward abuse, and now we know it's happening we'll stop it. To watch for more of that kind of crap, just sit on the articles and watch what happens. While I may be back in the new year I cannot imagine that I am the only person interested in dealing with this kind of topic-neutral abuse. --TS 23:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We need Arbcom to weigh in on whether your proposed course would be acceptable. The text of the decision suggests that it would be extremely unwise of you to do this without prior clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need arbcom to tell you that it's okay for non-topic banned editors to sit on top of the climate change articles and fix problems as they occur. It's what we do everywhere else and, evidently, the urgency still exists in the wake of the recent case. I'm only not engaging in the topic at present because, frankly, I'm one of many editors who need a holiday from the topic. --TS 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken. Arbcom made it clear that "sitting on top of the climate change articles" as you put it is a very bad thing indeed. Accusations of doing so were what got the case rolling to begin with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

citation needed Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, go ahead. The resulting dramafest should provide a few days' entertainment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to discuss the content of articles. Please keep that discussion on the talk pages of the articles involved. If an article requires protection or semi-protection, make the request at the appropriate place. Topic-banned editors are strongly urged to remove articles in the topic from which they have been banned from their watchlists or RSS feeds in order to facilitate their disengagement from the area. Exporting aspects of the dispute for which editors have already been sanctioned into other areas of the project may result in further restrictions. Editors who behave in a manner similar to that which has already resulted in sanctions on other editors may well find themselves restricted, too.  The community has made itself heard, loud and clear, that it is very tired of the battleground behaviour in this topic area; editors continuing to behave in that way do so at their own peril. Risker (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is discussing content here. If you were to actually read the discussion above you would see that the mention of a particular article was only in the context of how best to approach the broader issue of how to treat articles in light of the Arbcom decision. And there's no "battleground" behavior -- Tony and I are very much in agreement regarding the underlying content issues, and are discussing the general matter of how (and whether) to monitor the articles for sockpuppetry and other abuse. Your comments are orthogonal to what we have been discussing here, and to be frank your helicoptering in and making pronouncements that are not founded on the actual discussion at hand only reinforces certain views regarding Arbcom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should defund the ArbCom helicopter fleet; This will help reduce CO2 emissions. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list
Original announcement

Changes in Checkuser/Oversight permissions
Original announcement

My thanks to Mackensen, Vassyana and Luna for their contribution. I appreciate that the Committee is keeping an eye on this situation and taking appropriate steps. Skomorokh  22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Concerning that it appears we burned out Vassyana and Luna, who I have immense respect for. Thanks for all you two were able to do over the years.
 * Mackensen, thanks, and looking forwards to more great content. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, people come and go, but all the more unfortunate when the trustworthy disappear.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
Original announcement

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment
You are: an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy; able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions; courteous, disciplined and open-minded; able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues; able to make up your own mind under stress.

If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nominations close very soon! Tony  (talk)  16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators
 * PS: You must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arise.  Giacomo   17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
 * The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So what cast iron guarantees are you willing to provide (as you seem to be taking it upon yourself to speak for "The Office") that RL ID's will remain confidential? What if some nutter (and Wikipedia certainly has a few of those) decides to launch litigation and wants "The Office" to furnish them with names - What protection is "The Office" able to provide?  Giacomo   21:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Too easy; the answer is none. No wonder this election is short of candidates. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is does seem to be a deafening silence from Risker and "The Office" regarding assurances and positive answers. My hunch is threatened with a choice of litigation themselves or offering up writ servable names, "The Office" will sing like a cage of canaries. And once some nutter has one's details, who knows what could follow. No, this is an unpaid job, the last think it needs is unnecessary risks. [[User:GiacomoReturned| Giacomo  ]] 08:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, I don't see actually what the issue here is. Even if your scenario is correct – which I, for one, don't accept – what earthly use are servable names without servable addresses, which the WMF doesn't have? To obtain an address a would be litigant has to serve the IP from which someone is editing (not WMF, by the way) with a valid court order to obtain it.  Roger  talk 09:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, clearly you don't see. Let me enlighten you. Anyone who publishes anything to the internet can be sued in their name. Anyone who takes any action on or off a site which another considers detremental can be sued. Anyone who feels a Wikipedia editor has libelled them, or caused them any emotional damage may contact The Foundation for redress. No matter how may times Wikipedian's chorus "legal threats are not allowed" it makes no difference - the real law operates in the real world where they most certainly are allowed. Then there is the other matter, once some person has been given an individuals name (and photograph, such as that on a passport/driving licence) - wether the litigation goes ahead or not - outing, stalking and harrassment become real and undenialble possibilities. I want want to know what assurances and protection "The Office" have to offer? It's a very simple question. I would like it answered.  Giacomo   10:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been mentioned below, but just in case you didn't spot it: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Access_to_and_release_of_personally_identifiable_information answers your question quite clearly. --Conti|✉ 10:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, here it is buried away. Release: Policy on Release of Data

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:


 * 1.In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement,
 * 2.With permission of the affected user,
 * 3.When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints,
 * 4.Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues,
 * 5.Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers,
 * 6.Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Except as described above, Wikimedia policy does not permit distribution of personally identifiable information under any circumstances.

Can you expain why this is not made more obvious to all editors? The reason is? I can guarantee, that most editors are unaware of this and The Foundation ceftainly does not overpublicise it.  Giacomo  14:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano, about your point above about "photograph", IIRC when I sent in my details in December 2008, I blanked out the photograph and also other unnecessary details (you could, for instance, blank out any postal address on the ID). As what people send in tends to be a photograph or scan of the relevant ID, this is easily done. You can also ask in advance what exactly is needed. Of course, things may have changed from 2 years ago, but ask some of the other (such as recent functionaries) who sent in ID. I think you will find it is not as arduous or revealing as you think it is. It is more a trust thing. If you don't trust a paid employee of the WMF to do the right thing in terms of their job (possibly they have a lot more to lose than you do), then nothing anyone can say or do will help, I'm afraid. But I would urge you to ask around about this, as if you have specific concerns it might be possible to address them. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a related reason why many WMF employees don't themselves actively edit the en.Wikipedia, so that they can avoid liability for what goes on here. I don't blame them, but I don't respect them for it either.  Nevertheless, anyone who edits one of the top 10 most trafficked websites in the world should be aware that they may be taken to task for their influence on said website. Cla68 (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A discussion about this thread has been opened at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents ╟─TreasuryTag► high seas ─╢ 19:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With the exception of ..grasp of policy, I'm afirmative on the other points. PS: Nobody's going to know my real name or see my passport; No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've just learned (see below) an ID is indeed required, though not necessarily a passport. Maybe the same should be required of admins. I don't think it is. However, ArbCom sits a bit higher in the food chain, and obviously they need to know who each other are so they can fully trust each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon then, I won't be seeking the arbitrator's hat. Everyone, please hold back your disappointments. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm crushed. But that might be due to the 16-ton weight that just fell on me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle Giggle, we're a load of laughs. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, everyone who edits Wikipedia should know that anonymity is not guaranteed. You may be held, or attempted to be held, accountable for your Internet activities in a court of law, and not just for your participation in Wikipedia.  Being a member of the ArbCom may or may not expose you to increased liability.  Perhaps this is one reason why should require all editors with additional privileges, such as admins, be 18 years old or older. Cla68 (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that underage kids are allowed to be admins is frightening enough. In any case, we've had a number of incidents of admin malfeasance within the last year or so (I don't know the ages of the offenders), so it's no wonder there's no small amount of suspicion. My guess is that editors most likely to run for this thankless job are already using a variant of their real names as ID's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should arbitrators be compensated with a stipend for their time spent administering Wikipedia, and perhaps increasing their exposure to possible legal action, from funds from the Wikimedia Foundation? That's probably not a conversation for this thread, but I think it's something that should be on the table, which I'm sure sends a cold chill down the spines of the WMF staff if it has ever crossed their minds.  If it took much of the WMF budget, they might have to move their headquarters from tony downtown San Francisco to more pedestrian quarters. Cla68 (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think the chills would be for a quite different reason. If arbs are getting a stipend they may become employees or contractors or "persons working at the direction of" the WMF and then the WMF would become liable for their actions. If there ever were a suit against an Arb, WMF would lose its safe harbour. Franamax (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Current arbcomm fails quite a few of those tests; most obviously point 2 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, always blame the referee.--Scott Mac 22:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What has doubt got to do with it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion but obviously the (previous) electorate/community does not agree with you. - BorisG (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What a pompous, presumptuous thing to say, Boris... Badger Drink (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, all functionaries have to identify themselves to the foundation. Any type of valid ID indicating you are a legal adult is acceptable. The actual policy is from the foundation itself and is spelled out here:, the privacy policy is here:, the section titled "Access to and release of personally identifiable information" details under what circumstances the information may be released. There is no secret policy, it's all right there in the open, you just have to know where to look. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a data retention issue here. If the intent is simply to confirm that someone is legally an adult then the foundation doesn't need to keep any information other than a record that on a particular date a particular WMF employee received information from that particular user that confirmed they were legally adult. Perhaps if the Foundation stopped keeping the identity information some more people would be willing to stand.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point - it is appallingly unethical (and would probably be illegal in the EU) to retain such information for longer than is required for the purpose for which it was collected. Does the Foundation have a data destruction policy? DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can only speak for myself, but I am already a functionary and I have no desire whatsoever to be an arb. I don't think the identification issue is what is stopping people, it's probably more to do with the fact that it is a very, very time consuming task and every decision you make is declared to be wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see an issue here. Many wikipedians make their names public already. Responsible adults must take responsibility for their actions, and this includes internet. And even if no ID was required, if someone wants to sue you in court of law, "anonymity" won't help you. It may help against real-world harrassment though. - BorisG (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many do make their names public, and some come to regret that, also some editors have names that are far from unique worldwide. If your surname is Smith, Jones or Patel then using your name on Wikipedia is less public than it would be for many of us. If you are typo fixing or writing uncontentious stuff then wikipedia is a very low stress environment - I can do thousands of gnomish edits without anyone even commenting on my talkpage. All the death threats I've received for my wikipedia editing were because of the attack pages and similar that I've deleted or tagged for deletion. But this isn't just about death threats, as I trust the foundation not to tell the crazies who I am in real life. The foundation has had legal letters seeking the identities of Wikipedia editors, I think it is important that we prevent companies from using the threat of legal action to dissuade neutral editors from adding referenced negative material to the articles on certain businesses and their products.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WereSpielChequers, I agree with this (and sympathise with your plight). I did say anonymity can help against harrassment. However, like public figures, ArbCom members may have to waive their privacy. Some of them have already revealed their real names, and they are not smith, but known real people with public profiles. I am not saying it isn't an issue, I am saying it is not as big an issue as it is discussed here. OTOH, if you want to preserve maximum level of anonymity, don't run for ArbCom. - BorisG (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Boris. I'm not running for Arbcom this year for a couple of reasons, one of which is that at the moment, and looking at what I will probably be doing in the next 24 months, I can't take on that extra commitment. Identifying myself to the office doesn't deter me because as I said I trust them not to tell the crazies who I am. I've attended two Wikimania conferences so there are already people in the foundation who've learned my real life identity. If Arbcom members had to publicly waive their privacy them I would be deterred from combining the two roles of Arb and active admin, but I can't see them doing that. But if the only purpose of asking for ID is to check that the individual in question is adult, then the Foundation doesn't need to retain the information any more than the doorman at a nightclub needs to keep a copy of the IDs he or she has checked.. FWI I would have thought it was sensible to do a little more with that information, otherwise we could wind up with a serial fraudster or worse getting onto Arbcom. I would like to have something in there along the lines of "Whilst everyone is welcome to edit wikipedia, please do not stand for Arbcom if there are things you have done in real life that would bring wikipedia into disrepute should it be known they were done by an Arbcom member". But if they only thing they will do with the info is check you are adult, then they shouldn't keep the information.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WereSpielChequers, I agree with all the points of your last comment, including the requirement to retain information. BTW when I said if you want to preserve..., I did not mean you personally, I meant it as a figure of speech. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that they retain the data for as long as you hold any advanced permissions. Persons with CU or oversight have access to sensitive information about real people, and if someone were to maliciously misuse that access they should be held accountable. The privacy policy stipulates that in the event of a legal proceeding they would require a subpoena before they would release the information. To my knowledge this has never actually happened. If the requirement to identify oneself is what is keeping these tools from being seriously misused then that is a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for ID is keeping a lot of good people back. Putting aside the legal side, we all teach our kids (or should teach our kids) that the internet is a nasty place and not make too much of ourselves freely available. Yet The Foundation expects us to send our personal details to a company the other side of the world (to many of us) for the priviledge of helping unpaid to run its project, a project which has entire websites dedictaed to outing and ridiculing its volunteers. That's before we even consider the more common and garden stalkers, perverts and lunatics. I would not give them my name in a month of Sundays, and I'm a big ugly bastard - I would even go so far as to say that in my opinion any woman who gives them her name is being more than naive. No doubt, that will put the cat amongst the feminist pidgeons, bit I do think it true - sorry in advance to them, but Wiki-women are at risk and they ought to be made very aware of it and so probably are the blokes better looking than me.  Giacomo  20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giacomo, I did not respond earlier because I was awaiting a return email from WMF staff verifying the current identification process, which I just received (for the record, on a Saturday during the incredibly busy fundraising season). Those identifying need to send a photocopy or scan of a government-issued document that contains their name and date of birth; other information can be blanked out. If sent electronically, it goes to an email address to which only two WMF employees have access; if by fax or snail mail, we provide the name of the staff member to whose attention it should be sent. The documentation is briefly reviewed, the person's user name is added to the Identification noticeboard on Meta, and then the documentation is destroyed. There is no retention of the data. This process is unchanged since I became an arbitrator; however, the WMF staff responsible has changed. As the arbitrator who's been responsible for guiding new arbitrators and functionaries through the identification process for nearly 2 years, I've always confirmed the process and the responsible WMF staff in advance, so I think we can consider that step completed as part of the preparation for new arbitrators. I do understand and share your concerns about the nastier side of the internet and the desire amongst some to publicly "out" editors; in fact, some time ago I wrote an essay about privacy and the limits to the protection of personal information that is offered by this project and by the WMF. I am certain that the efforts made to link my private and Wikipedia "identities" a while back were completely unrelated to any information that I provided to the WMF, and were undertaken strictly because I was a "prominent" administrator/Arbcom member. There were efforts to blackmail me, but I know that if one person can make the connection, so can other determined searchers, so there's hardly much point; I grant that the fact I'm a woman probably led certain unsavoury people to think I was more likely to capitulate, but they were mistaken. There is absolutely nothing that the WMF or any other party can do to prevent this from happening; a determined "stalker" is hardly operating within WMF or any other social rules. I certainly do sympathise with those who decide to maintain a lower profile on this or any other public website in order to reduce the risk of internet-based harassment. I don't believe, however, that identifying to the WMF changes their risk factors; it is the role they hold that requires the identification to the WMF that increases the likelihood of internet-based harassment. Risker (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Risker that the requirement of providing identification to the Office doesn't really compromise anyone's anonymity. There is no reason to believe that the Office would divulge such information, either intentionally or carelessly. It is true that if the Foundation received a valid subpoena, and it lacked grounds to quash the subpoena, it would have to turn over the arbitrator's identifying information. But in the absence of such information, it would probably have to turn over checkuser data on the arbitrator's edits, which would probably lead to an identification anyway.
 * As it happens, my personal opinion (which I think is contrary to that of a majority of my colleagues) is that the identification requirement isn't really necessary for either legal or policy reasons. But that is a different question, and in any event, not one that the committee has the ability to decide. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to believe that the Office would divulge such information, either intentionally or carelessly Interesting. Precisely what are you basing that on? My read of your statement is that you made a number of assumptions - am I wrong? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, your statement implies that you do not find Newyorkbrad's statement credible. If you have evidence that there have been WMF-based breaches of the privacy policy, please state them now. Risker (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker, it does? I personally read my statement as being interested by Newyorkbrad's statement and asking for more (source) information. I couldn't find the implication in my statement that you did...maybe it's just me though. I didn't realise this was the page where you wanted evidence of WMF-based breaches of privacy policy; why wasn't this announced on the noticeboard itself? Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Brad's statement is extremely irresponsible. When assessing risks, one does not look for "evidence" that the even has happened. There is no evidence that my house will burn down this year, I still will not take the risk of leaving it uninsured.--Scott Mac 22:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott, it seems widely agreed that every editor is responsible for his or her own actions. Your contention seems to be that people should be warned of their risks. I'd put to you that nobody other than the individual can assess their own risk when participating in any activity on Wikipedia. Part of that assessment would include reviewing historical information, and historically there is no evidence that the WMF has provided information from the ID process. There is no evidence that members of Arbcom are more likely than any other editor to be sued. Contrary to what you believe, this is actually the correct method for assessing risk: historical precedence outweighs fearmongering, and I suggest that it is your hand-waving that is more irresponsible in this case. I can entirely accept that your personal assessment of risk to you is too high for you to consider participating in certain Wikipedia-related activities; however, you seem to be berating people for failing to come to the same conclusion as you have. The greatest personal risk that Arbcom members have is that their informed opinions will be denigrated repeatedly and publicly by those who don't share them, and there is a 100% chance that it will happen. That risk factor has a lot more to do with people's decisions whether or not to run than the hypothetical risk of a lawsuit, for which not even you believe they should be indemnified. Risker (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misstating what I've said. I am not berating anyone for coming to a different decision from me. I am quite annoyed with you and Brad for vague hand-waving and unfounded assurances in response to my concerns. It may be what I speak of is low-risk (indeed it is low-risk) and it may be that people chose to run those risks (as I do when I edit here). But it is ludicrous to suggest that those low risks are not increased when one involves oneself in areas where you are dealing with pissed-off people, and where you may be seen as agents of Wikipedia. Brad has said "but the WMF will only disclose on a valid subpoena - and that they'd question an invalid one. Maybe true, but (to my knowledge) that WMF has given no such assurance - and a plain reading of the privacy policy does not so limit them. You have said that the WMF destroys ID after a user identifies - but in fact the WMF has never (to my knowledge) publicly stated that. People are entitled to make their own risk assessment (indeed, it is quite reckless for them to do otherwise) - so, they need to have the information and be encouraged to asses it. By all means, point them to things that should reassure - but a lawyer saying "it won't happen" without any basis, and you suggesting that being called names on wiki is a greater worry, isn't exactly encouraging people to examine things. In fact, what you are doing is trying to shout me down for raising any concerns. Maybe we should set down the conceivable risks of taking on additional roles, and the assurances the WMF has (in fact) given so people can see them. Lots of things have historically never happened, that doesn't mean we should ignore the possibility that they might. As I say, if people decide the risk is low, and thy are willing to run it -then fine. I've made that some assessment regarding editing. When I assessed my role and risk on doing OTRS (and took legal advice) I came to a different conclusion.--Scott Mac 23:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott, there was a well known incident a couple years ago where WP got a subpoena and ended up turning over some IP addresses.  Mike Godwin discussed it on Village Pump here.  It was pretty clear to me that the Foundation went to considerable lengths to protect editor addresses to the extent it could, and was interested in finding ways to provide even more protection.  And as Charles Matthews said in the 2008 election, "we are not a Swiss bank".    Wikipedia has truly horrendous privacy problems that make stuff like arbitrator anonymity and subpoenas pale into insignificance.  Also, you seem more worried about WMF disclosing arbitrator info in response to valid legal processes, than arbitrators themselves possibly disclosing editor and other private info (like arbcom-l traffic) in outright malice, with no accountability if their info was not available.  It would not have occurred to me that ID requirement was just for age checking.  I thought it was to back up a binding nondisclosure agreement about private info.  If anything, WP's privacy problems are worse if there is not such an agreement in force.  So So I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  69.111.192.233 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Brad, that the foundation won't easily divulge may or may not be true. There are certainly NO guarantees. If a subpoena is served, how much effort would the Foundation place into attempting to quash it? In any case, the clause that allows the Foundation to release identity "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation" would allow it to release an identity to prevent just about any loss - including the inconvenience of legal process. The great fear is that since the Foundation enjoys an immunity that no user enjoys, that an angry litigant may well come after someone he sees as part of the problem, or failing to give redress - be that OTRS member or arbiter (both of whom have to deal with many angry people). The Foundation offers absolutely no indemnity - which means they can legally give the litigant your address and leave you to stew - even if you've done nothing, or simply made a good faith mistake. Now, it may be that such litigation will fail, but you are still going to have the costs, hassle and embarrassment of defending it - and the Foundation is under no obligation to help whatsoever. Now, I agree they might do the decent thing, but then again, do you want to risk that. The legal advice I got simply said "this is not a risk worth running. Why put yourself in the pathway of angry and disgruntled people, with no guarantee of personal support, and for no personal gain?". Anyone thinking of running for Arbcom needs to consider this. But there are no warnings given - just lots of wikilove.--Scott Mac 21:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are at just as great of risk of being sued as an ordinary editor as you are as an Arbcom member, Scott; every editor is responsible for their own actions under all circumstances. Sure I'd like to see better warnings about this fact, even adding that statement to the edit window if possible, but that basic fact does not change when one becomes an arbitrator. There is no indemnification of editors, and I can't imagine under what circumstances a blanket indemnification - or even a partial indemnification - could be provided to editors or even arbitrators. Risker (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Arbcom members (and OTRS ops) put themselves directly in contact with disgruntled people, and are seen by them as more responsible for Wikipedia - that greatly increases the risk of being cited in litigation.--Scott Mac 22:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And exactly who should be indemnifying these fine volunteers, Scott Mac? Is that what all those donated funds should be going toward? I do not feel I am at any greater risk being an Arbcom member than I would be in editing certain BLPs; in fact, quite the opposite.  Risker (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never suggested it is possible to indemnify all volunteers. I have just suggested people need to understand they are running the risks of being perceived as agents, with none of the protection that agents enjoy.--Scott Mac 22:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, that is quite one of the most ignorant posts I have ever seem on Wikipedia. This is not about me, but all the other mugs being encouraged by Wikipedia to offer themselves up for slaughter, with no proper warning of what is involved. Even Risker, more or less admits the the information provided to candiatates could be better. Brads post we can dismiss. It is looking increasingly as though the attitude is "I have been outed so why shouldn't you be?" With not one jot being done to prevent it. This is why there are no candidiates of stature and why the Arbcom will next year consist of "proven adults" with the naivity of children.  Giacomo  23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the elephant in the room in this whole conversation is that you would never be elected to arbcom in the first place even if you posted a copy of your passport right on your userpage. The other fallacy here is that getting the Foundation to give up your information would be at all easy. Anyone with the skills needed to steal the data could have gotten your information anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that posting one's passport details on any WP page would be grounds to remove the privileges of any editor. Also, a couple of years back Giano did indeed run and got quite close to getting in - and with the secret ballot there might not be the stigma one or two might have felt in supporting him then (the opposers would oppose regardless). Be careful in tempting Signor Returned, Mr President(s?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What should be done is to hold the elections first, and any who survive that gauntlet would then be asked to surrender their ID's. I don't like the idea of giving personal informaton and then being defeated yet they still have my personal information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that's how it works in practice—the winning candidates are given an address to send their ID to, and don't get any of their Magic Powers switched on until they've done so. What would happen if one of the winning candidates refused to do so is open to question. – iridescent  09:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is pretty much how it is. When I was elected, last year, I took a copy of the requisite ID, and faxed it to the foundation, attention to the person who was verifying the information. During the post-election discussions, the formal granting of checkuser and oversight abilities (and the position of arbitrator) wasn't granted until we had identified. If someone refused to do so, I think they would have been dropped from the arbitrators list. SirFozzie (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some folks here seem to have forgotten that trust is a two way street. Functionaries are expected to be trusted with sensitive personal information about other users and members of the general public. In turn we trust the foundation not to misuse our personal information. If you can't make that deal then you will have to be content to edit without advanced permissions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly considered seeking an Arbitrator hat, despite my questionable knowledge of Wikipedia policies. However, the ID requirement ended my quest. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ID verification
Thanks Risker for the explanation of the verification process. Though I'm rather intrigued as to how one ensures that the proffered ID actually belongs to the individual who supplied it.... But I suppose the process has to have an element of trust somewhere.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the other elephant in the room. I sent in a scan of my driver's license, but how does the foundation actually know it wasn't my brother, or some stranger whose wallet I stole, or a complete forgery? While I don't have a brother and I'm not a criminal, they don't know that. I almost posted about this before but I didn't want to open a can of WP:BEANS. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several ways this could be done. Some of us will have work Email addresses that could be used, others might attend a meetup and perhaps identify to someone there. But to my mind the easiest way would be a scan of a photo ID followed by a skype video call to confirm that we look somewhat like the photoID.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a venerable profession of third party ID checking for this type of purpose among others. See notary.  69.111.192.233 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes good point, though that would doubtless cost money, so I'd prefer that the foundation use one of the methods I outlined earlier. The current method as outlined by Philippe is vulnerable to people sending a stolen or fake ID and I would suggest tightening it so that we have at least checked that the person looks like their ID.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I got something notarized it cost about $10. That is really insigificant in the context of WMF's general operating expenditures, even if it has to be done dozens of times a year. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of comments from this page
Can I ask that this conversation not be removed - it was moved here from ANI as a more approppriate location. Thanks - Black Kite (t) (c) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I've been advised that this would be the appropriate venue to discuss the issue I raised here – namely, the repeated deletion of non-disruptive comments from this page without any clear reason. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this? ╟─TreasuryTag► consulate ─╢ 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What is this "passport" stuff about? Is that for real, or is Giacomo also just being funny? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true—see here for the ins and outs of it. – iridescent  20:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Black Kite confirms that some kind of ID is required, but not necessarily a passport, just a valid ID of some kind (I'm supposing a driver's license would do). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Would I have deleted your comment? No. Would I have edit warred against multiple editors to reinstate a joke that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion? No. --Onorem♠Dil 20:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ^What they said. The comment itself wasn't trolling or any kind of problem, but the edit warring to reinstate it, and the fuss made about it probably was. AD 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I could easily argue that the first one who deleted it is actually the cause of the "fuss". However, TT could have used the small template and telegraphed that he was being funny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He actually did link to joke - I don't know why it was such a big issue. AD 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I had thought the purpose of the ID was to have an enforceable nondisclosure agreement for users with access to private info, not just age checking. Re Treasury Tag: the removed comment wasn't quite disruptive, but it was irrelevant clutter, and getting worked up about the removal (whether there are multiple reverts or not) is unhelpful.  Best to just let it go. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I remain unaware of any policy mandating the deletion of "irrelevant clutter" – the wiki is full of it. ╟─TreasuryTag► presiding officer ─╢ 22:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I remain unaware of any policy mandating policy justifications for every sensible edit.  Skomorokh   22:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody said deletion was mandated. It happened anyway.  Is it then worth starting a pissing match over the perceived slight?  No.  Nothing important was removed from the page, so shrugging it off as yet another of Wikipedia's million little annoyances is better for your and everyone else's editing sanity.  69.111.192.233 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The one who deleted it is the one started the match. Speaking of annoyances, what ID(s) were you editing under during your long gap between 19 Sep 2008 and 15 Nov 2010? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Knight Rider edits from 2008 in my contrib list were by someone else who got assigned this dynamic address back then. I think Knight Rider is a TV show but I've never watched it or edited its article. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, whether one particular individual can or cannot get elected is completely irrelevant. Someone above suggested that this requirement (to present ID) keeps many good people from nominating themselves. It wasn't even clear to me who you meant in particular. This thread is about the subject of whether ID info given to WMF increases the risks. Risker, Brad and others have explained that, in their view, it does not (and they do have experience). There is no doubt in my mind that being on ArbCom increases the risks for an editor; however this comes with the role, not with ID info. BorisG (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano was willing to run for arbcom a couple years ago when the same requirement was there. He got some traction as a candidate at the time, but seems to have worn out (some of) his former supporters since then.  Now he seems to be using this ID thing as a pretext to fling poo towards arbcom and WP processes at any opportunity.  Non-advice to prospective candidates worried about ID: if a litigant (or government agency etc.) is willing to use sufficiently invasive processes to identify you, they will be able to do so whether the WMF knows who you are or not.  That for example is why checkuser data is private, even though it doesn't have your name on it. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the same requirement was not there when I was a candidiate.   Giacomo   22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano is correct on that; If I recall correctly, the ID requirement was introduced in response to an incident in 2009 where an Arbcom member turned out to (ahem) not be telling the whole truth about their identity. – iridescent  23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * and how time flies; it was three years ago .  Giacomo   23:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The identification requirements was introduced for checkusers and oversighters in 2007; it was expanded to include arbitrators as well (even if they did not request checkuser or oversighter) a couple of years after that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Giano, I guess if it is just to show you are of age, I guess you could take a photo of your hands with a sign saying, "these are Giano's hands" - do you reckon your hands could be mistaken for someone under the age of 18? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if I did, they would not be by the same photographer who is currently making our dear leader look like the waxwork found in Lennin's mausoleum. I wish something could be done about those dreadful photographs everytime I attempt to log in, up they pop; each one making him look more demonic than the last. Atrocious portraits and how much did they cost one wonders?  Giacomo   23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (sound of 10-foot (3-metre) pole between me and previous post) I should have thought of this in the pub with iridescent (who braved a trek across a tube-less London), and taken a photo of our hands drinking glasses of beer. I miss English pub beer now I am back in Oz...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness the traditional English pub beer is cheap fizzy Aussie lager. – iridescent  23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, how many Abitrator candidates are there currently? GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement regarding identification to WMF
Announcement

Is there a statement somewhere? This link seems to be taking me in circles.  Giacomo  08:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try now. EdChem (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes very good, it works now. I've read it. Remind me someone - what was the name of that "trustworthy" woman, they employed a year or so back for this sort of thing? Can't remember the details, but was she not found to have been deeply "unsuitable" despite numerous background checks? Nope. they are not having my name. There is no need at all for Arbs to identify. Checkusers yes/possibly (allthough, I have some ideas there), Arbs no.  Giacomo   08:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the Arbs need to review Checkuser data as part of their jobs (doubly so if we are on the AUSC, it follows on naturally. SirFozzie (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano, how do you respond to the point which NYB has made, namely that any circumstance in which the WMF was required to reveal arb identification they would equally be required to hand over checkuser data, which will be sufficient to identify you anyway? EdChem (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Fozzie's point, you do not need to ID to be told that A is B and vice versa and what difference does it make anyway. Probably half the ID's submitted belong to someone's neighbour's cousin. To EdChem: I'm not that sure my IP number could identify me - it may tell you that I have over the last year edited from England, Italy, the USA, and a a couple of other countries, but no much more than that. I know I am correct on this because I asked the question of a CU last year and the year previously when I David Gerard abused his CU rights and checkusered me ( as he has dome at least twice ). I was promised and assured that he could not know my true ID - were the CUs which I asked lying? The only people able to place my IP are my providers (and I do wonder about that as it changes every day) and they are unlikely to reveal it to someone called Bugs Bunny who is upset because I told him where to shove his carrot.  Giacomo   09:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you say, once you have the IP address, you can get the name and address of the person that used it from the service provider. The difficulty of doing this varies considerably between service providers and jurisdictions and the nature of the grounds for disclosure.  Roger  talk 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, once you have the IP address, you may be able to get the name and address of the account holder, ie. the information the ISP holds about that address - which may include the details of the library, youth club, or asylum the computer is in, the open wireless network, or those of your mum, dad, husband, wife, partner, flatmate, previous flatmate, previous resident, or simply the name you gave at the time you opened the account. There's a few holes. Privatemusings (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you say that? Do you have evidence that ISPs regularly hand out everything they have about a customer to anyone who asks? On what basis do you think that ISPs would hand over a customer's full record without due legal process? Is that common in your country? It would be highly illegal here. Heck, our police have a hard enough time getting information with a search warrant in hand. Risker (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're agreeing, Risk :-) - my point is that assuming all legal hurdles are hopped over, the information available from a service provider may well be rather limited in usefulness. OTOH, the WMF may hold a copy of a passport. The elephant in the room here is that WMF don't currently, to my knowledge, make it crystal clear under what circumstances they would feel compelled to share that information. As such, the risk remains that the WMF may offer significantly less privacy protection than a service provider. That's the heart of Giano's point, I feel, and he's correct in my view. I would suggest someone ask the WMF counsel... but we remain without, I believe.... hmmmmmm.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano, consider the Mantanmoreland case, where inconclusive CheckUser data was one of the the factors that went into the Committee's decision. No. Checkuser does not give the WMF the name of the person who owns the account or who is logged in. In that case the chain of command would be that the person attempting to sue you would subopena the WMF and say "Give me the IP Information you have for "User:X". Then, they take that information, and go to your internet service provider and say "Turn over the information of the account who was logged into "This" IP at "This" time. ISP's have done so frequently in the past (for example, to prosecute people for file-sharing) SirFozzie (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. What difference does IDing make? Does someone suddenly become uber sensible because he has "claimed" to The Foundation that his name is Fred Smith rather than FSmith? Just because most of you have been "outed" it is very unfair of you to want all others to be in the same situtaion. While being a senior Wikipedian may make you objects of desire in the USA, elsewhere in certain situations and careers it does not.  Giacomo   09:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't put the identification requirement in terms of what I, at least, "want." I've said several times that if it were up to me I would forget the whole thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that Brad. It just seems to me to be very silly; people keep asking why no one (of any stature) is volunteering, and then, when told, keeping arguing. If they don't like the answer and are not prepard to do anything about it - tough! There is little I can do to alter that. I've half a mind to stand, but I have no intention of ID-ing and cannot be bothered to take al the ensuing, drama and flak that would follow from the peanut gallery - so Wikipedia will just have to continue with the Arbcom it deserves.   Giacomo   13:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Giano - aside from yourself, do you have diffs that show editors ("of any stature") who have declined to stand because of the ID requirement? (Define "of any stature" however you like, as it is your own wording.) I don't know if you're correct or not - in fact I rather do think there are some who agree - but I also think quite a number of fine editors simply don't have the time and energy for the drama, quite apart from any ID requirement. Frank  &#124;  talk  13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not for me to name names; I only know what others tell me on and off the site.  Giacomo   13:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for heaven's sake, Giano. The vast majority of people who have been "outed" in relation to Wikipedia are not arbitrators, they're ordinary editors and administrators who just happen to have irritated people who get a kick out of outing people. It's absurd to connect outing with identifying to the WMF, as the vast majority of people who have been outed were not identified to the WMF. It's the requirement of the WMF Board, not even the WMF staff, that the identification be made. Perhaps if you want to change the identification requirement, you should run for the Board of Trustees next year; running for Arbcom isn't going to change this requirement, and is one of the very, very few requirements for any editor to be an Arbcom candidate. Risker (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for heaven's sake, Risker, just because you have been outed does not mean the rest of us have to be. Nobody is directly connecting with The Foundation outing; one is just saying it is sensible to eliminate unecessary risk, and The Foundation is one such risk. It hardly has a history of employing and empowering the responsible - does it?  Giacomo   13:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * May I try to add some light to all this. Giano, if you are concerned about lawsuits, I am quite sure your identity can be discovered by a well-funded litigant.  They can get your IP, and they can get your access logs from the ISP, and they can find out who's paying for the Internet service, or who was staying in the relevant hotel room, or assigned to the relevant office.  I am not sure about the current state of play in Europe, but I'm pretty sure about it in the United States. I've personally been involved in some such investigations and lawsuits as an expert witness.  If a client hired me to ID an Internet user, and we had backing from the court, we would surely identify them.  A pseudonym only provides the illusion of anonymity.  If worried about lawsuits, you need to buy insurance, which is not that expensive.  A few hundred dollars per year puts up a pretty thick wall for any malicious litigants to dash their heads against.
 * Crazy stalkers are a different matter. Those worried about such people can use a pseudonym, but even this can be broken by some sort of social engineering (con game).  If an editor makes enough edits, they may eventually give away bits and pieces of their identity. I very much doubt WMF would ever do anything to facilitate such leaks. As far as being a security risk, WMF is several orders of magnitude less than other risks every editor is already running. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware that the well funded can have anything they like in life, but at least if they found me, I would know from where they obtained the information - my provider. That is the important thing, my provder and I (just like all other internet users) have a contract, and as I pay them every month, and they have to maintain an important reputation for confidentiality; it is inlikely without charges of a gross magnitude they would divulge my details and even if they did, they are no photographs. However, emailing personal details to some small company in USA with whom I have no legal contract and which owes me nothing; a company which in the past has seen a staff member round (make public confidential matters) on his employer/CE (If that's what Jimbo can be called),another fired for having a criminal record and another for being an imposter makes me more than wary. I am happy to beleive the present staff are trustworthy, but my choice is not to put it to the test.  Giacomo   16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, because none of those things could (or did) happen to the presumably much larger staff of your provider, who are under considerably less scrutiny than a public non-profit. Please do not attempt to camouflage your personal dislike of Jimmy or the foundation staff into a rational risk assessment; you are under considerably more risk from your provider currently than you would be by showing a piece of ID to someone at the foundation, and I have a hard time believing that you are not very well aware of that.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What you have a hard time believing is neither here nor there or of any interest to anyone. If you, like Shell Kinney, have to resort to constant personal attack, perhaps you should not be an Arb. People keep asking why so few of the reputable editors want to volunteer and when the likes of you don't like the answer, you become angry and frankly, quite stupid in your responses. I have not said the present staff are utrustworthy, I have not said I don't like them (I don't know them) I merely point out that sending one's private details to complete strangers on the internet is unwise.  Giacomo   17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (od)I'm curious about the ID requirement too. From what I've seen of arbcom cases, it doesn't seem particularly helpful. (I seem to recall a brouhaha that lead to the id requirement but can't remember what it was.) I do think that Giano has a point though, about this requirement being a step that many editors would be unwilling to take, perhaps because of the possibility of information leaks. Though, IMO, the concern is less about lawsuits and more about the potential for misuse (perhaps by POV groups or groups with special interests). Without some clarity as to who has the information and how it is kept safe, I, personally, would not be willing to divulge my identity. (Not that I intend throwing in my hat - I don't consider myself as 'of stature' and definitely enjoy the quiet, uncomplicated life!) --RegentsPark (talk)
 * Further to RegentsPark's comments, I can remember one former UK Arb being threatend with attacks frm animal rights activists, at at time in the UK when they were digging up people's dead relations. Coren really has not a clue what he is talking about.  Giacomo   17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People keep alluding to 'the incident' last year that prompted this identification requirement; for the benefit of those who weren't around at the time or not paying attention, this is what it was. Since not only is it still visible and undeleted on Wikipedia, but got Wikipedia dragged across the British newspapers, there doesn't seem to be any particular point in being coy about it. – iridescent  17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it is still visible and undeleted since the individual concerned asked at the time for courtesy blanking. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Accountability and responsibility for one's actions. Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re to RegentsPark, what did you find unclear about the statement at the top of this section? I was surprised that the foundation were handling things this way and in particular that all they are doing is checking someone is of legal age. But if the information isn't kept, merely the fact that it was checked, then the issue of how safely it is kept is almsot academic.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it would have been helpful to have seen that link above :) My apologies. The procedure appears adequate. A POV warrior would have to create a long standing mole to subvert that process. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, to Iridescent) Well, that is one of the things (not the only thing) that may have prompted requiring all arbitrators to identify. (SB had avoided having to identify by never asking for checkuser or oversight.) However, there's a mismatch between this impetus for the requirement and how the requirement is actually implemented, since misuse of prior accounts is not actually something that the Office checks for when they receive the identification. And in event event, it could only be detected by identification even in theory when the prior account name was the user's real name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I am bowing out of this now as I'm not standing, I have no wish to be "outed" and I'm sick of being attacked by ignorant thugs like Coren who misuse their Arb position to attack and ridicule when they feel threatened which seems to be all too often. I have raised this issue because I think all those standing should be aware of potential risks. I hope they are.  Giacomo   17:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I note you skillfully misconstrued my comment on relative risk as an attack (and took the opportunity, as usual, to make a swipe at me yourself), but deftly evaded the substantive matter. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh make your mind up Coren and read what's written. It now seems it's nothing to do with age, but real identity. You need to decide, exactly why you want this information. Would an American foundation employee taking a quick look "yep, he looks and has a DOB over 18 - now I destroy the email" have spotted an obscure local London politician and remembered it ages later? The question is ridiculous. If that's why its wanted there is no way it is destroyed after a cursory glance. Make your mind up which song you are singing Coren. As per usual, I have you lying lot tied up in string and you can't decide which way to jump and which story to tell.  Giacomo  19:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they would not. I'm not entirely sure where the meme that this particular incident would have been averted with identification came from &mdash; most certainly not from me.  There is perhaps an expectation that someone who is up to no good would be less willing to provide it?  I've never said anything other than this ID is required because of the access to private data, and that is base strictly on age.  (Well, more strictly, it's based on majority, but clearly age is the way to demonstrate that).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As one of the people stating concerns about this, I'd like to thank the WMF for this statement. Principally, it clears up the issue of why the ID is required. It is required solely to check age, and not in order to be able to hold the individual to personal account. This doesn't necessarily mean that I personally would be willing to "identify" (is that the right word for verifying ages?), but it gives exactly the type of information that people require when making the assessment of whether they are willing to do so. The WMF have now officially indicated that they don't hold this data on file, and that (even if you identify) a litigant would require to get checkuser data from the WMF, but would only be able to get your identity from your ISP - not fromthe WMF. Thanks to those who requested, and gave, this important clarification. I still have some concerns personally, but I don't have any more questions.--Scott Mac 19:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren, it is quite aparent that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Best be quite and let others sort this out.  Giacomo   21:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * May I suggest a compromise? If an editor does not trust WMF, it should be more than sufficient for them to provide identification to any reputable law firm, and for that law firm to give WMF a letter stating that they have reviewed the identification papers and confirm the editor is of legal age in their jurisdiction. There is no need for any WMF employee to see any private papers.  Lawyers are under a higher legal obligation than any WMF employee, and have better ability to resist attempts at privacy violation.  Jehochman Talk 19:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This has potential, but still needs some work. IANAL, but I would guess that the initial temptation of the lawyer would be to write, "Jane Doe presented herself to me and provided adequate identification to confirm she is of legal age." However, when Jane notes that the letter should not contain her name, there will be some question about how to write it. "Some person claimed she was of legal age, and I can confirm it" just doesn't cut it. Presumably, the lawyer needs to provide a linkage between the person and the user name, but we should explain how that should be done. "Some person presented identification, and then, in my presence, logged into the WP site as user:XYZ". Would that work?-- SPhilbrick  T  20:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia is not exempt from WMF policy, and it doesn't get to make up its own rules with respect to policies that apply to all projects. Take it up with the WMF Board of Trustees if you feel this is a critical issue, it is their resolution that dictates the terms here, not English Wikipedia. There is no compromise to be made without the Board's approval. Note that this isn't a policy coming from WMF staff, it is one approved by the WMF Board of Trustees, and it applies to every WMF project, not just English Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the relevant people already, and I think productive suggestions should be open for discussion. @Risker, please don't attempt to derail the discussion. @SPhilbrick, the lawyer can write "A person claiming to be editor Jehochman appeared before me and presented ID confirming that they are over 18 years of age and are a resident of the State of Connecticut." Should some horrible crime every be committed by this editor, WMF could ask The Law to contact the lawyer and discover the real life identity of Jehochman.  Meanwhile, Jehochman is protected somewhat from any perceived risk of malfeasance or incompetence by WMF staff. Identity escrow provides value to both WMF and the editor. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, Jehochman, I think it is *you* who is derailing the discussion. This is a WMF Board policy. Why do you think that English Wikipedia should be exempted from it? Risker (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly clear, there's an election on, and some new people would announce candidacies, I think, if ArbCom said they would take up this proposal with WMF as a possible resolution for those who are apprehensive about revealing their identities to WMF staff. Jehochman Talk 20:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the English Wikipedia should tell the Board that the policy could be improved. Good ideas should be welcomed, not stifled. And please stop putting words in my mouth.  It's the height of rudeness.   Jehochman Talk 20:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to make those suggestions, Jehochman, but the place is somewhere other than this noticeboard. I suggest the talk page of the privacy policy at Meta, where you can discuss it with the broad range of Wikimedians who will be affected by your proposals. I've not put any words in your mouth, I have asked you a question. Risker (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (2 x ec) My memory after the last kerfuffle is that people wanted ArbCom members to have identified themselves to the Foundation, not simply shown that they were over 18, because people wanted to be assured that at least someone knew who was being elected.


 * Showing ID to a lawyer would actually be more secure than faxing a copy to the Foundation, because copies can easily be changed. But the names have to be given to the Foundation too, and I'm actually a bit concerned to learn that they're not being retained. If an issue arises, how will the Foundation staffer remember all the names? My recollection is that the names were indeed being retained; I remember fairly recent discussions about how they were held in a filing cabinet only certain people had access to (or something like that). So when was this policy of destroying them introduced? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to correct my recollection, I now see that I was told in 2009 that names weren't being retained; the significance of it just didn't register with me. It actually means that people being elected to ArbCom, CU, and oversight, aren't really identifying themselves, given that the two Foundation staffers being given the details may not remember them if problems arise. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The last kerfuffle had little to do with identifying with the WMF and almost everything to do with an individual's decision not to disclose prior accounts. Even if the WMF had known his identity, and retained any documentation of it, that would not have flagged the issue of prior accounts or changed the outcome in any way. In fact, the Arbitration Committee members seated in January 2009 uniformly identified in accord with WMF policy, as did those seated in January 2010, enforcing the WMF policy because we receive and handle private information. Let's not conflate things here. Again, I suggest that if you do not agree with the manner in which the WMF Board policy is being applied, you take it up with the WMF Board. Personally, I'm pretty careful about checking retention policies for any private information I submit, and I am well aware that at the time I was submitting my data the WMF did not have the infrastructure to securely store that information. Whether they do now is another question. Risker (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two separate issues. The first is the minimum due diligence required by the Foundation to determine that someone is over 18. Personally I don't see accepting faxed ID as sufficient, given how easy it would be to change a date of birth on a photocopy, but that's up to them.


 * The second issue, which I see as more important, is that the community expressed the view that ArbCom members should be known by their real names to someone in a position of responsibility. You're right that giving real names can't avoid all problems (Poetlister, for example, identified himself to the Foundation when he was given CU on another wiki with another account name), but the idea is that being required to hand over a real name might give the nominee pause for thought, in case they're up to no good.


 * But if the ID is not being retained by anyone, it makes the identification almost pointless, because staffers can't be expected to remember all the details. And if an issue ever arose of misrepresentation, where an ArbCom member is believed to be X, but turns out to be Y, no one will be able to prove he said he was X in the first place. So it raises the question of why we are bothering with ID. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here has always been lack of clarity, meaning that those identifying had little idea what there data is being used for. People do need to know why they are identifying, and what use or retention will apply to the data before they do so. It seems that the use is age-checking and the retention is none. Sarah, I can see where you are coming from, but it seems that there is no intention to "identify" anyone (another WMF misnomer), merely to age check. The point seems to be not the hope that some employee will remember, but the deliberate intention to forget. I think, on balance, that's welcome - but it does mean that individual functionaries are not really accountable in real life to the WMF for their use of data given to them. I'm not sure that the "is who he says he is" would apply here. If Essjay had disclosed to the Foundation that his real name was Ryan and he was 22, would the Foundation have disclosed that he'd misrepresented himself on Wiki? If I'm really a 60-year-old man called Fred from Manchester, and the 20 year-old single Essex-babe female who just got herself elected to arbcom, would identifying to the Foundation be of any use? The only that would work would be if the Foundation, having received identity, confirmed the traits claimed on-wiki. Again, I think the whole mess here is lack of clarity in what the process is (now clarified) and what the point is.--Scott Mac 21:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think from the community's perspective, the point of identifying yourself is so you can't claim to have two PhDs if your ID says you're only 22, and so ID stops the nominee either from making the false claim, or from standing for election. But if ID is (a) not being handled by someone very familiar with the English Wikipedia and its issues (and who is claiming what about themselves), and (b) is not being retained, then it's almost pointless. So again we have a situation where the community asked for something, was told it was getting it, but then we find out it's yes sort of, but not really. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. We don't want a Arbitrator who claims he's got a bunch of University degrees, only to find out later, it was a bunch of baloney. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin, I am not sure that the community ever asked for that. Indeed, until the clarification was given, I was not sure what the purpose of identification was, and for whose benefit. I was never under the impression it had anything whatsoever to do with the community.--Scott Mac 21:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I'm not sure on what basis you came to the conclusion that what you've described is what was being done. The privacy policy and the Board resolution linked above don't say anything that you're implying. They specifically say that to have access to certain information, one must provide proof of identity and that one is over the age of 18 and of the age of majority. That's all the policy says. It doesn't say "we're going to verify everything you ever said about yourself" or "we're going to check that you don't have undisclosed alternate accounts" or "we're going to keep this information on file ad infinitum". The policies have been in place since 2007, and have been revamped since then, with widespread commentary from the broad wikimedian community. I certainly didn't consider putting myself in a position to be submitting my private data until I knew exactly what would be required and what would be done with it. Risker (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'd hate to have to look for the diffs, but after one of the incidents where someone turned out not to be what he said he was, there was community discussion about the need for ArbCom members to identify themselves, so that their names were known, and not only to check that they were over 18. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There may have been some discussion, but I can see no such undertaking being given by the WMF - so I don't think you can blame them for not delivering what you wanted them to. In any case, were they to comment that the person identifying is 21 and too young to have the three PhDs claimed, they'd be in breach of their own disclosure policy.--Scott Mac 22:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't do much good to have WMF as the intermediary there, it would have to come to the community, because decisions on who is on Arbcom are strictly within the scope of the project and not within the scope of the WMF. Further, if the information was provided to the WMF in confidence, they would not be permitted to share it with the community. The 22 year old with the PhDs would still not be known to the community if the information was solely provided to the WMF. So...essentially, what you are proposing is that all arbitrators must publicly link themselves to their real-world identities. Now, I don't think that is a completely off-the-wall proposal - you certainly wouldn't be the first to make it - but it has nothing to do with the purpose of providing proof of identity and age to the WMF due to access to private information. Risker (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They would be allowed to share it if someone were committing a fraud. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is "committing fraud", that gives the WMF reason to not provide them access to privacy-related material. Absent agreement of the person submitting the information, it does not give them permission to share the data. That also supposes that WMF staff would be responsible for knowing all the factors of someone's Wikipedia persona, both current and historical. Risker (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The privacy policy gives people the right to release personal information "[w]hen necessary for investigation of abuse complaints," and "[w]here it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." Where someone has been elected to ArbCom on the basis of his contributions to physics articles in his capacity as a nuclear physicist, but it turns out that he's the owner of a pizza parlour and all his edits are suspect, a strong case could be made for releasing information about him to the community, at least enough to clear up the discrepancy. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And why would the WMF know on what basis people are elected to the Arbitration Committee? Particularly given the fact that, at the community's decision, voting is via SecurePoll, they have no basis on which to judge this. The WMF of 2010 is not the WMF of 2007, and the English Wikipedia community itself has undergone some pretty significant change. Some of it is for the better, but it's pretty clear from the messages I have received in recent days that the degree of suspicion cast upon arbitrators, Arbcom candidates, and even WMF staff is playing a significant role in keeping more good candidates from putting their name forward. Risker (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of suspicion, just professionalism and good governance, which I've seen you argue for elsewhere. AGF has to have its limits. People were recently astonished that plagiarism could get on the front page. But we have an FA system where the source-text relationship is rarely checked, and where nominees aren't even required to have the offline sources to hand during the FAC process so reviewers can ask questions about them (and attempts to require it have been roundly rejected). So the system allows plagiarism to appear, which means we can't reasonably be surprised when it happens.


 * Similarly, people are always up in arms when an ArbCom member turns out not to be quite what they said, even though the system clearly lends itself to it. So all I'm doing here is arguing for a bit of extra professionalism, not much. Just that, if we're going to require IDs, let's at least spend some money on a secure system for retaining them. Or let's not bother. But the halfway house isn't necessarily better than not checking at all. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, based on this thread alone, there's certainly no consensus for your position. Giano up there is arguing that any identification is an unnecessary intrusion, Scott Mac is saying he's fine with it, Jehochman wants people to have the option to to go pay a lawyer a few hundred quid to confirm that they are who they say they are if they do not want to identify to the WMF, you want the WMF to take responsibility for not just accepting identification information but verifying that people are exactly who they say they are both on- and off-wiki. And that's before we even involve the rest of the Wikimedia community, who would be affected by any change, or the WMF Board of Trustees who would need to reconsider the policy and pay for the program. Risker (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Modified after Jehochman indicated that he felt I was misstating his position. Risker (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do see some consensus. Several of us seem to be arguing that taking ID is undesirable (e.g. Giano), or that taking it is pointless because the Foundation cares only about age (Jehochman), or that taking it is good, but we're not doing it properly, so we probably shouldn't bother with the current system (e.g. me). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very strange interpretation of consensus. Am I reading you right, that you've interpreted this to say "we all think what's being done is a bad idea so we should stop doing it?" I suppose that there's consensus amongst the three of you on that. But since you are widely divergent on next steps, (stop doing it, do it in a way that disenfranchises people financially, do it in a way that puts a person's entire life on the line for the pleasure of banning badly behaved users on a website), I don't think you're really all that close. Risker (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How would anyone be disenfranchised by Jehochman's suggestion? It would be an option not a requirement, and it's a great deal more secure showing real ID to a lawyer, than a faxed photocopy to a Foundation staffer who won't remember it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The current election criteria include that ArbCom members must be "be willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat." There is a footnote next to that requirement, which leads to the Foundation policy. This says: "Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 ..." (my bold).


 * There is nothing here to suggest that the age is the only concern, and nothing to suggest that the data is not retained in any way. So I would say we are misleading the community into believing that IDs are given, minimally checked, and retained, which is what I would say "identify himself" means in ordinary English. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What would make you say that? A while back I went to a concert in Atlanta, and I had to identify. That constituted showing my passport to an officer for 10 seconds. When picking up tickets for a play, I have to identify. They forget who I am as soon as I walk away from the box office. When I get on a flight, I have my passport checked half a dozen times, am screened at least twice, and there are probably miles of security video that shows my face. Those are all ways to identify. The community has never been misled. Some members of the community have chosen to interpret things their own way without verifying that their interpretation is correct. Risker (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your name is retained in all these examples, particularly where you're buying tickets for a play or flying. But where you're dealing with elected representatives, and the community electing them has asked for ID, I'd be surprised if people realized the IDs were faxed to two employees who immediately destroyed them, so that, in the event of a problem arising, the name of the representative is no longer available, and probably won't even be remembered. There's unlikely to be any other election anywhere in the world for any position of responsibility that is run that way. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, only in the case of the flight is my name retained. The tickets are usually purchased with someone else's card, and box office instructions phoned in at the last minute because "someone else" is notoriously late. :-) And seriously...I think you're placing a lot more importance on the role than is appropriate. There is a saying about "the smaller the stakes, the meaner the spirit", and I think it might possibly apply here. We have absolutely no fiscal control, and the biggest restriction that we can apply is banning someone from a website. If you'd like to put forward a proposal that private information about those who identify to the WMF be retained by the WMF, please head over to Meta to make that proposal and discuss it with the Wikimedian community; your proposal affects all of them as much as it affects the users on this project. The WMF Board and staff have to deal with all of the communities, not just ours, and they set overall policy in this regard. One project cannot demand that the WMF put in place the security measures that would be required in order to keep that information safe.  And please bear in mind that others disagree entirely with any expectation that people identify to the WMF even to the current small extent.  This isn't the place for that discussion.  Risker (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be the Foundation that checks IDs. If they're not willing to do it for legal reasons, the English Wikipedia could set up its own system. I doubt they would want to (for the same legal reasons), but it's a discussion worth having. To what extent we want to know who we're voting for is a legitimate question. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And how, exactly, would we select the people who would be trusted enough to receive the private information of Arbcom, CU and OS candidates? Do you see the circularity of your argument? Risker (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any circularity. We can just as easily assign that responsibility to someone, as can the Foundation. I don't think we would want to, because there are legal implications for the person retaining the data, but there would be no reason for it to be a more precarious system than the current one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? And how would we decide who to assign that responsibility to? An election? At which they would have to promise to...ummm...obtain and retain their own private information confirming their identity?  And how exactly would we be assured that the data was retained in a secure and confidential manner? Or that the person wouldn't wander off on a wikibreak, never to be seen again?  Thanks, but I'm more likely to be sending it to the WMF, where at least the current employees have all now gone through background checks. Risker (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @I'm afraid I'm with Risker. I'm not about to disclose my identity to the WMF, but there's no way in hell I'd disclose it to some unemployed Wikipedian who'd be under no contract of employment to anyone.--Scott Mac 23:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The current system relies entirely on trust at every level, so it's pointless, just so long as we realize that. We have to trust the nominee to use his real ID, and not a mate's. We have to trust him not to fiddle with the photocopy. And then if we later find out he misrepresented himself, there's no possible legal comeback (not even in theory), because no one can prove he said he was the wrong person in the first place, because the ID he supplied is not retained. So as with so much of Wikipedia, we have a system in place that bears no scrutiny. I don't think the community is aware of that, though I could be wrong, so the sensible thing to do after this election is open up a wiki-wide discussion to find out what consensus is in time for next year, and whether there's any system we can put in place that's reasonable and sustainable. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slim. The current system isn't providing security at all. It's just theater. For real security somebody trustworthy needs to look at an original ID, and store a copy in case the subject ever does something seriously wrong. ("Somebody" could be a WMF employee, a designated volunteer who's already trusted, or a licensed attorney as a last resort.) I'd prefer real security, but if we can't do that, then we ought not inconvenience people with security theater. Jimmy privately told me that if somebody doesn't trust WMF, why should he and WMF trust them? That's a good argument: trust is a two way street. Either trust WMF to keep a copy of your identity, or don't volunteer for a position of high trust. Jehochman Talk 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is all this "Jimbo has told me privately" that creates an atmosphere of mistrust. Wikipedia is no longer Jimbo's private feifedom. Neither has a series of less than desirable people working close to Jimbo aided the system. ID-ing is not necessary unless one wants CU and OS rights. The foubdation has no right to demand ID from volunteers.  Giacomo   15:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a business interest in Internet security and identity on the web. As a result I exchange email with lots of people on these topics.  When somebody says something interesting to me and I want to share it, I can hardly do so without crediting the original source. There's no need for mistrust on this minutia. As for wanting to serve on ArbCom and eschewing CU/OS and the mailing list, those all seem like reasonable ideas.  Many disputes can be resolved with publicly available info, and you could always recuse from those disputes that can't. There's more than enough work to go around. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember it was 'the incident' that made the community (not the WMF!) require identification of arbs, and if anything 'the incident' created this whole sock paranoia, or 'atmosphere of mistrust' as you call it. Also interesting (to me) that you managed to distort Jehochman post into 'It's Jimbo's fault'. Amalthea  17:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything wrong with Wikipedia is Jimbo's fault, because he started the damn thing. Jehochman Talk 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we going for the World's Longest Thread record?
The angels just phoned, and said they want their pinhead back. Since Jimmy Wales is not going to change his policies in the 23 hours before nominations close, isn't there something everyone else could be doing, and come back to sort this issue out further down the line when the time pressure is off? – iridescent  23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Close it down, as only the arbitrator candidates are effected by what's being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the previous discussion has solicited a clarification statement from the WMF - that's information that people thinking of nominating themselves may find useful. I suggest if you don't find this discussion useful, then you don't have to read it.--Scott Mac 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Already have decided that. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we going for the World's Most Hackneyed Joke record?
How about we close the thread when nominations close – which, as has been so astutely pointed out, is not very long away? Or, better still, how about we not stifle a perfectly valid discussion and let it rattle on as long as necessary? It's not causing any damage. ╟─TreasuryTag► quaestor ─╢ 23:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we going in circles again?
What is the point of this thread? The Foundation won't change their identification requirements that easily. A certain few people are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. Let's go back to writing articles and watching the election. It's the WMF's call, so this mile long thread doesn't really establish anything (except that some users really like proving that they are "right" and some others just love causing drama). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the announcement that ID material is discarded once someone checks its age statement is not consistent with the WMF policy linked.
 * Wikimedia's offices are in California, which has an anti-SLAPP statute that has shown some effectiveness against bogus litigation in the past. IANAL but if the location of the office can bring nutcase lawsuits into California jurisdiction, that might give some remedies to arbitrators and others who are concerned about getting caught up in such things.
 * SlimVirgin - Jehochman's suggestion of having candidates hire attorneys as intermediares to the WMF is financially disenfranchising to the candidates unless WMF pays the legal fees.
 * Giano's newfound privacy activism might be better directed at recent efforts to increase the obnoxiousness of the EU Data Retention Directive. Giano IMHO is unlikely to be able to keep his anonymity against a determined investigator even in the current regulatory regime, much less the proposed brave new one.  69.111.192.233 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Other projects?
Does anyone happen to know if the Committees on other projects are required to identify? — NGQ Jon  02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See the first paragraph of . 69.111.192.233 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that link. However, it doesn't fully answer my original question.  Does the privacy policy really mean that every person who arbitrates must submit documents?  Do the German arbitrators, for instance, submit documents to WMF?  Did the WMF board really have in mind arbitrators when they passed the privacy policy?  Has the WMF Board publicly stated that they consider that the privacy policy applies to the Committee, rather than only to the technical CU/OS positions?
 * Taken together, these questions are meant to lead toward the underlying question: If an individual was elected to the English Committee, but refused to submit identifying documents, who would stop them from voting on Committee affairs? If they did not want CU/OS, and did not wish to oversee those functions, but only wanted to act as an arbitrator on user disputes, would the WMF Board or staff really step in to prevent the English community from having them do the work of an arbitrator?
 * Indeed, my understanding is that some arbitration Committees have no involvement at all with CU/OS appointment or oversight. Some present arbitrators above make statements indicating that identification is a WMF mandate that they are powerless to combat.  However, if an arbitrator was to decide to refuse involvement in the CU/OS matters (limiting his remit solely to arbitrating), would the WMF Board or its designees really stop such an elected arbitrator from arbitrating?  Respectfully, —  NGQ Jon  06:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect that dewiki has something like enwiki's arbcom-l mailing list. I would hope that the contents of any such list would be subject to the privacy policy, and therefore arbs couldn't be added to the list without satisfying the ID requirement.  I would expect someone not on the list couldn't serve effectively as an arb.  So my inference is that dewiki arbs have to provide ID, and similarly for enwiki arbs who don't have CU/OS bits.  That is pretty simple logic.  On the other hand, Wikipedia is not always logical, so who knows. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At dewiki, arbs do NOT have to identify themselves because they don't have access to private data as defined by the privacy policy. Non-admins who are voted into de-arbcom get the admin bit so that they can read deleted versions, but that's it. However, the role of the de-arbcom is quite different from enwiki's, and so is the general power structure of the projects. For example, the community of dewiki decided almost unanimously that no user can hold more than one special function (Bureaucrat, CU, OS, ArbCom) at the same time. @69.111.192.233: Foundation-hosted mailing lists are not covered by the privacy policy, see here (second paragraph). --Tinz (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that is what I thought. We now have an individual running who says he will refuse to identify.  The chances of this particular individual being elected are rather slight.  As a matter of principle though, such a person must be seated if they win.  To do otherwise would be to apply the Board directive in a way it was never intended to be taken. —  NGQ Jon  01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tinz, thanks for the clarification about de-arbcom. Obviously at least some WMF-hosted mailing lists are not subject to the privacy policy; for example, enwiki-l is a public list. But arbcom-l (from what I understand)_ regularly discusses CU and OS data which is under the privacy policy, so it follows that the list contents itself is (or at least should be) under the policy. The idea of Jehochman and others that someone might usefully serve on arbcom without CU/OS and without access to the mailing list is just weird. Why would anyone even want to do that? SirFozzie and others have explained that most of arbcom's work takes place behind the scenes. If all you want to do is help sort disputes between users, you don't need to be on arbcom for that. You don't even need a user account. There was a time when only Arbcom and Jimbo could impose binding resolutions enforcable by admin action, but that shifted several years ago, so now such things are handled routinely by regular admins at ANI (e.g. ANI discussions leading to someone getting a topic ban or the like). The only things arbcom can really do that regular admins can't are 1) desysop admins and 2) use confidential processes and info while performing DR. Confidential processes includes private deliberation with other arbs, which is a regular and accepted part of every case in the arb process as we currently know it. It is analogous to jury deliberation and is part of the reason arbitration is accepted (by some) as the "last stop" in WP DR. (OK, I suppose you could run as a radical transparentist saying arb deliberation should all take place in public, but none of those whining about the ID issue in this thread seem to be taking such a stance right now. Maybe I shouldn't give them ideas.  Of course anyone who takes that stance after supporting secret-ballot arb elections will have a credibility problem to manage). If you're going to opt out of seeing confidential info, that perhaps leaves some cases so clear-cut that private deliberation is obviously useless, but in today's DR environment those cases are usually resolved way below arbcom. The one exception could be ultra-clear-cut cases where the remedy involves desysopping. And only users addicted to troublemaking would consider running for arbcom just for that. Such users exist, of course, but I'd hope they'd never be elected as arbs. In short, opting out of arbcom-l is not a serious possibility for anyone hoping to serve usefully as an arbitrator. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Age checking vs. accountability
Philippe Beaudette and others have written that ID sent by arbs to the WMF is used strictly for checking their age, then destroyed. This seems to me to be in conflict with WMF's Access to nonpublic data policy which says:
 * "The intent of this policy is to ensure that volunteers who have access to nonpublic data covered by the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy are personally and legally accountable."

That seems to go further than age checking. In the above discussion we never resolved that difference. So which is it?

I was particularly surprised to hear that the WMF doesn't retain the ID info that it receives. I remember a time when (iirc, can't find the diff) Karmafist got caught running a sock that looked to be heading towards adminship. Karmafist said something like "don't worry, within a few years I plan for my socks to occupy at least three or four arbcom seats". Of course (I hope) he was joking, but it amuses me that WMF's practice of throwing away ID info after checking it would let this through.

69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a question that is more properly discussed at Meta rather than here, as it applies to how they address the information from *all* projects. I'm pretty sure that Karmafist never really stood a chance of doing that; almost all arbitrators, and a goodly number of the current candidates, have appeared in public at Wikipedia-related events, so most of us are identifiable to some extent or another. I'm pretty sure nobody's going to confuse me with, say, John Vandenberg or Kirill Lokshin. Risker (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Philippe did put that statement here on enwiki, which has a boldface link under it that says "Discuss this".  I clicked the link and it brought me here.  I appreciated the nice pictures of you and Kirill, since it indicates that there are at least two distinct people occupying the 15 or so arbcom seats ;-). 69.111.192.233 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(a) obtaining identification, (b) confirmation of age, of a user proposed to handle non-public data? (a) is that statement factually correct? (b) if so how is that goal currently being accomplished in light of (and compatible with) destruction of identification data?
 * Comment by FT2 Skipping the wall of text, this procedure doesn't make sense as it stands. Before commenting further can someone explain exactly and authoritatively, the following:
 * What is the intended purpose of
 * The access to nonpublic data policy states that its intended purpose is "to ensure that volunteers who have access to nonpublic data covered by the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy are personally and legally accountable".
 * Under what circumstances would the age or identification of a user with such access be relevant to WMF or the project (ie, more than an editor who does not handle non-public data)?


 * A formal clarification of these would help inform the discussion. Thanks. FT2 (Talk 06:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Risker is basically right that this is not in enwiki jurisdiction and it's better to ask on meta or on a mailing list. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Identification information page
I saw the large mess above and couldn't find any project-space page explaining the identification process, so I wrote one at Identification. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe move that information to meta and replace the page with a soft redirect? NW ( Talk ) 04:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think explaining local procedures/practices has value. Some of the additional information should probably be incorporated into the header of the Identification noticeboard, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: Spartan

 * Announcement

Resignation of Steve Smith
Announcement

'I thought it preferable to the alternative' - I wish to read creative guesstimates as to what Steve meant. Steve is welcome to join the game, although he'll probably leave half way through... ;-)
 * I thought it preferable to the alternative of heading down to a Denver shooting range with my twin. too soon?
 * I thought it preferable to the alternative of selling out and working for Facebook
 * I thought it preferable to the alternative of being denied intercourse for a further 12 months.

The option 'I thought it preferable to the alternative of not really being around enough to commit fully to the efforts the role deserves' is boring, and should not be mentioned. Oh, and good luck Steve :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your service Steve; you were one of the good ones. Now back to WP:FAC, no timewasting ;)  Skomorokh   05:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish Steve much happiness and success in the future, and will miss his fine sense of humour as well as his insight. All the best to him.  Risker (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That time of year. Anyway, thanks from me, too. It's a tough job, as too few grok. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Steve. It was a pleasure working with you. SirFozzie (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go! --Elonka 21:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of security

 * Announcement

What does this relate to? ╟─TreasuryTag► stannator ─╢ 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. NW ( Talk ) 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pages were "deleted as unnecessary, redundant, or obsolete". Hm, could some of those last three terms be "unnecessary, redundant, or obsolete"?--Scott Mac 18:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I ask why SirFozzie and KnightLago did not vote on this (FayssalF presumably did not vote because of inactivity)? KnightLago's recent contributions, at the very least, show him commenting on this issue. NW ( Talk ) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably just not caught up with their email yet, I suspect: "not voting" doesn't mean "abstain". We usually post once there's a super-majority supporting and latecomers can modify the page to cast their vote later.  Roger  talk 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. The discussion firmed around this statement in the last few days, in a time period I was mostly away from Wikipedia. I support the statement. SirFozzie (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto, I supported and support. KnightLago (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This 'Review ' is not impressive: 'A banned user attempted to gain access ... there is no evidence that any materials were successfully retrieved'. But is there evidence they logged in or evidence they didn't login? I get the idea they could of logged in but your not aware of it yet. Wiki security is like something out of back to the future.

Suggest the following requirements are given to the technical team asap: Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone logging into the arbitration wiki site are logged in a file with the IP and username. That login information is made easily viewable for a period of around 72 hours to other ARB members in some form when they are logged in. This will enable all Arb members to see if there has been a login security breach.
 * Double login is done. Normally this is via Apache htaccess or equivalent. This is standard practice on most forums and sites on the net.
 * Login is done to a none public URL known only to the few that use it i.e https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiki/some/random/place/1234/speciallogin. Making the url obscure reduces the changes of anyone unauthorized attempting to login.
 * Do you have any information that such steps are not already taken? Frank  &#124;  talk  20:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not too happy about "The Committee notes that it would have been significantly more appropriate for concerns about any security flaws to have been brought to our attention privately for remedy rather than pointing them out prominently on-wiki and potentially bringing them to the attention of thousands of people." Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The lack of imagination which allowed the flaws to continue for so long needs pointing out publicly. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What he said. I find it distasteful in the extreme that ArbCom would say that we should hide things; that sort of information needs to be publicly known, both because of the data which ArbCom has access to and on the general principle that known security flaws are rapidly fixed security flaws. → ROUX   ₪  23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well get used to it! Wikipedia is about to enter a new dark age, you've seen the last of openness for a very long time. I would alao love to know how Shell Kinny and NYB come to be voting on this, in the top secret and sinister emails sent to me last week from Knight Largo I was assured she and the other candidates were excluded from the the enquiry. One cannot beleive a single word these people say. Would you like me to publish the emails here?   Giacomo   23:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are ways and ways. If you find a security weakness that concerns you and you want it fixed, point it out quietly to those maintaining it and let them fix it. Don't post the weakness publicly (see WP:BEANS). If you find a security weakness that concern you, and you want to cause maximum drama, then adopt the opposite policy.--Scott Mac 00:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to hear lies and cover up on wiki do things quietly.  Giacomo   00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For once I find myself agreeing with Scott. If you find a security vulnerability, inform privately the people responsible for it, let them fix it, and, once it is fixed, feel free to make all the noise you want. That's just common sense. If you find a security loophole in Windows (or Mac OS X, or whatever), it is not a good idea to announce it to the world while Microsoft (or Apple) work on a fix because unscrupulous people would have abused god-knows-how-many computers in the mean time. You let them fix it first, then you can talk about it all you want. T. Canens (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. What you're describing is called responsible disclosure. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

From Kinight largo to Giano: "I am writing on behalf of the Arbitration Committee regarding the recent unauthorized access to the private Arbitration Committee wiki. Those Arbitrators running for election are not privy to this email or the discussion concerning this matter as it is being discussed on our "B" mailing list. Please either respond to the "B" mailing list CC'd on this email or to me directly." Isn't that amzing, yet they managed to vote on it!  Giacomo  00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Access to the secondary list, and its archives, was restored when the voting closed and nothing could affect the results anymore. The final wording of the motion was put for voting (on the main list, even) after that.  The point of using the secondary list was to prevent any influence on the election since you were also a candidate, not because candidates suddenly became incapable of voting rationally on an issue of security.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it was.  Giacomo   00:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I just love this "There is no evidence that GiacomoReturned successfully retrieved any materials from the wiki." maliciously implying I "tried unsuccesfully" well next time the arbs are too stupid to spot there own gaping holes in security, I will just let then stay wide open.  Giacomo   00:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop it with the grandstanding already! Thank you for making us take a second look at our security, so that we could notice an entirely different and unrelated problem than that which you imagined existed during the exercise.  You are not a savior, you simply attempted to posture during an election.  You pretend much, imply a great deal, but it's all so much smoke.  You are carefree with throwing "lie" and "liar" around but, in the end, the grapes are only sour in your own imagination.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a moment - this is a very important; Do you have evidence that GiacomoReturned attempted to retrieve material or otherwise gain access to the wiki? If you have such evidence, why is GR posting here? Such acts of deliberate hacking must surely be countered with a sanction! If you have no evidence, then I strongly suggest that you reword that announcement to reflect that you found no evidence contrary to to GiacomoReturned noting he did not and was not attempting to access the wiki. I do not think the Arbitration Committee needs to be found to be apparently casting aspersions upon another contributor, especially since it is they who discovered and announced possible security breaches. I am not impressed, either, by the tone of the response. If you do not enjoy being made to look incompetent, try not to repeat the mistake in acknowledging the lapse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we have evidence that Giano tried to access the wiki; the system logs quite clearly show him attempting to log in using several arbitrators' accounts, some repeatedly.
 * Now, we don't have any evidence that Giano successfully gained access to the wiki using any of the accounts in question, or that his attempts to do so were directly related to the ones made by a certain banned user around the same time; and that's why we have not imposed any sanctions in the matter. We are, in other words, choosing to assume good faith regarding Giano's motives and treat the incident as an investigation of potential security weaknesses gone awry.  If you know of any reasons why we should consider it in a different light, please let us know privately. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * and how do you know it? because I told you - plastering it on the Arbcom Page! Using the password "123456789" - that's your's is it? repeatedly yes, i could not beleive the names I was seeing as account holders! Shame you did not see them first!Do you even know all the names? Did your bloody enquiry even look at that? looking at all those names, no wonder Jimbo was so angry with me last week.  Giacomo   14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that some of the accounts you tried repeatedly belong to a current arbitrator, I'm not sure why you would be so surprised; but that's neither here nor there. Personally, I don't believe that you had any nefarious motives in doing what you did—as I said above, I think you were trying to investigate a potential security weakness, and may have been a bit overly enthusiastic in trying different things—but, given the timing of your actions relative to those taken by other users, it was necessary for us to investigate the matter, if only to clear you of any wrongdoing. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be "cleared" by you, I would not trust you and your colleagues to run a piss up in a brewerey!  Giacomo   14:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know how to test for false positives, don't you? When determining the properties of an unknown you test the properties of a known - thus you test how a security function reacts to an attempt by an approved party, and see if there is a different reaction to that to a party that should not be approved. In this case, some former arbs got the same response as current arbs (that the password was not recognised while the username was) and others different - that the username was not recognised. I did the same test, but only with ex arbs account names, and got the same results as Giacomo. I did not think to also test the response for accounts of current arbs, but Giano did. However, I am smart enough to recognise a simple false positive test - which talent seems to be absent within the Committee. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh posture during an election - is it? I have another word for the activities of the last week, but I don't think now is quite the right time to dish it up. You need to put ypur house in order.  Giacomo   00:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on a substantive matter, how else than "tried unsuccessfully to retrieve material from the wiki" would you describe trying username and password combinations, and constructing URLs to hypothetical pages to see if/what you can get from them? &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno about Giano, but "attempted felony computer trespass" comes to mind... Seriously, Giano, that's no different than seeing a Kwikset lock on an important door, and attempting to pick it ostensibly so you can crow about the poor security. It's still attempting to commit a crime, no matter what your motive, unless you have preexisting permission to do so. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a policy against calling people criminals? BLP maybe? Or NPA? Or don't they apply when you want to libel Giano? DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they clearly don't apply. This is a bloody good start for a new Arb and it does not bode well!  Giacomo   12:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of what he did or did not do. He described a scenario, which may have been true or hyperbole, and I explained my understanding of the legal consequneces, including another scenario to illustrate the point.  I'm neither a lawyer nor a law enforcement officer.  I entirely agree it would be inappropriate to accuse Giano of a crime, but likewise it is inappropriate to excuse or minimize the severity of attempting to bypass a username/password challenge to gain access to a computer. WP:SPADE applies. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the more disruptive essays littering wikipedia, far too often used, as here, to excuse a poor choice of language. One of the reasons WP:CIVIL is pretty much a dead letter is the repeated use (or at least tacit approval) of personal attacks and BLP vios by various admins, arbs, and sole-co-founders. DuncanHill (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to deescalate this discussion significantly and promptly. The point being made in this paragraph of the committee statement is that if there had been a very serious gap in the arbwiki security as was originally suggested, publicizing this fact would have allowed malicious persons to access confidential data on the arbwiki before we had an opportunity to work with developers to identify and correct those gaps. It was entirely appropriate for Giano to inform us that a security problem appeared to exist (and indeed, his post did lead us to identify the deficiences we have noted and to address them), and his doing so served a valuable purpose that is appreciated. Our concern is that posting as much detail about the security issues as he did on-wiki could have allowed other persons than Giano&mdash;including banned users and other persons hostile to Wikipedia or some of its contributors&mdash;to obtain access to the information as well, utilizing the bugs in whose general direction he was pointing. This is what we are suggesting should be avoided if any data security issues&mdash;hopefully not involving the Arbitration Committee next time&mdash;are identified in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish! you have tried to shoot the messenger for reporting in public. God knows what you would have done if I had been stupid enought to tell you in private. In the intersts of self-preservation, I advise all to keep all dealings with the arbcom as public as possible, and as for JC Clemens veiled legal threats, well we all know how wikipedia treats those, don't we - or do we?  Giacomo   07:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know that you're back to your old self again now that the election's over. --Conti|✉ 07:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ArbCom is full of political tools given technical tools. Somebody ought to address that at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The longer I have thought about this the angrier I have become and I have been pretty angry over the last couple of weeks over their failure to attend to security and the way they have been treating me about it. Here is an Arbcom holding an enquiry into whether I managed to get into its Wiki, when it should be holding an enquiry into its own incompetence. The only excuse I can even invent for them, is that as Brad, as a candidate, was ignorant of what the rest of them were up to last week, but even he has been so foolish as to put his name to this enquiry. It is not an enquiry it is a feeble and transparent attempt to shift blame anywhere, but where it squarely belongs—with the Arbcom and its developers.

For God knows how long it has held information on many of us, which it does not permit us to see, and clearly did not need which it has then kept it an insecure wiki. When this is pointed out to them, do we have apologies or admissions of responsibility? No, we have have supercilious comments from Coren and his Arbcom cronies and a new Arb, eager to make new friends, making veiled legal threats, and of course, Scot Mac famed only for his  “this is no news” comments when Abs and overnighters were caught trying to oversight/cover up one of their friends strange edits during an election.

It’s 100% clear from the intimidating emails and questions which the Arbs were emailing to me last week that they have not a clue who has been in and out of that Wiki. Last week, we were told it was impossible to delete information, now suddenly there is rightly a huge bonfire of the material held there. I know of editors with concerns who have disclosed all manner of private information to this Arbcom and now we see the respect with which they have treated it. I hope to God no-one has got in there and found any of it, but what are we getting from this incompetent crowd? “we have no evidence that ex Arbs actually accessed, and all have now been fully disabled” They don’t bloody know! And do we have an apology or indeed any sign of remorse? – do we hell! We have patronising “run along and play children, the Arbs know best” type comments. We have “Giano should have told us secretly, then no one would know how careless we have been.” I will not be made the scapegoat for this, and the rest of you should be wondering why that has even been tried.  Giacomo  14:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The arrogant "Arbs know best and allowing the community to know what they get up to" attitude has time and again caused Arbcom to shoot itself in the foot and undermine themselves. We do seem spectacularly good at electing people with a complete lack of good-faith in the community, and a complete inability to see just how daft they look. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict; to Giano:) Obviously the goal is that there should be no security flaws of any kind surrounding confidential information, whether in the hands of the Arbitration Committee or anyone else. To the extent any flaws exist, it is entirely right that they must be identified and fixed. The point is that if there had in fact been a gaping hole in the security as you first feared, as opposed to lesser (but still significant) issues as turned out to be the case, there are any number of persons less scrupulous than yourself who might have sought to exploit it. In such event, let there be no doubt that the primary fault would lie with actions of the malevolent person in exploiting the security gap, and another primary fault would lie with the original existence of the security gap to begin with&mdash;but how would you have felt about your own role in leading the malevolent person to it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * had you bothered Brad to read the information gathered by your merrymen last week, you would know that that was quite the reverse of the situation! Which is why it is such a major breach!  Giacomo   14:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec x ??) I am also deeply unimpressed with the fact that this statement seems (whether by accident or design) to adopt a wording that paints Giano in an unnecessarily negative light. I realise that he can be an outspoken critic but he does have valid reasons for preferring public discussions; that might be unfortunate from ArbCom's perspective but that isn't a basis for declaring that he was wrong to raise his concerns publicly. I am disappointed that no Arb feels the need to distance themselves from the comments of current-arb Coren and future-arb Jclemens, which appear consistent with a hostile attitude towards the Giano as the person who brought the issues to light. EdChem (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not about Giano, or any other individual; this is about finding the right balance between drawing attention to security issues (so that they will be dealt with) and not publicizing such issues until they can be attended to (for the reasons I have discussed a little higher in this thread). WP:BEANS is overcited, but if you discover an unprotected image on the main page, is it better to post on ANI that "THERE IS AN UNPROTECTED IMAGE ON THE MAIN PAGE THAT IS A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR TEMPLATE VANDALISM!!!!" or is it better to quietly ask an administrator to protect the image? It's the same principle, really, except at a higher level. (As for Giano's individual role, an irony is that I've never bought into the necessity of the identification requirement for arbitrators, and if it weren't for the contretemps over Giano's not wanting to identify and the consequences it would have for his access to information, Giano would very possibly be an arbitrator-elect himself right now.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On no he bloody would not because he has seen what happens when you put a good apple into a box of rotten apples, that's why I was determined to stay out of the box!  Giacomo   14:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brad, the balance you mention is influenced by whether one trusts how ArbCom would respond to being told confidentially. Given Coren's comment and Kirril's comments that Giano needed clearing and the harshly worded "There is no evidence that GiacomoReturned successfully retrieved any materials from the wiki", I can understand his decision to raise the issues publicly.  By the way, what would have been so bad about saying "The investigation notes there was evidence consistent with Giano's statements that he probed security vulnerabilities but did not breach the security of the arb-wiki"?  It seems a fairer formulation.  As for Giano as an arb-elect, Jimbo's actions strongly suggest to me that Giano wouldn't have been appointed had he had your level of support, Brad... which just shows we still have serious governance issues to sort out someday.  EdChem (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Brad, what will Arbcom do to reassure editors that despite their previous incompetence, they are now to be trusted to maintain appropriate levels of security? DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the person with any relevant technical expertise, but among other things we've been talking directly with developers about security aspects of the arbwiki and addressing all the potential vulnerabilities that anyone has been able to think of. Some of the more technically minded arbitrators might want to jump in here with their comments; and we have a new crop of arbitrators joining us in a couple of weeks, some of whom may have some more ideas for additional steps we could potentially take, if there are any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

After reading all this, I'm a little taken aback that the statement does not explicitly thank Giano for helping identify the security weaknesses. Whether he should have done it privately or publicly, the point is that because of his, made clearly in good faith, actions arbcom identified a set of security flaws and corrected them. Where's the thank you? The current statement reads a little like a grudging exoneration of a criminal (though I'm sure that is unintentional). (Also, it might be useful to consider adding some background information to statements of this sort so that readers can contextualize it. The original posting made no sense to me and, presumably to others, who were unaware of the issue.) --RegentsPark (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This statement is about the situation and not about any individual. I believe some arbitrators did express appreciation to Giano at the time he first raised the issue. Your last comment is well-taken; we need to remember that just because we have been looking carefully at an issue over a period of days doesn't mean that anyone else has it in mind at a given time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding background information would have made it too obvious that Arbcom was only acting because Giano had spoken up. Of course, not adding the information just confused some and made Arbcom look small in the eyes of others. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, one other small thing our noble Arbs have not told you: I told the Risker (and Coren is conveniently forgetting) almost 24 hours before I posted it on Wiki  I even tell Malleus so. I only posted it here when I realised the revolting way they were going to handle this. So you see the arcom is not being quite as straight as they say!   Giacomo   17:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered how long it would take you to blame me for this, Giano. When you communicated to me, I made you extremely well aware that I was addressing major Real World issues, was unable to resolve the matter myself at the time you contacted me (less than 12 hours before you posted onwiki) and that I would draw your concerns to the attentions of others - which I did; at least one other arbitrator and a developer were already reviewing the situation when you posted onwiki, a fact of which I made you aware. I am genuinely disappointed in the brinksmanship you are showing here. I am terribly sorry that you have such a strong need to "win" that you'll condemn people for putting serious real life matters ahead of satisfying your demands that they *personally* and immediately "fix" something.  You were taken seriously, your report was passed on to others in a better position to review and resolve, and you were informed of that. Risker (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but this is what happens when you start a culture of blame, as you have tried to do to me. This was an important security lapse, you are one of many Arbs - delegate! Or are you the only one capable of looking into such matters? This farce of an enquiry absolved the arbcom and blamed the messneger, so don't you dare accuse me of aportioning blame.  Giacomo   18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I *did* "delegate". That what you considered a problem was not solved immediately to your personal satisfaction changed nothing; your concerns were being addressed. As it turns out, the thing you insisted was the problem, actually wasn't a problem at all; the accounts that you thought were accessible were not. Everyone took your concerns seriously. And we did not stop our investigation after *your* concerns were satisfied, we continued to examine other possibilities, and found other things that could be improved. Risker (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I have to say, it does like like Arbs are just about the most ungrateful bunch of so-and-sos about. Have we reverted to the OM-debacle era of incompetence and self-serving? You're all just angry that you've been shewn up (yet again), and particularly angry that it's been done by the editor Jimbo (and most of you) would most like to get rid of - trouble is of course, that at least half of you behave just as badly as he does at his worst, but few of you contribute as well as he does at his best. Pull yourselves together, stop shooting the messenger, and start acting like people with a clue. Could you have said "The committee would like to thank Giano for discovering this failure and bringing it to our attention"? Of course not, you just couldn't resist putting the boot in - and making yourselves look much worse as a result. I had thought that the current crop were above the spoilt brat behaviour of past incarnations, but clearly I was wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Giacomo should be demeaned for going up and knocking on the door in an investigative manner as he did, I mean, who wouldn't? Just walking away without knocking, well, it would be rude. Perhaps it could be added to the report that no bad faith was found in his actions and also noted that the committee are grateful for his bringing it to their attention. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Shameful announcement from a shameful group.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just love to know who drafted that shameful statement before they all queued up to sign it, mind you it's not exactly stretching my brain to guess who. If I had not posted on wiki after having given them a working day to sort it, I would be banned by now - and the rest of you told God knows what!  Giacomo   18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bah, your plotlines are weakening and your charaterization is cardboard thin. Wake me up when you get to the action scenes.  Once you've elaborated it to the point where you expertly evade the black helicopters of our secret police force through a daring car chase through the busy Paris streets; it might have gotten entertaining.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear poor Coren - you missed the action - it took place amonth or so ago - while you were asleep.  Giacomo   19:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Coren, Why did ArbCom mention Giano at all?  Simple take out the mention of his name and say "there is no evidence anybody gained improper access to the ArbWiki."  That's all that needed to be said.  The backhanded attack on Giano is outrageous. I also knocked on the door.  Why are you all going after him and not me? Jehochman Talk 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I went there and immediately knocked on the door also. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jehochman. I am surprised and disappointed to see a respectable Committeeman take such a dismissive tone toward the legitimate concerns of the Community.  Giacomo has realistic concerns about the accusatory and unappreciative tone of the Committee Statement; a kindly and apologetic response would be more appropriate.  I am concerned that the Committeemen are jaded toward this user and therefore are not dealing with him in the proper manner. —  NGQ Jon  19:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jehochman: It was not our intent to attack Giano. You will note that at least three arbitrators who passed the statement have publicly thanked him for drawing it to our intention (although in a less-than-ideal manner). We only wanted to convey that nobody had actually attained access as far as we could tell, and Giano's discussion of "secret files on individual editors" should not be read to mean that he had actually accessed any "secret files." Some users mistakenly believed that Giano had "hacked in," and we wanted to specifically clarify that it was not true.
 * I agree that your wording might have worked better, but we wanted to issue a timely statement&mdash;which, after all, Giano had requested. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody changed the wording, totally out of process, and in violation of all local, national, and intergalactic wiki policy. Nevertheless, I suggest letting it be, for the sake of peace and harmony.  Jehochman Talk 20:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When the broken-hearted people living in the world agree... Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry about me, Coren is building up to one of his usual "Giano's paranoid" moments next. I usually indulge him a little at this stage, it makes him feel less ridicuous. That he's managed to take the rest of the Arbcom with him this time is concerning really, I suppose.  Giacomo   19:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Dear Reader, Jehochman Talk has given you some popcorn. Popcorn is crunchy goodness, and is wonderfully delicious!

Be sure to grab some before reading this conversation.

Right - I can't see anything more useful coming from this thread. Tempers are getting frayed and I think we all need to move on before tempers get more frayed. I can see how it developed (sigh) and I think we just need to all leave this thread alone for a little while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * May be true, but trying to conceal it under a hat with a dismissive summary is highly ianppropriate.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps arbs would consider rewording the statement along the lines suggested in this discussion - thank giano, explain circumstances, etc. That would defuse this in a flash. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Already been done. Per WP:IAR. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No more jibe against Giano, but no thanks to him either. It's striking the kind of warfare that was required to remove the jibe. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Several arbitrators did thank Giano. Sheesh. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Arbcom" though did not. Quite the opposite.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) There are no thanks recorded on the announcement page. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (multiple ecs)There is a difference between a public thanks and a private thanks. And, trust me, for someone who doesn't know what's going on, and i'm sure that was not intended, the original announcement made it appear as if giano was maliciously attempting to break into where he's not supposed to go. The new statement reads much better but it would be nice if there was a thank you to giano, jehochman and anyone else who helped point toward security flaws. A bit of graciousness goes a long way. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to thank me. I'm just glad I wasn't banned. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He was publicly thanked by at least three arbitrators. The intent of the bullet point was to specifically repudiate the myth that Giano "hacked in" (see my longer comment above to Jehochman). Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how infelicitous the original statement might have been (something which is debatable but probably shouldn't be), the fact of the matter is that the arbitrators signed one specific statement and not a modified version of it. One cannot retroactively alter the record like that.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * EC:- ::I see nothing changed; it remains a calculated and inflammatory insult.  Giacomo   21:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, until they retract the insult, somebody else editing the announcement does not cure your grievance. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The insulting reference to Giano has been reinstated. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC's) How about you all go back and revote on one that isn't morally bankrupt?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the intent, and I can't believe that there was anything malicious behind the statement, it is fairly obvious that many editors believe that the reference to giano was inappropriate and conveyed an incorrect impression. Appearances are generally 90% of things, and it may not be a bad idea to reword the statement (or for individual arbs to reconsider their votes). --RegentsPark (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [@Giano]You've done nothing but inflame and insult people continually recently. You are in no place to demand satisfaction. The hypocrisy here is outstanding as usual. You tried to stir drama by inferring that certain ex-arbs still had access. It might have been a real concern, but you were wrong. Now, rather than let it rest, you are clutching at straws to keep up the tension. As I've said, at one time the tenacity and campaigning was perhaps admirable, now it has slipped into childish and narcissistic trolling. It is beginning to bore. No doubt I will now be abused for calling it as it obviously is.--Scott Mac 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC) [clarification added]--Scott Mac 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark has been very civil lately. Are you sure this comment is in the right place? Jehochman Talk 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I fixed my indent (added a few extra to be on the safe side). Still, it does now appear that Scott is responding to coren and I don't think that's his intention. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on. GiacomoReturned posted here on 26 November that he had made attempts to enter the arbwiki; at that time he neither confirmed nor denied that he had gained access. Why is it that Arbcom confirming what Giano says himself, that he did not gain access, is an insult?  Risker (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The announcement is without any context. It says that giano was trying to get access to arbwiki. All that may be true but without any note that giano himself brought this to the attention of arbs this puts giano in a very poor light. Breaking and entering is criminal behavior. Now, apparently, his motives were pure. Why not just thank him, inform everyone that the reason for all this is because he thoughtfully pointed to a security flaw, that you found a different flaw but wouldn't have done so without his intervention, and be done with it. Those are, after all, the facts - aren't they? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The ambiguity and "double entendre" of the phrasing. The reference that you should have been told privately, when you were told privatly. The fact that the aportioning of blame is appareant and one sided. The fact you accept no responsibility yourselves and the fact no one now beleives a word you say - I know the names of all the former Arbs and others who had access untill last week, why don't you publish them? Ask them to deny they had access (I don't doubt they will) - an interesting collection with one common denominator. I'm not bothering with you any longer Risker, you and your cronies here are disgraced and floundering wildly to save yourselves.  Giacomo   21:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "former Arbs and others who had access untill last week" that is a very serious allegation. If it isn't true, it would appear to be libellous. It would appear to mean that all the arbs who signed the motion were lying, and all should be banned. Giano - can you substantiate that allegation?--Scott Mac 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh if it makes you happier "potential" accesss. Did they or didn't they? That's the question. You see Scott, the Arbcom doesn't know.  Giacomo   22:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * as you know, that's an entirely different thing. What you are saying is that you have proof (what?) that arbcom's statement is, in fact, correct.--Scott Mac 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I think it would be a good idea if the Arbcom screwed up their findings, drafted a new piece of paper, gave it some greater consideration and then signed it. That would defuse the situation and allow us all to go to bed.  Giacomo   22:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate userbox supplied.--Scott Mac 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Section break
Oh, a substantive point was raised somewhere up there in the middle: "Why did ArbCom mention Giano at all?" The reason is simple. At the time we got a hold of a sysadmin who could inspect the server logs (which is just a bit before Giano made his public post), there were exactly two persons who had made failed attempts to access the ArbCom wiki, over a period a little more than and hour and a half long. One is a banned user, and the other is Giano. Giano is the only one to have made an on-wiki claim of having tried to log in on that wiki, and we felt it important to note that he had not, in fact, accessed anything. It's entirely possible that more people might have tried the same thing after Giano made his public statement; I doubt it's useful to request that a sysadmin again inspects the logs just to be able to confirm that "other editor X also tried and did not get in". &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Before someone jumps in and turns Coren's statement right above me into saying "They're just trying to get Giano", I think I should point out that the reason that we are not redumping the logs on a regular basis to determine if someone's trying to access it, the method that Giano and the banned user found to "access" the arbcom wiki only worked to give a "ping" that there was a page on whatever they plugged into the URL (so if they put Foo in the proper place in the URL, but wasn't logged in, they'd get a login response, confirming there was a page Foo), but they did not get any information as to what that page entailed.


 * As I understand from the discussions the Committee had with developers, the hole that allowed Giano to get that "ping" back has been patched, and that in these discussions, we are looking at additional methods to make sure that the data remains secure. I wish Giano had contacted one of the Arbs he has a warmer relationship with (and before anyone scoffs, I know of several arbs who Giano contacts and talks with every so often, including myself) with before going public with the fact there was a potential security hole. As it was, if the method WAS a full breach, a banned user who specializes in off-site harassment of editors would have all the privacy-related information that was on the ArbCom wiki. So.. Giano DID find an area that needed looking at, and as a result there is active, ongoing work between the Committee and the developers to make the information on the ArbCom-wiki more secure, and for that I will publicly thank him. However, the method of disclosure of this breach and the discussion that followed was much less then optimal. SirFozzie (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya'll need to step back & take a break folks. Howabout a 6 months intermission? GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't understand what benefit you derive from personalizing the incident. But more than that, the phrasing is awful. Read the section as though you were completely unfamiliar with the topic. Giano isn't even introduced before you say "There is no evidence that [he] successfully retrieved any materials from the wiki." Maybe it's just my jaded view at this whole Wikipedia circus, but it has a very "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of feeling.
 * You all really ought to consider changing it. There's nothing wrong with copy-editing. It's the wiki way. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I copy-edit this statement, but leave your signature? 71.233.46.33 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * MZMcBride makes a valid point here. We should have noted that this statement was made in response to a post where Giano asked for an official comment. We provided an official comment, but should we have run that official comment past Giano first before publishing it? Maybe, but the reason for publishing this was because Giano himself said Official Comment required. Well, we provided that. Should we have run the draft past the community first? The incoming arbitrators will be able to review the entire sets of discussion that took place on these matters, and judge for themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I've now added this note. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The note does clarify matters. Supported.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I may find myself without internet for the next few days, so rather than wait if the situation will be resolved, as appears to be the case, I will comment now: Ideally, Arbcom would lead by example. That's not always possible, but at least Arbcom should not undermine its own rulings by collectively and vigorously breaking their spirit. I see enormous tension between the following two official Arbcom pronouncements:

This must be fixed. I see this as part of a general pattern of Arbcom not communicating effectively. I hope that the new Arbcom will And there should be an ethos that the idea of an Arbcom pronouncement counts, not its wording. If the words don't describe the idea effectively, so that, e.g., Arbs disagree about the meaning of the words, then the wording is defective and this must be admitted and addressed. Hans Adler 23:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) take measures to minimise the likelihood of such communication disasters in the future, and
 * 2) develop strategies for mitigating, rather than aggravating, them when they become apparent. E.g. Arbcom pronouncements could be run by uninvolved third parties whose job it is to completely rephrase them, so that problems in the wording can be identified before it becomes official.
 * A few points to make here:
 * "Arbcom pronouncements could be run by uninvolved third parties whose job it is to completely rephrase them, so that problems in the wording can be identified before it becomes official." This isn't a bad idea, actually. But part of the problem comes from the siege mentality that can be provoked when there is a public outcry in response to a statement like this. It makes ArbCom more likely to issue bland statements that have been 'tested' first - do you really want things to go down that route?
 * What happened here was that Giano made a hue and cry about arbwiki security and demanded an official statement. The committee (which includes me) discussed and voted on an official response that was initially quite short and was then expanded to provide details we thought would help explain things somewhat, but seems to have had the opposite effect. Part of the statement was based on correspondence and evidence that is not public. There were attempts to communicate with Giano that didn't really get very far. We concluded (not unreasonably, in my opinion) that Giano (despite appearances based on what he had said) hadn't actually seen what he said he had seen (or was being imprecise about what he had seen), and had merely been poking around trying to see what was there (like many other people have been). However, there was a distinct possibility here, given the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence we had before us, that our conclusions could have been completely different.
 * Maybe the statement should have said "we asked Giano about this, but his responses were unhelpful" - would that have been any better? My view on this is quite simple. If Giano had corresponded with us in private about this, instead of going public at the time he did, and tried to be more helpful when we contacted him, rather than being angry half the time, the necessary changes would still have taken place, and any public statement would not have been so controversial. There are examples of other people raising matters with us that get resolved without any hue and cry, so it can be done. But the approach of angrily demanding an official comment, and then angrily decrying the official comment, doesn't really work.
 * With hindsight, though, a copy of the statement should have been sent to Giano first as a courtesy, not to let him change it, but to allow him to raise objections for consideration.
 * For what it is worth, Giano has my thanks (belatedly) for raising this entire matter, since it did indirectly alert us to some matters of account security needed to be addressed, and led to a shake-up of how the arbwiki is handled. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have internet for a few minutes, so just a quick response to one aspect: "whose job it is to completely rephrase them" -- I see I wasn't clear. The idea is that someone completely rephrases your pronouncement, possibly using more frank language for what they think you wanted to say, and then you compare to see whether it is what you meant, and perhaps adapt your wording if it isn't. In this case a possible result would have been "Giano tried to break into the Arbcom wiki but failed, so there is no reason for concern." Obviously the idea of such tests would not have occurred to me if I did not have the impression that you have been a bit careless. It was most obvious with the climate change topic bans. They contained wording that was read as purely ornamental by some and as severely restricting the scope of the bans by others. At first I thought this was deliberate, but when it became apparent that the Arbs themselves disagree about the scope of the bans I decided that the real problem is different levels of reading comprehension between Arbs. Hans Adler 09:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What you describe isn't restricted to arbitrators. It's a widely known and researched phenomenon. Different people take different meanings from the same words. This is governed as much by how the readers themselves use the word/s as how the writer does (cf. idiolect and lexicon); the social and/or professional context/s in which they use them or see/hear them used; what meaning the reader wants the words to have; which meaning of multiple meanings apply (most words have more than one); whether the reader takes the primary or seconday meaning of the word; whether the word has a special contextualised meaning; whether the word has a literal meaning as well as an extended metaphorical one (concrete v. abstract) and so forth. I'm not sure if there's a simple answer.  Roger  talk 10:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. idiolect, idiom, lexicon should all be blue-links. Maybe a warning should be attached to all ArbCom announcements - "this may not mean what you think it does - if there are several ways to interpret this statement, please ask for clarification rather than assume your interpretation is correct". Obviously the language used should be as clear and precise as possible, and we should strive to phrase things as unambiguously as possible, but that isn't always the case and sometimes is not obvious to those drafting such statements, and when it isn't, asking and then waiting for clarification is better than possibly running with an incorrect interpretation. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and - while we're at it - confirmation bias; the phenomenon of people taking/making the interpretation most favourable to their position and discounting any other.  Roger  talk 11:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be alone here in crediting the Arbcom with the ability to speak and write English. They wrote a statement, and are now backtracking on it because they rightly realise it has caused a backlash against them. They would have found me a great deal more forthcoming and amenable to their enquiry if they had approached me with goodwill and an open mind. As it was, I had an accusatory and blunt couple of emails making all manner of inisinuations from Knight Largo and veiled warnings from Risker. I am prepared now to say no more about this; I hope they have been taught a valuable lesson. Now let this be the end of it.  Giacomo   08:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They would have found me a great deal more forthcoming and amenable to their enquiry if they had approached me with goodwill and an open mind. I'm not sure that statement is capable of supporting the irony inherent in it. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take a breather. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC by User:Wiarthurhu

 * Announcement

Appeal to BASC: Jahnbon

 * Announcement
 * Regarding this, text of the decision has not been left on the User's talk page. As of right now, the user's talk page is redlinked, and there is no evidence it has been left.  Can this be rectified?  -- Jayron  32  15:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I put this up first and then the talk page notice; I'll do it in the reverse from now on since that actually does seem to make more sense :) Shell  babelfish 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Es todo bueno. -- Jayron  32  17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding a case request about User:YellowMonkey

 * Original announcement


 * Good outcome. I hope that YM returns to editing and using admin tools (in accordance with his agreement to be more careful and explain actions better) soon. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Disappointing outcome, which does nothing to resolve the wider dispute about YM's use of administrative tools, and a poorly worded motion. Still, it's the best we have, and I suppose the ball is now in YM's court. Physchim62 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Motion summary: "Stonewall us, please. It works if you're an admin!" Tijfo098 (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ^ What he said. I thought there was some sort of policy about disappearing during scrutiny. As I recall, the end result was not "ehh, let's move on." --MZMcBride (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey's last edit was before the arbitration request was filed. Last time I looked, there was no prohibition against taking a break after responding to concerns raised at an RfC. It is quite clear that YellowMonkey does have further concerns to respond to, but we can't judge that and his response to that until he returns (otherwise you open the door to people piling on after someone takes a break). Previous examples nearly all involved people ceasing to edit after a request was filed, not before. Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there a need to decline this with a motion instead of just doing it the old-fashioned way?  D  C  06:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred a "this is on hold until he returns, then it will be revisited" motion, which I thought was the standard for these situations, rather than declining it. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 14:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Effectively we have said it is on hold until he returns, but he has the option of responding at the RfC first before any judgment is made as to whether a case is needed. Otherwise you open the floodgates for people to jump from RfC to RfArb with no time for responses inbetween. If people are not satisfied with responses at the RfC, they can refile the request and ask arbs to judge if any hypothetical responses were satisfactory, but we can't do that until there are responses to judge. Carcharoth (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Change in status - Arbitration Committee clerk

 * Original announcement

Personnel changes effective 1 January 2011

 * Original announcement

I am sad to be the first to thank our three outgoing arbitrators here for their labour, diligence and personal sacrifices over the years in one of the project's most difficult roles. FayssalF, Carcharoth, KnightLago: know that the community values your efforts. Respect,  Skomorokh   11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support for this statement --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I will miss all three of the departing arbitrators and their contributions to the committee. It will, however, be a couple of weeks before I have to start missing KnightLago, as I think he's chosen to stay active on one or both of the two cases currently pending (which outgoing arbitrators have the privilege of doing), which will take a little while longer to resolve. I would also like to express special thanks to Carcharoth for his arbitration work over the past two years. While every arbitrator finds a niche within the committee and plays an important role, I have found Carcharoth to be especially dedicated and diligent in commenting on proposals. An ample number of times, it was he who made sure that all sides of issues were heard and that an important point didn't get overlooked. My disappointment that he did not seek reelection, which he would certainly have earned, is tempered only by the fact that we will now enjoy the benefit of his having a good deal more time to devote to content creation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I will miss our departing arbs greatly. Thanks guys, it's been fun :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

 * Original announcement


 * It baffles me, NuclearWarfare, that you didn't mention the best part of being a clerk: the fez. I'd add to any potential applicants that this is actually quite an enjoyable job, with reacting to and resolving unique and unusual situations (normally involving prickly Arbitration participants, but also a variety of other contexts) being a sizable part of the clerk's duties. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My question is: do you get access to the ArbCom/V.I.P. Party Room, and if you do, do they make you serve the cocktails? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the number of menial clerks who then are elevated to arb masters, I'm wondering if there's some fagging implied in this system.--Scott Mac 23:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I can see where you think that, but it tends to attract the people who have a skillset that would make a good Arb.. in my case I was involved in (filing and as an interested parties) so many cases, that I didn't need the clerk job, I was already intimately familiar with what made well (and not so well) run cases. SirFozzie (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We didn't even have any former clerks (who hadn't become arbs in the mean time) running in the last election IIRC, which suggests that many of the clerks appear to have come to their senses... Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I took the job back, would I get my seniority restored for use of breakroom? I'm forced to consider such things in this economic climate.--Tznkai (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We would welcome you back with open arms and give you what you ask for and a 3 month signing bonus to boot! NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the list of open cases, we couldn't assign you to the World War II case as that one is already taken, but I suppose we could give you the gift of Longevity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * this thread features some of the lamest humour we've seen so far on wiki - much as I'd wanna volunteer to be a clerk, I kent (geddit) - too busy being superman (geddit again? - lamer puns may earn cookies.......) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it come with tools as part of the role or do you have to bring your own? If yes, are they hand-me-downs or new? If you bring your own, are you required to share? billinghurst  sDrewth  02:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

 * Original announcement

Ban appeal by User:Turbotad

 * Original announcement

Sanctions appeal by User:Koavf

 * Original announcement

World War II

 * View announcement

User:X!, our new Arbitration clerk

 * Original announcement

Appeal to BASC: SanchiTachi

 * Announcement

Shell  babelfish 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes in CheckUser/Oversight permissions

 * Announcement

Good to be back. The WMF gig was a fantastic ride, but I welcome the return to functionary work. Keegan (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back, Keegan. Risker (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ban appeal by Justanother / Justallofthem

 * Announcement

I'm guessing "will has elected to edit as" is meant to be just "has elected to edit as"? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I'd fix it now.  Roger  talk 13:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Coolcool. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

 * Announcement

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

 * Original announcement


 * A little disappointed with the "group of related tasks" verbiage. A liberal reading of that gives carte blanche for any MOS/Units related tasks, effectively revoking the sanction entirely.  The discussion leading up to the motion didn't seem to indicate intent to completely repeal the sanction. Gigs (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly disappointed, since it permits the same behavior which brought on the date delinking case in the first place. But since OhConfucius and handful of other editors are being franker than they have ever been about making MOS into more than a guideline as a power base from which automatic editing will impose their preferences on all Wikipedia, there is a broader issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We expect that the two editors in question will not come near repeating any of the problematic behavior that led to the sanctions being imposed to begin with. If a problem does arise with these users' bot-approved editing, I have no doubt that it will be brought to our attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re PMA I'm quite happy with the status of MOS as a guideline, thank you; it's manderson who is seeking to downgrade MOS to an essay. Nothing I have been doing with my MOSNUM script has proven in any way controversial, so I share Brad's confidence that history (in the sense that manderson is concerned about) will not be repeated. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity closed

 * Original announcement

I like the idea of requiring deletion of the evidence pages, but does that mean we require the involved parties to G7 them within 7 days, or does some unlucky clerk get to go on a G6 Housekeeping spree? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * John J. Bulten seems to have agreed to stay off Wikipedia for some time. He's not blocked currently, will he be blocked or not? It seems that he is willing to voluntarily avoid editing, so I don't know if an enforcement block is needed? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, question answered. He's blocked. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going by WP:BAN and standard practice when blocking his account. We always block the accounts of editors who are banned, in part so that we have some degree of protection against sockpuppets by means of autoblock. I don't care much either way but think it'd be best if he remained block (as admirable as it is to have a banned editor volunteer to abstain from editing). AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The decision suggests that parties should tag them for G7 deletion themselves. If any remain after the 7 days, clerks may take action as needed. – xeno talk  15:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dibs not me. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

 * Original announcement

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

 * Original announcement

User:Rodhullandemu

 * Original announcement


 * I am highly disappointed by this decision. Rodhullandemu has made poor actions in the past. But the Arbitration Committee has rarely if ever desysopped anyone without a full case or at the very least a public vote at Arbitration/Requests/Motions except in cases of sockpuppets, compromised accounts, etc. This situation clearly does not fit those circumstances. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two cases where we will proceed with a desysop off-wiki: when delay can prove harmful (such as the cases you used as examples), or when an on-wiki process is more likely to aggravate a situation than to fix it, as is the case now.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a Level II procedure Arbitration Committee/Procedures. If Rod wants to request a full case, he would be entitled to do so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if he chooses to do so, the desysop here is highly prejudicial – ArbCom's action has shifted the status quo to "Rod has no special access and must request to get it back" instead of the usual "the burden of evidence is upon evidence gatherers and arbitrators to show why Rod no longer should have the admin tools." <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy provides for it to be done in certain circumstances where it is necessary to stop the use of tools, and it was followed fully. I think the rest of the committee would agree with me that we wish it hadn't been necessary.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Making it clear that yes, I agree with Elen's statement above. SirFozzie (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct: there was a formal decision taken in this case, the result of which is the posted notice. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear to anyone who followed these matters that it was in the best interests of R that a public case was avoided. I say this as someone who has (frequently and loudly) objected to off-wiki decision making. This time I think it was fairest. DuncanHill (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconding NW. More backroom rubbish? Really? I thought the committee had learnt. If it's needed for emergency purposes, bother opening a damn case and use it as a temporary injunction. This is effed up, folks. That's all there is to it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations; way to kick a guy when he's down. What are you planning to do next? Kill and eat a puppy? Half  Shadow  04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just say this; I was negotiating with ArbCom as to the allegations against me, which were unsupported and appeared to constitute "throw enough mud". I asked for diffs, less than two hours ago, but didn't get them. That is unjust and disgusting. The Arbitrators who voted for this should resign immediately and put themselves to the same test they propose for myself. To do otherwise would be completely disreputable for this project. ArbCom isn't meant to be a kangaroo court. Furthermore, I retain all Wikpedia emails for this very reason. If anyone wishes to view the full exchanges, I am prepared to forward them to interested parties; they will show an interesting light on the one-sidedness of all this. Rodhull  andemu  04:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. In fact, in those emails, ArbCom was consciously and privately offering you a way to resign your tools with the possibility of regaining them via a future RfA, rather than being publicly desysop'ed, as a way to provide you a means of saving face, because of your history of positive contributions to the project. You still have the option of simply moving on, instead of causing us to elaborate a history of behaviors that led to our decision. I'd urge you to consider what's been provided to you so far, and seek the counsel of non-ArbCom experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with both you and the situations we've alluded to before deciding whether or not to pursue a public case. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, if only I had psychic powers! How am I supposed to know what was ArbCom's intention when it wasn't made clear to me? Now I know what "Kafkaesque" means. Rodhull  andemu  12:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I have your permission to publicly post the relevant parts of your reply to ArbCom's email to you which prompted the immediate desysoping? Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like it would be more relevant to post the ArbCom's mail and the response to it in their entirety, rather than cherry-picking comments. If the response was intemperate and ill-considered, it would be needlessly inflammatory and prejudicial to present it out of context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell you what... if permission is granted, I'll post the relevant clauses of both the message and reply, and if you still believe that insufficient, we can discuss more then. Until that point, such is essentially moot.  Remember, however, that ArbCom consciously decided to initiate this off-Wiki.  Rodhullandemu has the power to post any of the relevant messages in their entirety, but given his public characterizations of the messages to date, I doubt he will choose to do so. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll add this: The policy under which this has been purported to be done mandates "while an investigation is in progress". Unless and until I have had a proper chance to meet the allegations against me, the investigation is still "in progress" and that policy does not mention re-applying via RFA. So, without wishing to be Wikilawyering, I should have been desysopped ab initio and given a chance to meet those allegations. I suggest that the Arbcom reads its own policy, and applies it properly. "Fools rush in", and all that. Rodhull  andemu  04:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As Elen pointed out above: if you wish to request a public hearing, you're free to do so. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here; you want me to appeal to a body that has already taken a private decision affecting me to which I have not been a party, to overturn its own decision? I only started practising law in 1974, but never have I seen such a thing. Never at all, and as others have pointed out, that would not be the best thing to do. The best, and most honourable thing to do, in my opinion, would be for ArbCom to realise that it has made a mistake in both procedure and process, and vacate its decision forthwith. Anything less would only make it appear to be more foolish than has already been achieved. Rodhull  andemu  05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. You can request a public hearing; or you can appeal to Jimbo; or you can accept that you're no longer an administrator and move on. Your choice, really. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that's your personal POV, without discussion with your fellow-Arbs. Well done! Let's get rid of ArbCom, and just have you, then, and everyone will be happy. Rodhull  andemu  05:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is incorrect. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill is correct about the three options you have. SirFozzie (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/Procedures doesn't seem particularly applicable here. This doesn't appear to be a temporary measure (unless you completely discard the meaning of the word "temporary"). Maybe I'm just missing something? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's "temporary" in the sense that we will conduct a normal proceeding should Rodhullandemu request it; however, we are not planning to do so in the absence of a specific request, due to the unusual circumstances of this unfortunate situation. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't what the policy says. Kindly read it. Rodhull  andemu  05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the "unusual circumstances of this unfortunate situation"? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 05:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They involve private, off-wiki matters. I can't go into greater detail here, for obvious reasons. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had a very limited opportunity to put my case to ArbCom, and meet its case against me; however, I keep all Wikipedia emails and am prepared to forward them to any interested party. I doubt that the Arbs will have the same courtesy and openness. Rodhull  andemu  05:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. (Though I think a user actively requesting an Arbitration case against themselves might make me doubt their judgment more than anything else. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why it won't happen. And furthermore, if you follow the principles of natural justice, it can't now happen, because only five Arbitrators are now untainted by this decision, and the others must recuse themselves. That would leave a majority of three out of that five to endorse this decision; hardly a resounding embodiment of the principles we seek to espouse here. Rodhull  andemu  05:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about "natural justice"; ArbCom isn't an experiment in sociology. The decision to desysop was undertaken by the arbitrators in their official capacity, which means they would not be required to recuse from a later case. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, people DID say they wanted desysopping to be easier. ( X! ·  talk )  · @403  · 08:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The thinking of the Committee here seems to be that this is a "temporary" removal of permissions, made, per above, under the "Temporary removal of permissions" provisions of the procedures page. But this removal is clearly not temporary. The Committee's intention here is for the desysopping to be indefinite, unless Rodhull files an appeal. Accordingly, it is pretty odd to me to see this being called a level 1 or level 2 desysopping: it is neither, because it is a permanent desysopping (with a provision for appeal and for re-RfAing). It is in my view important for ArbCom to be honest about what they're doing. I won't talk any more about this because I don't wish to pile on criticism—and I'm also very mindful of how quickly discussions on this page can descend into lunacy, having had to shut down a few threads here myself in the past. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 11:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a note at the bottom to try and explain this, as it is covered in the policy, and does warrant explaining clearly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sure the committee are acting in the best interests of the project, and not desysopping likely, and while I'm sure the intention is to be fair to Roddhullandemu and not drag him through the mud, this does seem poorly thought through. At very least the committee are doing something new with "summary permanent desysop, with an option of appeal" - and should admit that and update the appropriate policy pages. (Although retrospective policy changes are generally thought to be a poor way of proceeding). Offering someone a "fixed-penalty to avoid a drawn out case with possibly predictable results" is fine, but it needs to be an offer, and not a summary sentence for someone who evidently contests the fact - because they way this has been done looks like it is what the committee wants, and not what Rod wants. Who is the best judge of Rodd's interests? We have to work on the assumption that he is. Is the a breach of "natural justice"? Yes, it certainly is. But I'm not sure that matters. Arbcom isn't about justice, it is about administering an encyclopedia - but predictability and transparency matter here. Be that as it may, Robb, you've now got a choice. You can accept the verdict of the star chamber and have the details of the case kept from public view, or you can contest it. That will force arbcom either to open a public case or to make public the reasons for their decision. It isn't really possible to vocally complain to the community, when the community have no knowledge of what the details are. Sorry, but that's how this falls.--Scott Mac 12:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A point that seems to have been missed in all this is why the committee would handle matters of this nature off wiki in the first place: editors tend to associate process against them with attacks on their persons (which isn't entirely surprising in a reputation-based community). When an editor is about to loose a bit or some "right", it is much more desirable that they be allowed the opportunity to save face by handling the matter discreetly than make it a tar-and-feather occasion. In a case like this one, the committee has already examined the facts (which are not in question) and voted en banc that a desysop is warranted. The admin is then told that they will have their bit removed unless they resign. At any point, the admin can offer possibly mitigating circumstances and request a public or private appeal or some other protocol whereby the committee's concerns are addressed in a way that allows the editor to save face. That a motion ends up being posted for a forcible desysop simply means that the editor did not or would not do so. Why not, then, open a whole case instead? When the facts are not at issue, then it's just a cruel extension to an already unpleasant process. The committee has already examined the evidence, and letting the peanut gallery pile on wouldn't help anything or anyone. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just on the Level II procedure itself, while it is couched in the terms of a temporary desysop, in the hope that some satisfactory explanation will ultimately become available, editors should note the section on return of permissions. Where we are at is that the Committee has decided that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate (hence the fallback to the default position that tools can be returned via Rfa, ie if the community process endorses the return of tools, there isn't some way Arbcom can refuse to endorse it). If Rod wants an arbitration case onwiki, we would obviously do that, but we are leaving it as his call.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Amen, Coren. Who the hell needs this "process" crap, anyway? When it's obvious that you're guilty, fuck being fair to a longterm contributor, to the gallows with him! The facts are indisputable here! I've never been a big fan of Rodhullandemu (or the Arbitration Committee, for that matter), but this whole thing is unprecedented and should be noted as another hop down looney lane. There are a few extraordinary aspects to this, the first of which is the lengths to which the Arbitration Committee will go to try to justify its own behavior. "Well, you see, we wrote these 'temporary removal code red procedures' a few months ago without any community consensus or approval. And even though this isn't really temporary in any meaningful sense, these rules that nobody agreed to are totally applicable here, guys. Just think about it." When you look a bit deeper, you see the Arbitration Committee's collective bargaining power. "We can remove your rights and let you fight a case, or we can just remove your rights." That's, um, kind of like plea bargaining, if you do to that term what you all have done to the word "temporary."  Most importantly, however, it occurs to me that calling the Arbitration Committee a "kangaroo court" is no longer really applicable. A kangaroo court has hearings/trials/public debate generally; that's the whole point, isn't it? No, no, the Arbitration Committee has leapt forward now into new territory. We'll need to revise the terminology appropriately. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A tad hyperbolic, perhaps, but the essence is entirely true. Why is it that the Committee can simply decide without the posting of any evidence whatsoever that they are entirely right? It is as if you all learned nothing in the past two years. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This does seem more than a tad bizarre, I don't see how one can reconcile RodHullandEmu's statement that the case is based on unsupported allegations with Coren's statement that the facts are not at issue, unless Arbcom is making a decision without being willing to let the RodHulland Emu know exactly what he has been accused of. Does RodHullandEmu now accept that "the facts are not at issue"? As for the wider issue of appeals, I don't see why five people can't form an appeal committee. Three are enough for a magistrates bench....  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The onwiki stuff is pretty much all here and here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As regards the outcome, we cannot review the appropriateness of this action because the evidence was not made public. That we do not know the reasons for which it was not made public is disappointing and has yet to be explained by the Arbitration Committee. Nonetheless, the fact that the Arbitration Committee voted unanimously to desysop Rodhullandemu makes it seem very likely to me that the evidence is convincing enough to support that outcome. We did elect these people to exercise their judgment in matters like this, including in cases in which a public discussion is not appropriate. The unanimous decision makes me rather confident that the desysop is justified on the merits. As regards procedure, I take a more critical view. I agree with AGK in that it appears that the Arbitration Committee did not follow its own procedures by enacting a permanent desysop under rules that I read as being clearly intended to cover only temporary desysops (that is, pending further proceedings). This is problematic. While the Committee has the authority to make its own rules, including about how to desysop users, it is expected to abide by them once they are made, so as to avoid appearing to act in an arbitrary manner. The choice given to Rodhullandemu to request a public hearing does not remedy this problem, because the arbitrators have already made their decision on the merits and would therefore not approach any public re-hearing without bias. A better way to proceed would have been, after finding that the requirements for a Level II procedure were met, to desysop Rodhullandemu temporarily and inform him that the Committee would decide privately about whether or not to desysop him permanently should he not request a public hearing within a certain delay. This would have allowed the Committee to conduct a public hearing without the appearance of bias. Looking forward, this case illustrates that it would be advisable for the Committee to delegate certain functions, including the temporary removal of permissions, to panels. This would allow appeals to (or, in this case, public hearings by) the Committee en banc, who would be less subject to suspicions of bias because most arbitrators would not have participated in the initial decision.   Sandstein   17:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting thoughts. I suspect the 'suspicion of bias' charge would persist whether or not the committee had said anything about resysoping, as it would have to already have had to review evidence to make a decision to desysop. Hence your suggestion of a panel is interesting. It's something that has been suggested before - maybe wants exploring in another venue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Poor form. Prodego  talk 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So can one say your preferred option is an arbitration case onwiki? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although my preferred outcome would be no change, these things should be done properly and openly. Prodego  talk 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I too have some serious qualms, not about the outcome, but about the way it has been arrived at. Pretty much per Sandstein. --John (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So what would your actual preferred process be? I have said before that Arbcom is big enough to act like a board of school governors does when a pupil is excluded.  They split into teams - one reviews the Head's decision if the parents request a review, and another acts as an appeal panel if the parent makes an appeal.  Maybe (and perhaps not for this venue) there is scope to examine some possibility of similar working in future.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Arbitration Committee/Procedures seems to be quite clear (emphasis added).
 * Temporary removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.
 * There is no provision for the ArbCom to permanently remove an admin's privileges without going through a normal case; indeed, they are explicitly required to reinstate the admin's permissions if they aren't prepared to open a case. Absent any concerns about sensitive, private, or personal information, it seems reasonable to expect the ArbCom to be able to concisely lay out their findings of fact, and the evidence on which those findings were based.  They should be able to outline the alternative remedies that they evaluated, and allow the community and (particularly) the parties the opportunity to suggest alternatives. Explaining the reasoning behind their actions to the community isn't optional.
 * I have difficulty reconciling statements that a case was avoided (and ArbCom failed to follow its own rules) due to the "unusual circumstances of this unfortunate situation" and "private, off-wiki matters" with the statements that a open on-wiki case would occur at the desysopped admin's request. I am also concerned by Elen of Roads' declaration that if the ArbCom doesn't wish to undo a 'temporary' desysopping, the "default position" is to leave the admin desysopped permanently.  This doesn't seem to be in line with any normal understanding of the word 'temporary', nor does it match up with the ArbCom's own rules that they set for themselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that there is something of a gap in the procedure in situations where there are substantial private issues. In this case, Arbcom are quite happy to open a case - most of the evidence is onwiki and the decision to desysop was made just on the onwiki evidence, so it would be possible. I've already posted a link to two of the ANI reports that are at the heart of the matter. Rod seems to be indicating above that he doesn't want a case. Is it your belief that it should be done anyway. I'd be interested in the general consensus on this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure would have been to open a case. If you didn't want to do that because it might not be in Robb's interests (which is a fair desire), then you ought to have given him the opportunity to resign to avoid it. I see no indication that Robb didn't want a case (I could be wrong). I do see him declining to appeal against a decision which you've already made, which is a different matter entirely. Temporary desysops are not there for summary disposal of cases - they are there for emergencies and urgencies where waiting until after a formal decision is made would be dangerous. I don't yet comprehend why the committee did this so irregularly. The claim seems to be "for Robb's sake" but it is evident Robb doesn't agree.--Scott Mac 19:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note (and I think Jclemens has refered specifically to this case above) Arbcom would pretty much always offer a chance to resign where it is at all appropriate - long term contributors do burn out, or suffer real life problems, and if it is possible to resolve the matter by a private resignation, that has surely to be more respectful than dragging the whole thing out onwiki.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Am I the only person here who sees the parallels between this and Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Or, if not, then you're simply not the only one to imagine parallels where none exist.  As far as I can tell, there is no hint here of a decision not having been made by the whole committee, or of an announcement made in the name of the committee that did not, in fact, have majority support.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (belatedly) @NW, yeah, very different in the underlying processes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought that up was not because of the miscommunication issue with FT2, but more of the secret trials issue. From what I recall, the Committee had investigated a number of issues about a particular editor. After their deliberations, they decided that the editor was not at fault, but Orangemarlin was, and he was summarily banned. Now, part of that might have been due to miscommunication, but a very real part of the problem was that ArbCom believed it had the power to summarily ban someone without even the pretense of asking for the Community's input with regards to evidence. What has changed since then? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been reading this from the sidelines since it was posted. Believe it is time to say something. Is there a specific provision in the ArbCom rules to allow a "permanent" desysopping to be handled via private discussion? It appears from the comments here that there is not. If this is true, the committee's only recourse in this case is to either reinstate R or hold a brief public case on the matter and place all public evidence for all to see. Otherwise the committee is in effect creating rules and process on the fly, which is a possibly dangerous precedent to set and will lead to further grumbling in future cases as has happened here. The committee then has two options: 1. formalize the process that apparently occurred here for use in future cases of a similar nature. or 2. Contact the admin privately, inform them that a case is about to begin, and give them the opportunity to resign; otherwise proceed with a public case. Both options carry certain baggage. A private process will lead to grumbling even if it's fully allowed by the rules. A private offer to resign might be seen as "railroading" a user with the threat of a public case. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  19:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In support of the ArbCom decision, I am aware now of two such desysoppings involving highly sensitive personal information or situations, and I find the ArbCom bashing here to be unhelpful and unnecessary, likely to lead only to further airing of delicate personal matters. We elected them, I for one generally trust them, there is an abundance of on-Wiki evidence to back this decision without dragging through a formal case, and this is not comparable to OrangeMarlin, who was not an admin. I wish Rodhullandemu the best, and hope he will find it possible to continue contributing, while enjoying a break from the pressures of adminship.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what might have made people more comfortable was a notice here that a case was being looked at, since on the surface it did not look like an emergency situation, and note that the evidence was primarily private. That was done on the Slim/Lar case a while back, and there weren't really complaints about how that was handled (that is a better comparison than OM). Based on the stuff onwiki alone, a desysop was appropriate, so I would think that once the offwiki stuff was combined there would be justification. Nonetheless (I never thought I would say this), my primary conern is that this was rushed. Did the offwiki evidence constitute getting this desysop done asap, or was this in the works for a while? Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu con't
The Arbitration Committee is tasked with balancing various and sometimes competing concerns. Level II procedures were followed; and as per Return of permissions, the committee determined that a routine reinstatement of permissions was not appropriate. Return of permissions suggests that in such cases, "[n]ormal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances". Normal arbitration proceedings includes the examination of situations in camera in order to balance the various concerns previous mentioned, and such proceedings were conducted. As the primary concern here was behaviour unbecoming an administrator, the committee decided that a new request for adminship would be the most effective way to determine whether Rodhullandemu maintained community confidence. Rodhullandemu is free to 1) immediately request adminship through the usual means 2) appeal publicly or privately to Jimbo Wales, who has complete access to the factors and discussions that lead to this decision or 3) request the committee open a formal case in order to allow the community to examine the factors that lead to this decision. – xeno talk  20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the Arbitration Committee being able to mandate "what is the most effective way" forward. It may specify options, but if it offered an opinion, it would be "descending into the arena", which has traditionally been deprecated when judges get involved with content of trials rather than behaviour of the parties. As it stands now, none of those options currently appeal to me, for various, very pragmatic reasons. There is the other option, of course, that ArbCom takes a step back, sees how inept it has been, vacates its decision, and at best, rehears my case properly, including a proper consideration of my input. Rodhull  andemu  00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would like your case re-heard, you can ask the committee to open a formal case (option 3). – xeno talk  14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Step back and breathe
Have you/we gone collectively batshit crazy? I hear the very people who decry how much we are not a bureaucracy complain loudly that points of fucking process were not meticulously followed, and hollers for "natural justice" demanding that an editor be dragged publicly through the mud against their will! To what end?

"Dignity be dammed, we want our public spectacle!"

You disgust me. I'm taking a couple days' break. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable considering some of the statements above; you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If this had drug into a public spectacle, an equal amount of editors would be clamoring to know why the arbs didn't deal with it privately. They tried. You were elected by the community-- carry on :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that others have different problems with this matter, but my objection is that the current procedure for desysopping are not adequate. If neither of the desysopping procedures (Level 1 nor 2) are for anything more than temporary removals of permissions, then we should write in something else: make a Level 3, for indefinite, but not necessarily permanent, desysoppings. ArbCom have done a stellar job of writing up some good procedures and a new policy of late; my suggestion is that they continue that. Especially relative to some of the previous messes that have taken place on this page, this discussion is in my view pretty level-headed - and I certainly think there are positive points being raised. It certainly doesn't, Coren, warrant disgust. Regards, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 19:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like us to try and shoehorn this into policy as currently described? You can re-cast it as temporary, until he regains the trust of the committee and the community if that would help you parse things better; the net result is the same.  I've only seen Sandstein comment that if we're unanimous on a desysop, (and correctly so, IMHO, but that's obvious) there is probably a pretty good reason behind it.  Allow me to extend his reasoning: if the trial wasn't held on-wiki, there's probably a pretty good reason behind the committee choosing to do it that way. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that there is. But it would probably help alleviate the concerns that have been voiced if you told us that reason - at least in general terms - or explain why you cannot do so.  Sandstein   20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, all the evidence that started this off is onwiki here and here for summaries. I'm not sure we'd have been thought much better of if we'd dragged all this out onwiki for a long term editor who I know is well liked by many. It's lose - lose really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last four words speak volumes. If all the evidence is onwiki, and ostensibly adequate for a desysop, why on earth wait until my block expired? On the other hand, if it wasn't, why take secret decisions without full visibility right up front and mislead me as to whether the evidence was adequate for a desysop and lead me to believe that I could have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations? As to your links, the first has been grossly misinterpreted and the first, id adequate for a desysop, is over three months old and stale, so I think it unjust to the point of insanity to rely upon it otherwise. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and especially the ex post facto apparent moving of the policy goalposts when put to the test. There's only one word for this: "disgraceful".  Rodhull  andemu  22:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rod, it's over. We did it this way to try to protect you from becoming the target of the peanut gallery, given everything that you've said onwiki about your health. If you want to spend the next four weeks hashing it all out, we'll do that, but I don't know what you expect to gain by it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for pre-judging the issue, but in no way it this "over", and kindly stop side-stepping the failure of this process. It has only just begun, and I know you're a recent Admin and Arbitrator, but the principles here go far far, beyond mere optimism and inexperience. I am going to spend some time considering all this once I have caught up on some sleep, but make no mistake, it still stinks. Rodhull  andemu  23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like increased transparency, feel free to either post the email message you were sent by ArbCom and your reply to or consent to us doing so, per my offer above. I'm sure you may have missed my request in the sea of posts above, but since you're engaging in public about this topic, I'm sure those not privy to the contents but concerned about the privacy of the initial parts of this process would find the relevant parts enlightening. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to embarrass the ArbCom in that way; however, I'll just say this: I came here to write an encyclopedia, and nothing else. Some people do not share that view. However, when pushed into a corner, however foolish a corner, my reaction is to "put up or shut up". Secret evidence is, however damaging to me personally, still secret, and that evades the transparency that should be basic to a Wiki. So I'll say this; I am angry, of course I am, and sometimes I may not have expressed myself as perfectly as you and others might have preferred. However, given the options, I invite ArbCom to commence a full investigation, and put itself up for scrutiny, as well as myself; that's only fair. I'll make it plain: I don't see the results being helpful to the governance of Wikipedia, and if I must be personally sacrificed to demonstrate that incompetence, I'm happy with that, to some extent, if only to expose bias and incompetence. However, all and everything is up for grabs. I didn't want a public spectacle; but I did expect a fair hearing. So let the world, inside and outside Wikipedia, see whether I've had one. I don't think I've had one. Over to you. Rodhull  andemu  01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I shouldn't do this, I really shouldn't. I feel like the character in a genre story who handles demon-deals. But ... (ominous music) ... Mr. Rodhull  andemu, do you swear on your Christian soul, that by proclaiming "So let the world, inside and outside Wikipedia , see whether ...", it is your wish to have The Press (crackle!) investigate and publicize this event (loud thunder)? It may be possible to arrange it. But if your wish is granted, you shall forswear holding me to any moral responsibility for the eventual results. Think carefully before you reply. Remember what usually happens to people who make deals with the devil. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. I was brought up in the Church of England, ostensibly Christian, but like most other embedded religions, riddled with inconsistency. That's why I rejected all "organised" religion, because as far as I'm concerned, it's a form of slavery. However, morality does not necessarily depend on religion, as Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative indicates, particularly in the paradox of the "murderer at the door". And of course, there is a critical conflict there with utilitarianism, which no philosopher has yet achieved in moderating; it's arguably a conflict between principle and number, absolutism and relativism, and the moral dimension is unclear between those two perceived extremes. Having said that, you believe what you like, and I will stick with evidence. What they mean is open to interpretation, and until someone comes up with a valid mediating theory, we're stuck with a set of paradoxes. Next! Rodhull andemu  02:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's been an assumption here that there was some sort of secret evidence at play in the ArbCom decision. There was no evidence considered in this motion to desysop which isn't currently available on-Wiki. What was conducted off-wiki was en banc review of the publicly available evidence; discussion about the level of sanctions warranted, including considerations of how to balance the need to publicly reprimand administrators who are uncivil to non-administrators (even to chronically uncivil non-administrators like Malleus) vs. the respect due you as a long-term productive contributor; and considerations on how to offer you a face-saving out.  The reasons there was no public case or request for evidence from you is twofold: 1) All the evidence of your sub-optimal behavior is public and nothing you could say would modify the sanctions that were and are a natural consequence of such behavior, and 2) preserving our prerogative to extend to you a less-public desysoping.  The facts of the matter are pretty clear: You've been brought to ANI multiple times, and been blocked twice for good cause.  At this point, you aren't behaving like an administrator, and you drove home this point in the email responses to our offer for you to step down quietly.  Even with the hubub this has generated, I do not regret offering you a chance to avoid this spectacle, because it was the humane and professional thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but your statement is wholly inconsistent with what has gone before. If you're going to move the goalposts, at least have the nous to cover your tracks properly. I refer to Elen's previous posts and references to my email responses, which were apparently inadequate to point you in the correct direction. And, without prejudice, Malleus walks away free? No thanks. Justice, please, not papering over the cracks and clutching at straws. Rodhull  andemu  02:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Coren, I don't want a public spectacle either. But if what was done isn't provided for in the rules it isn't provided for in the rules. If this kind of thing is for the best (and I believe it is) then this needs to be formalized so it can be utilized in the future with less grumbling. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  19:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Coren, you are missing the point. My own view is "screw bureaucracy" - we elected a committee, and if any admin has lost the confidence of the committee - remove their bit and don't even tell us why. It is no big deal anyway. However, you can't go writing in-depth policy and process pages and then ignore them (pretending you haven't) - it is just dishonest. Nor can you say "we're doing this for Robb's dignity" when Robb doesn't appear to think so - what are you? Arbcom or his mother? Now, I'm not asking you to reverse the decision, or to share the reasoning, I'm just asking for some coherent understanding of where this leaves us. If you want to power to permanently desysop without full cases, that's absolutely fine by me. Just say so.--Scott Mac 20:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As for myself, I simply saw it as piling on the poor son of a bitch. He was already blocked for 48 hours, then you wander onto his page and say "Oh yeah, by the way, we've also taken away your keys to the janitor's closet. Have a nice...whatever." Half  Shadow  20:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite so-- there are previous posts to Rodhallandemu's page, requesting that he correspond with the arbs. Notification was evident. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that people might have overlooked that "normal arbitration proceedings" also include in camera discussions. See above at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 for an expansion on this point. – xeno talk  20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Coren's right; the AC caters to the toxic community's desire for public spectacle. This is a pretty public mess; my being publicly damned has dragged on for fucking years. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As in "That damned Gold Hat; the coating keeps coming off"? Half Shadow  20:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No; Gold Hat., Gold Hat (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis
The above is getting a little messy, so allow me to try to summarise the main points: Correction welcome if I am wrong on any point. AGK [</nowikI>&bull; ] 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There has been no public decision-making in relation to this case. Many view this as an arbitrary desysopping more akin to an action of the Committee of Public Safety than of an elected dispute-resolution body.
 * 2) In actuality, the decision-making was private because much of the evidence is not suited for public viewing. One role of ArbCom is to make decisions based on private data. We elected them to do that, and we must trust their judgment.
 * 3) The desysopping was prompted by something that Rodhull said to ArbCom during their discussion, and so is "temporary" in that he must explain himself in relation to whatever it was he said. (I was confused about this earlier too.)
 * 4) As he has thus far declined to explain himself, he will remain desysopped. When he decides to do so, the indefinite desysopping will be finalised - one way or the other. The ball is currently in Rodhull's court, not ArbCom's.
 * 5) Screaming and shouting is for the most part unhelpful.
 * I believe Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 may also help to clarify things. – xeno talk  20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A slight correction: to reinforce what I said above, what was considered off-wiki leading to the de-sysop decision doesn't include any evidence not already present on-wiki. Any interested editor has access to all the evidence considered by ArbCom in private deliberation which informed the decision to de-sysop. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I urge Rod to formally request a case here, even if he thinks it's a lost cause. The committee might not have been interested, but some of us would really like the principle of examining all parties to be applied here. As far as I can see, and there's no evidence offered up in contradiction, Rod didn't just one day become an alleged Grade A bastard worthy of summary desysopping, this has been developing for months, if not years, and outside of relations with Malleus, he was a very good and definitely committed admin right up until this motion. In addition to answering for his actions, as he of course has to, other people, through action and inaction, have cases to answer here for allowing this 'toxic environment' to develop. The charge here is "feuding" after all. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No relation to Malleus. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's "Rod," not "Rob." (I've made this mistake previously.) It helps if you think about it as four separate words: Rod hull and emu. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops :P. Fixed, with thanks. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And, erm, knowing what the name was inspired by. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I hate to be seen as kicking a guy when he's down. But with all due respect to Rodhullandemu's dedication, that same, let us say, devotion, seemed to combine very poorly with his evident life situation - in a way I would contend raised serious questions about his ability to function well as an admin. He's given me grief for a long time, as I'm often critical of Wikipedia. I try not to bear him any ill-will, and to respond as compassionately as I can under the circumstances (often not easy). But when he recently used his admin status as a threat, I felt he'd really crossed a line. Granted, he did knock it off (so far) when requested. But it's definitely a problem of "free-fire zone with live targets". By the way, while we're on the topic of private vs. public cases, can I ask some Arbs who will treat a critic fairly to email me (so as not to thread-hijack) about ways a critic can effectively address future admin misbehavior? Thanks. The problem with a critic doing any public complaint is the possibility of the admin then making extensive personal attacks - in terms of social game-playing, they have everything to gain by doing so and almost nothing to lose (sigh, I know, this makes me a censor, but any dispute resolution system has to balance public vs. private). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing against Seth as a guy; he's probably good to have a pint with. But if you are inimical to Wikipedia, and/or Jimmy Wales, I don't see the need to come here and push the point. The guy has a platform already on his blogs, and if that is inadequate, there's always Wikipedia Review. As regards his contributions, they do seem somewhat focussed on talking us down. Seriously, neutrality apart, do we need that? Sorry, Seth. Rodhull  andemu  23:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seth made some edits to List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction I recall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yep;, . Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Next section
@Elen and Coren. The two threads Elen posted, here and here, are very illuminating, making me wonder how anybody who has followed the case, or who now reads those diffs, can claim that "the community have no knowledge of what the details are" (Scott Mac) and similar, as if there were some kind of mystery. The community has seen this sad tale unfold, if they've kept their eyes even approximately open. The reasons the committee are refraining from describing the problem in detail seem quite clear to me, from the information Elen has provided. Not only arbcom but all of us have a responsibility for not spreading sensitive personal information over the Internet. Please read the information that we already had, and that has been given again in this discussion, from that point of view rather than through some wiki-legalese spectacles. MZMcBride, you're talking like a fool. Not that you're the only one. Coren has nailed it with his "spectacle", and, ironically, Gold Hat seems to be one of the very few people to keep his senses in this context. Perhaps it's The Lord of the Flies that does it. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC).
 * What people miss is that the choice of Jack Merridew was never intended to refer to myself. And for years, I've been tied to that name and the associations. The problem with Wikipedia is the ambient toxicity of the "community". It's all fine to pretend, and to look at the 'bright' side of the community, but far too many of the regulars are simply toxic game players. They treat it as a free-fire zone with live targets, some of whom are tied to stakes. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Xeno's explanation above sums up the Arb's thinking on the matter quite nicely, and I agree with it. They might consider modifying the wording of removal of permissions to avoid consternation in the future, but the way Xeno described it convinces me that they have applied their rules appropriately to the situation. The ball's in Rob's court. If he wants to appeal he can, if he wants to have a go at an even bigger zoo he can do that too. The threads above point to the possibility of what kind of evidence was being dealt with. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the guy or he's acting like a jackass and you don't want him to be an admin (and you've got the power to simply remove him), there's not much anyone can do to stop you. But let's not subvert the English language, logic, and a sense of justice/fairness for vested contributors and pretend as though this is standard practice or within the bounds of "temporary removal procedures." Coren's comments are so jarring as they go against every principle of social justice and fairness. The reason it's so easy to ban an anonymous user and so difficult to de-admin an admin is that one is a vested contributor (and a VestedContributor). The fact that it's difficult is a feature, not a bug. When you simply push people off the cliff like this (not that he didn't necessarily deserve to be) under the guise of an "emergency removal to protect the wiki," it further eviscerates any concept of a sane system. At a minimum, the Arbitration Committee should be more forthcoming about what they're doing. As AGK alludes to above, just write We can de-admin, ban you, block you, or do whatever else for whatever duration at any time, mark it as policy, and be done with it. Being upfront about all of this won't make the Arbitration Committee any better liked, but it will at least be able to stand on some sort of principle. The current practice of manipulating and coercing made-up policies and real words isn't acceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Change "temporary" to "indefinite" on the policy page and you have exactly what's happened in this case and others (Tan comes to mind). Now that it's been explained, I see we're dealing with a question of wording and not with a question of policy. Kind of like the consternation that occurs today over what these guys really meant when they wrote this. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  21:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why this is a big deal. After all, aren't we lead to believe that adminship is no big deal? From what I can see, almost all arbcom decisions are made in a back smoky room. (You have to be drunk or delusional to think anyone in their right mind would read through a request page and its talk, a workshop and its talk, and an evidence page and its talk before making a decisions.) At least they are admitting it.

If we all put this much time, energy, and brain power into a stub it would be a GA by now. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   05:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly enough, I do read all those pages, the back room is smoke-free, and I still have time to nominate an FA. You're welcome to comment on it :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you'd be mistaken about how much reading we do.. just to try to keep ahead of things.. which admittedly is no fun on our more complicated cases. SirFozzie (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected SirFozzie and I will look at that page David Fuchs. The game was published in my birth year. --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk   01:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To comment on Bishonen's point at the beginning of this section, as a member of the community who has not been following the Rodhullandemu situation at all, reading this discussion and the various threads linked to it sheds no light on the wisdom or legitimacy of Arbcom's actions here, or lack thereof. I see in the one case a tangling with Malleus Fatuorum, one of the most storied editors around, and on the other a string of bizarre out of character edits.  You could spin thoroughly opposed interpretations of either of these incidents, and for me to understand the underlying case I would have to either an organized indexing of the underlying material, or the careful, neutral, commentary of uninvolved editors I trust.  Of course the evidence is all there somewhere in Wikipedia's edit history (and possibly some private messages and emails), it always is.  If that were the standard no case would ever have to be done publicly.  But instead we have open processes for most things, not just decrees from above.  What's missing is accountability - a record, available to interested editors like me, from which to form our own opinions on whether ArbCom and its various individual members are acting wisely or within their mandate.  You can't just tell the community that ArbCom knows best and that the we should trust their decisions (something I generally agree with, albeit with some healthy skepticism and exceptions), and then hold a vote every year on who should be on the committee.  Without openness and accountability any body - particularly an online one with anonymous membership and few real life reprecussions - will drift off and become useless.  Even if for one reason or another the evidence and discussion had to be suppressed (avoiding criticism and controversy does not seem like a good reason), there should be some way for uninvolved interested community members to evaluate after the fact whether ArbCom is doing its job.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. For that to happen, we would need transparency, which is why we have evolved processes. Without being a process-wonk, I really don't see why there was the urgency to desysop without a process here. --John (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair John, you're not seeing it because that's the bit that's confidential. The circumstances that would warrant a desysop is onwiki. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

For the encyclopedia's sake
. Ridiculous. Needs a short block or protection to deal with that, but nobody else is being as reactive as am I. But I am powerless, while the ArbCom fuck about amongst themselves. Come on! When did they recently cope with vandalism at the coalface? Get real, please. Rodhull andemu  01:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That IP is reverting vandalism in that edit. – xeno talk  01:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will go patrol. -- Diannaa (Talk) 02:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nawlin Wiki is also active. It's ok, not much going on. -- Diannaa (Talk) 02:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness of all future ArbCom proceedings
Earlier in this extended thread, JClemens posted the following addressed to Rodhullandemu:
 * The reasons there was no public case or request for evidence from you is twofold: 1) All the evidence of your sub-optimal behavior is public and nothing you could say would modify the sanctions that were and are a natural consequence of such behavior, and 2) preserving our prerogative to extend to you a less-public desysoping.

Let's consider this carefully. An arbitrator stated that there is no need to take evidence from an editor that the Committee is considering sanctioning, basically because (s)he cannot imagine any defence that might be offerred. This is exactly the kind of argument that is used to justify secret trials, and screams bias. In the wake of OrangeMarlin, Jimbo made it abundantly clear that no editor would be sanctioned without having the opportunity of responding to evidence against them before any decision is made. So, I have two questions: There is a lot more that can be said here. I accept that at least most of ArbCom were motivated by concern over Rodhullandemu's health, but the actions you have taken were unwise and damaging both to Rod and to ArbCom. Please, stop trying to defend some outrageous actions and do something ArbCom almost never does - admit you stuffed up, and try to do something about the mess created. You will earn more respect with an honest mea culpa that with a stubborn defence that many already see straight through. EdChem (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) To all arbitrators who endorse JClemens' view, why is it suddenly acceptable to sanction an editor without presenting him or her with evidence and providing an opportunity to respond?  Under what other circumstances will such star chamber tactics be acceptable?
 * 2) To all arbitrators who dispute JClemens' view, why have you not publicly repudiated this approach?  Have you rebuked JClemens privately, and if so, why do you believe that it is appropriate to not record publicly the unacceptability of a proceeding which includes no opportunity to present a defense?
 * 3) To JClemens, do you stand by your statement?  If so, why?  If not, what has caused you to change your view?
 * 4) To all arbitrators, is it now clearer why the actions taken here have forever tainted the action taken against Rodhullandemu, even if an unbiased review of the evidence would support the conclusions you have reached?
 * So here's a counter question and a clarification statement:
 * 1) What sort of explanation should ArbCom have expected, given Rodhullandemu's history of inappropriate behavior? (Just search the ANI archives and read 'em to make a judgment here before responding... I know I did) This is not a rhetorical question--if there were excuses for behavior, they would have been sought before a motion was made.  Being uncivil back to a non-administrator is not a matter of motivation, however--strict liability seems a more apt metaphor: it's not that I or the committee as a whole couldn't imagine a defense, it's that there simply wasn't any defense--not for the most recent poor conduct, not for any which had been previously noted.  To reiterate, I am serious about this question: which community member, seeing all of Rodhullandemu's block log and various discussions at ANI, believes him fit to hold the administrator bit at this point in time?  If none do in good faith, then we're looking at improving the process rather than the outcome, aren't we?
 * 2) What makes you think he didn't get a chance to defend himself? He, in fact, did submit multiple emails to the arbitrator who contacted him between the time in which he was told he was going to be desysop'ed and the time he was, in fact, desysop'ed. Rodhullandemu has declined to make those emails public. I'd encourage you to see if he'll revisit that decision, or perhaps just share them privately with you.  I suspect you'll find them enlightening.
 * While the other arbs can certainly speak for themselves, I have not been contacted privately by any of the rest of the committee, which probably says more about our relative time zones than anything else at this point. I think it too early to speculate on damage, but the negative feedback certainly is not pleasant.  I neither regret voting to desysop Rodhullandemu, nor doing so in a manner that offered him an opportunity to save face.  If there were a way to achieve both those goals consistent with a public hearing beforehand that I and the rest of the committee have overlooked, then I welcome that feedback and would enthusiastically implement such an improved process, and I am confident the rest of the committee would, too.  In a choice between process wonkery and humanity, I side with the latter--which is ironic, in that several ArbCom voters guides suggested that I would do precisely the opposite. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * JClemens, you ask why I think he didn't get a chance to defend himself: in fact, it's simple - you said so. You said The reasons there was no public case or request for evidence from [Rodhullandemu] ... – in other words, ArbCom did not request evidence from him.  And, you confirm it: [Rodhullandemu], in fact, did submit multiple emails to the arbitrator who contacted him between the time in which he was told he was going to be desysop'ed and the time he was, in fact, desysop'ed. – in other words, he was told the sentence and then allowed to comment.  The process here is so flawed that it is irretruevably tainted, and that is ArbCom's fault.  It would not have been hard to hold a hearing, even in camera, but your own statements prove that never happened.  You should be ashamed that your own code of ethical behaviour failed to scream at you that a verdict without even inviting evidence from the editor you wish to sanction is simply wrong, and  that you defend that as the "human" thing to do is amazing.  In your rush to desysop you failed to treat Rodhullandemu with humanity, and that is truly sad, and you (collectively) acted in a manner unbecoming an arbitrator.  The question now is whether you or the Committee can admit to the mess you have created.  EdChem (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a further response from me, I am expecting a response to the three questions in my point 1), above. If a dialogue isn't desired, then that's unnecessary, of course. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Ed did in fact answer one of J's questions but J gives a sarcastic and dismissive answer as if Ed had not. Not improving the public perception here!  212.183.140.50 (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I simply don't desire to dialogue about the process in isolation from the circumstances that prompted it, and clarified that expectation, which I'd hoped I'd made clear above. To the extent that someone's seeing sarcasm and dismissiveness, that wasn't intended. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll engage with you, but you aren't going to like my answers:
 * What sort of explanation should ArbCom have expected, given Rodhullandemu's history of inappropriate behavior?
 * Firstly, it is not for me to speak for Rodhullandemu nor to predict what other evidence he might have offerred. Secondly, and vastly more importantly, it is not for ArbCom as the body with the power to sanction to declare that you can imagine no extenuating circumstances and thus choose neither to seek an explanation nor to consider what the editor has to say in imposing a sanction.  To decide, as you did, that nothing that Rod could have said would have made any difference demonstrates a huge failure to act in an impartial manner.  Your own words disqualify you from making a decision {"if there were excuses for behavior, they would have been sought before a motion was made") irrespective of the evidence and they taint the decision made.  This is such a basic principle of reasoned decision making in any context that I am astonished any arbitrator could fail to recognise it – gather all evidence before making a decision.
 * As for what Rod might have said, perhaps there had been abusive emails to Rod and he was provoked – that might alter whether a truly temporary desysop might be warranted, and also might indicate other sanctions were appropriate. Were there such emails?  I have no idea, but I recognise that it is a possibility that Rod could speak to, had he been given the chance.  Perhaps there were interactions on other projects that were spilling over here.  Perhaps there were emails to Rod from others egging him on, encouraging him to let fly.  Perhaps he happened to snap the day he learned of a close relative's terminal illness.  I don't know what was going on in Rod's mind and neither does ArbCom.  The on-wiki evidence may justify a de-sysop but off-wiki circumstances warrant perhaps a temporary relinquishing of tools.  My point here is that ArbCom were wrong to reach a decision without providing a fair chance for Rod to comment.  It would have been easy for ArbCom to have provided that chance.  But, you failed to act appropriately, and that is your fault and your mess to sort out.  Not one ArbCom member should have a problem endorsing the statement "we will not sanction an editor without first showing the editor the evidence against him or her and then considering any response / defence which s/he offers".
 * Before we go on, it is important to note a very serious flaw in the argument you appear to be planning to make. Arguing that the decision was correct so there is no problem is an "ends justify the means argument".  Even if the decision / conclusion is correct there remain serious problems.  Even if the decision is correct, ArbCom have just publicly declared that there are some cases where editors will not be given the opportunity to have the evidence prevented and their defence considered – this undermines the credibility of ArbCom into the future and raises questions about what other short-cuts ArbCom might take in the future in the interests of expediency or for their own convenience.  Even if the the decision is correct, the taint of sentencing Rod without seeking evidence leaves open suspicions that there is something being hidden and that ArbCom acted from secret motives – this undermines whether ArbCom statements can be trusted, and it raises fear of ArbCom as a body that act on its own whim to desysop at will.  Even if the decision is correct, what was done is clearly inconsistent with the policies which are supposed to govern ArbCom – this leaves ArbCom appearing more as a body with unlimited power and which is a law unto itslef.  Even if the decision is correct, what was done to Rodhullandemu in terms of making him feel persecuted, powerless, and a victim cannot be undone.  ArbCom must act in the interests of the encyclopedia, yes, but that doesn't mean by deliberately mistreating editors.  How do you think Rod feels when you declare that nothing he could have said would have swayed you and so it wasn't necessary to even ask for his evidence?  How do you think onloookers feel about that?  What you have done here, even if the desysop decision is correct, has been very much to the detriment of the editors, the encyclopedia, and the institution of ArbCom.
 * To reiterate, I am serious about this question: which community member, seeing all of Rodhullandemu's block log and various discussions at ANI, believes him fit to hold the administrator bit at this point in time? If none do in good faith, then we're looking at improving the process rather than the outcome, aren't we?
 * I have expressed directly to Rod that I had doubts about his status as an admin. Had ArbCom dealt fairly with him on this topic, there likely would not be an issue.  But, even if no one questions the desysop, that does not mean we are only talking about process and outcome.  The outcome here includes damage to ArbCom, which you should be ashamed to have caused.  The outcome includes reinforcing the negative views of ArbCom and reminding us of the failures of previous Committees.  To me, the outcome again points to the need for an arbitrator code of conduct that is outside the control of ArbCom, the past Arbitrators, and the close circle that defends Arbcom.  What happened here was a huge failure in process, but that is not nearly as serious as the evident failure to comprehend why a sentence without a trial is an outrageous injustice both to Rod and to the editor community as a whole.  Looking to allow Rod an opportunity to save face is noble, and it is good to hear that this was a concern facing the Committee.  Unfortunately, by deciding without consulting Rod and acting as you did that opportunity was denied.  The subsequent ultimata "well, we can have an on-wiki case but if you do that we'll bury you to prove we were right" (and that is how some comments above read, at least to me) is also not a meaningful offer of a chance to put his case or to be judged fairly.  The decision has been made, the sentence is in, holding the case now would be a farce and we all know it.  You tainted any possibility of a fair case by deciding to desysop and then contacting him afterwards.  There is no remedy I can see to redeem the situation so as to make the decision seem fair or made in an unbiased way.  The Committee's credibility in this case is gone.  What you need to decide is whether you are willing to admit to the mess you've made and see whether the damage can be minimised, or declare yourselves incapable of error (unfortunately, a common ArbCom attitude) and hope most people forget what you have done. EdChem (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time for that response. I think you stray a bit towards hyperbole, though.  No one needs to be buried in evidence--as the evidence you've seen on-wiki has caused you to question Rodhullandemu's status as an admin, it so influenced every ArbCom member who voted on the motion.  No one piece is damning, so much as the totality of evidence paints a picture of someone not currently suited for the tools. Everyone can have a (presumably explainable) bad day or a bad week, as I can personally attest, but that wasn't the case here, which involved a long-term pattern of behavior. If we'd hashed this out on-Wiki the result would have been the same, but with the public spectacle unavoidable. No one is desysop'ed for a mistake or for human frailty. Rather, any explanation which bears on a chronic pattern of behavior unbecoming an administrator is really more aptly explained to the community in a future RfA--that is, the committee has handed Rodhullandemu's administrator status back to the community.
 * Rodhullandemu is not desysop'ed for any period of time; he can start an RfA today, though I doubt it would succeed. Had he chosen to resign quietly, the offer was for him to "volunteer" to go through RfA should he desire the bit back. While multiple editors might suspect what had transpired, actual documentation of the outcome would have only been shared with the Bureaucreats. He did not take us up on that offer.
 * Indeed, you're not privy to the contents and tone of the message that was delivered, nor of the response ArbCom received. Every effort was made to give Rodhullandemu a choice to walk away from his bit, but that didn't happen.  The evidence that would have the best chance of restoring your faith in ArbCom and the processes are the emails sent and received on the topic.  Rodhullandemu has cast that email exchange in one particular light, which I find not congruent with what was actually said.  Do you really think we up and said "You're fired.  Are you going to quietly or make a scene?"  Had we done that, it would be entirely inconsistent with the goal of treating Rodhullandemu as gently and humanely as possible.
 * No, the right outcome doesn't excuse poor process, and I've seen several excellent suggestions for process improvement below--which hopefully won't be necessary again anytime in the near future. Since desysops for personal conduct outside the scope of a case are so relatively rare, I'm not surprised there's room for improvement.  I don't want to see that "improvement" force us to drag people through the mud in public in order to maintain order, however, and I'm afraid that's what I'm seeing that your suggestions would require.  If you don't see things that way, you've got my personal invitation to run for ArbCom next go round.  You're passionate and articulate, and I'd love to be there to see what tradeoffs you'd make in a case like this. Jclemens (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several quite obvious inconsistencies in Jclemens's explanation above. Spot them all and win valuable prizes! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So do feel free to point them out so I can correct or clarify them. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On what basis, EdChem, is the process flawed? ArbCom is not a criminal court with powers to incarcerate or fine, it is a dispute resolution body on a Wiki. In fact, Rodhullandemu was given an outline of ArbCom's concerns and was asked to respond. He was also asked to refrain from using the tools until it was resolved. In many ways, this situation as comparable with blocking. Should administrators ask people they are about to block for their side of the story before a block is placed? What does the admin do if the blockee simply claims that posting obscenities or edit-warring is acceptable, or completely fails to get the point in some other fashion? As JClemens says, very often, especially when the standard of proof is balance of probabilities, the facts really do speak for themselves.  Roger  talk 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger, JClemens has admitted already that the "outline of ArbCom's concerns" was given to Rod after the decision to desysop had been taken. "Here's your sentence, would you like to offer evidence for the trial?" is not dispute resolution nor is it justice.  If you really don't know why evidence before punishment should be mandatory at ArbCom then I am unsure what to say.  You already have the power to temporarily desysop in a true emergency, and that would be the apt analogy to your blocking example.  What happened here was not like that... as a Committee you made a decision which you then communicated to the editor as a fait accompli, denying Rod any right of input into the decision making process.  That is an outrageous misuse of ArbCom power.  EdChem (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was after consensus to desysop had emerged. Which, of course, doesn't mean that the consensus was immutable as arbitrators can and do change their minds. I can't speak for the others but I only made finally decided in favour once I'd seen RH&E's responses. My primary concern was the prevention of harm to the encyclopedia and RH&E had emphatically stated that he wasn't prepared to refrain from using the tools while the situation was being resolved so the blocking analogy is more apt than it seems. It would be helpful though to see all this in context. Take edit-warring for example: the bright line there is 3RR and policy provides a few "statutory" exemptions. If those exemptions aren't argued, or aren't applicable, what defence is there? Clearly, to simply say that "I was right and the other person was wrong" is no defence at all. Similarly, the civility policy prohibits personal attacks. Is a defence of "I'm like that. I respond in kind." a valid defence? I think not.  Roger  talk 09:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help if people making proposals like this indicate whether they have followed the public history. The public history is more than sufficient to justify what has been said about arbcom's desire to keep their deliberations private. There is plenty of reason to believe that a public raking of the coals would be very unhelpful to those involved. There is no reason to imagine that arbcom is about to embark on a vendetta against admins, so no benefit to the encyclopedia would result from turning this into a circus. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe a major point of consternation is the manner in which it was done. It was eloquently explained by Xeno above; the difficulty rests in that the committee is combining sections of policy: off-wiki deliberation, Level II desysop, "temporary" in as much as Rod may regain his permission by seeking appeal or reinstatement via RFA. While not abundantly clear at the beginning it makes sense now that it's been explained. And for those who followed the ANI incidents it's also abundantly clear that lines were crossed that a sysop cannot cross without reasonable explanation. Frankly I'm slighty surprised that the ANI threads did not result in a desysopping right then and there; there was ample evidence to warrant it. Certainly no user with a block log like Rod's would be given the bit at RFA these days. I am sure Rod knows this, and perhaps some of his complaints on the result here are because he knows a RFA will probably fail (Herostratus's reconfirmation RFA comes to mind here). I'm sure he also knows neither Jimbo nor arbcom is going to restore his bit. So his only chance for getting it back is to find fault with the process by which it was removed. Bearing these points in mind, a couple suggestions:
 * When announcing motions on the noticeboard, include a section listing the ArbCom policies utilized. In this case it would be "in camera, Level II desysop, reinstatement by appeal or RFA". This will clarify to the community what policies are being utilized.
 * Change "Temporary" to "Indefinite" on the Desysop policy. Indefinite removals are what's occurring, and the policies as written seem to say that a "temporary" removal would only occur if someone's kid got a hold of the account and started messing with it. Once the password's changed, have the bit back. I really don't see how a level II "unbecoming behavior" desysop could result in a "temporary" removal in any way. "Indefinite" would bring the terminology more in line with blocking policy and would prevent the consternation over the "temporary" nature of the desysop as has occurred above.
 * <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  07:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ed, your arguments suffer from the simple reality that you are not in possession of a full set of facts (a situation beyond your control). Above, I had suggested that Rod could appeal to Jimbo Wales, who could review all the factors and discussions that led to the committee's discussion. You too (or anyone else, for that matter), could ask Jimmy to investigate this to see if there has been a failure in process, or a lack of adherence to basic principles of fairness. – xeno talk  14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only question that needs putting to Jimbo is to ask him if the complete absence of any wider investigation of this feud, and the complete absence of any attempt by the committee to lay down any general principles or directions based on the evidence, except of course that Rod can't be an admin anymore, bodes well for Wikipedia becoming a less toxic place in future, given that it is an eminently repeatable situation given many of the prevailing themes and tactics. He's usually able to take the wider view, and is likely to understand that this whole thing is bigger than just that one black and white decision. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeno, I agree I'm not in possession of the emails, but I am taking the word of JClemens and Roger Davies that the decision was taken without consulting Roddhullandemu, that it was not necessary to even invite evidence from him, and that he was first contacted when the decision was a fait accompli. Not one arbitrator has yet been willing to endorse that these actions were acceptable in a fairness sense, but also none has contradicted that this is exactly what was done.  Had the process included taking evidence from Rod before making a decision, I think there would be arbitrators edit conflicting each other in their rush to say so.  Certainly, the option that JClemens mentions being offered to Rodhullandemu was a compassionate way forward once a desysop decision was reached; however, it does not rectify the flaws in reaching that point.  I am at a loss to understand why ArbCom is apparently unable to recognise either the damage to its reputation by declining to take evidence or the damage it has done to Rodhullandemu psychologically.  Neither of these was necessary to deal with the disruption allegedly associated with Rod.  EdChem (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I will say something I have said before: Perhaps Arbcom got this right. If they did get it right it was because they were more lucky that they were given a case that was straightforward all the way down, rather than that they used good and rational procedures which could give them confidence that they got it right. If they use the procedures used here on a less than lucky case which is not exactly what it seems at a glance, they will get that case wrong. I urge the Committee that if they ever need to try a case privately in the future to ensure that at least two people develop presentations of evidence in isolation and the parties concerned are at least allowed to review the presentations of their owns actions for errors and omissions before any decision is reached. These are the most basic requirements that must be met for the Committee to have any rational claim to confidence in it's own decision. However the greater the amount review that any evidence receives by disparate parties the higher the level of confidence that the resulting decision merits.-- Birgitte  SB  16:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen several suggestions about how the evidence can be examined independently by several people, and it is going to be worth looking at how we manage in camera cases so that there is clarity on the fairness of the process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To amend that, BirgitteSB; those might be the most basic requirements that must be met for observers to have claim to confidence in the Committee's decision. Our confidence isn't the issue here; whether cases where there are good reasons for not going into full disclosure, like this one, should have some other mechanisms changed is another question. I echo Elen's comments that we are looking into making this less obtuse from a process standpoint. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this has nothing to do with observers. This is necessary for you to have any rational claim to confidence at all. Confirmation bias can lead to strong claims of confidence, but not rational claims to confidence. There are a number of other tricks human brains use beside that one to instill irrational confidence. If you proceed in a way that comes naturally to you, that seems obvious, you are not going to rationally be able to claim confidence in your decision. You can't rationally depend on what will seem obvious to you, you have follow a careful, unnatural procedure to mitigate the irrationality of human cognition.-- Birgitte SB  03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Emails
I am, as a member of the Wikipedia community, requesting that a transcript of the emails directed towards Rodhullandemu from the arbitration committee be posted/made available to the community. If Arbcom is truly representative of the Wikipedia community's interests, then it is the community's right to know the extent of the committee's activities. And if a ruling made by the committee is particularly contentious in nature, then it is imperative that transparency be maintained. It is my understanding that Rod has not authorized emails sent from his end to be made available, so I would only like to see the text of the emails the arbitration committee sent. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this, as a secondary preference to releasing the entire conversation with Rodhullandemu's permission. I wasn't the arbitrator who authored the emails, though. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (and support SG below). Fictio cedit veritati . Lord Roem (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC) This issue really has been bothering me. Roger below makes me think of the other side of the issue. It really seems like a Catch-22: reveal the information and possibly hurt someone or keep it disclosed and put distrust on the Committee. At the end of the day, I am willing to believe that the Committee knows best as to this matter. And, another Latin quote comes to mind: Veritas odium paret. Lord Roem (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and I have asked Rod if he will consent to having his side of the conversation made public too. I think this would alleviate the concerns some of us have about lack of transparency. --John (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am, as a member of the Wikipedia community, requesting that this spectacle and hounding of the arbs stop; if they do release e-mails, that's the end of ArbCom and sensitive deliberations in delicate matters. Everyone should go write articles, and express their views about this matter in next year's elections. No wonder so many good editors don't want to be arbs. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While I share the "get back to work!" sentiments, SG, considering that the committee's efforts to shield Rodhullandemu from publicity over the desysop'ing have failed, I don't think releasing the emails is as bad for either the transparency in this case or for the future of private deliberations. Obviously, if everything had gone optimally, there would be no need to share any emails--nor any indication to the general public that such correspondence had taken place. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You open that door, you shut off any more private conversations about far more delicate matters than the unfortunate specifics of Rodhullandemu's life, which are already spread all over the Wikpedia for those who care to look and stop this spectacle before it results in airing of sensitive and delicate private matters involving a real human being. On the other hand, Rodhullandemu has certainly asked for it, in spite of the arbs' best efforts to preserve his dignity.  People put things on the internet all the time that a real-world attorney would advise not to even say, much less write, much less write in a public forum.  There is absolutely nothing contentious about the conclusion here-- the evidence is all over Wikipedia.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not advocating that ArbCom release any contents of its private deliberations, which I agree are too sensitive to be released. What I'm not objecting to is the release of emails sent and received--there are about 5 total.  I've gone back and read Roger's initial email again, given his reaction below, and still don't see that it is anywhere near as sensitive as the deliberations.  I'll defer to Roger's preferences, now that I've made mine known. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the email and believe that releasing it would create a terrible precedent. We write to people about delicate situations all the time and they should not fear the release of the email to public fora a day or two later. Roger talk 21:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh? And why is that? What is in those emails that cannot be shared?  Is there something you're not telling us?  Do you have something to hide?  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No :) It's bad enough trying to write to individuals persuasively about some of the things we do without having to keep in mind that it might be routinely released to public fora a day or two later. While I agree that there's nothing here that's especially sensitive, I do believe that it's a very bad precedent.  Roger  talk 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many people discussing this work for a larger organisation? Would you expect discussions about say a capability hearing on an employee, or the transcript of a disciplinary hearing, to be posted on the noticeboard with the announcement about the pub quiz? In fact, think about it, do you routinely get to hear when employees are disciplined or dismissed? Or is this considered confidential? It is sometimes appropriate to carry out actions in public, and it sometimes isn't, and if something was done on a confidential basis, it would require the agreement of all parties to make it public, and even then there are, as Sandy says, issues with doing it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Elen, one difference is that in a professional setting people are often represented, either by lawyers or unions. The difficulty on WP with private decisions is that there's neither representation nor transparency. I think a positive development would be to set up some form of "public defender," for the want of a better term, for people being sanctioned in non-public processes, and an assurance that either the subject or his representative gets to see all the correspondence. The representative could then act as a go-between between the community and the Arbs if needed (as in "I have seen all the correspondence, and I can assure you that ... etc.) SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt that such an individual can be found amongst the community that would be deemed to be more "trustworthy" than those we elect to ArbCom, with the expectation of felicity and honesty, or might be co-opted from the WMF - and they would be prey to all the usual accusations of bias and lack of transparency as soon as they declare a conclusion which counters an individuals (or a group of individuals) position. Unless the position is going to be entitled "WikiScapegoat", this is a non starter. Indeed, the effort for creating an "advisory panel" to help ArbCom better interact with the community was very quickly deprecated a few years back; people really are not interested in finding a champion of an uninvolved viewpoint, but rather a champion of their viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a question of representation, LH. The subject would choose his representative from a panel, and that person would be privy to all the correspondence, including material that was not intended to be seen by the subject. It would need some working out, but I think it would help resolve the private/public dilemma. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Or, to follow the analogy, if an employee was dismissed and believes the dismissal to be unfair, should they have redress? Or should it be ok for the employer to say "we did what we did in secret and we were right, and we don't need to discuss it with anybody"? Let's see what Rod says to my request; if he is happy to leave it like this then I am, and if he says it's ok to publish the emails, then let's do that. --John (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Has he responded? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Elen, your analogy places ArbCom in the position of the all-powerful employer with the admins and editors as subordinates. Sorry to disillusion you but ArbCom are not the bosses of Wikipedia – as has often been said, ArbCom are not GovCom.  Yes, you are authorised by the community to act on our behalf in certain areas, but that does not mean that the community is not entitled to question ArbCom decisions, criticise process and outcomes, and defend the sovereignty of the community.  Further, accepting your analogy for the sake of discussion for a moment, how do you think an employer who routinely demoted employees based on secret evidence and refused to allow the employees to defend themselves or offer evidence until after the decision was taken would be viewed?  How long would an emplyer acting like this would retain the confidence of employees?  EdChem (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * EdChem: I'm not talking about making decisions without consulting the editor (although this is fairly standard practice in the HR departments of large organisations - if you've never had it done to you, count yourself lucky). I'm talking about not conducting HR business in public. Quite different. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing more that can be achieved from this discussion. For the good of all concerned, let's lay this to rest. ArbCom are elected to make decisions on the behalf of the community. I make no comment on this decision, but if the community doesn't think its interests are being represented, then they can voice their concerns in the elections in December. In the meantime, Rodhullandemu has two avenues of appeal—through a full case or to Jimbo—but the decision as to whether to follow either avenue is his alone. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved the above post here. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC) and then placed in sequence EdChem (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) Regarding releasing the emails, I actually agree with Roger that the precedent is terrible unless all parties agree to the release. Further, it is not necessary for the community to be confident that there is a genuine problem here. JClemens has directly stated and confirmed that the desysop decision was taken before Rodhullandemu was contacted and that taking evidence from him wasn't necessary. Roger has confirmed that consensus had emerged before Rodhullandemu was contacted, which amounts to essentially the same thing. No fair and reasonable process forms a consensus amongst the decision-makers before involving the accused. Even if there was a theoretical possibility of consensus changing, presenting the conclusion as an essential fait accompli is a fatal flaw to any claim that the process followed here was fair, irrespective of the "correctness" of the conclusion reached. EdChem (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at previous examples
In terms of the discussions about process around this action, it would be useful to look at past examples. The case of a desysopping that I think was handled relatively well, was this one (from May 2010, example 20 in the list below). What seems to be key is to recognise that any expedited action (be it Level I or Level II desysop) should then have a follow-up review, and the public gallery should wait while that review takes place, and only comment if a public case is requested and opened. It would probably be worth assembling a listing of previous examples from the archives of this noticeboard (currently 6 archive pages). Example 9 on the listing below is another one where there was a follow-up posting after a review of the initial expedited action. It is now also easier to follow the parallel discussions that took place on this talk page, as someone very kindly fixed the links to the archived discussions. Also, for what it is worth, the announcement about the proposal about removal of advanced permissions was made 2 years ago (not a few months ago, as someone said above). Anyway, the examples of desysopping (or matters related to use of tools or restoration of previously removed tools) that I found are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 (last one an external link to the current one under discussion). That makes at least 23 actions taken in relation to administrator tools (ranging from admonishments to desysoppings) outside of desysoppings within a case, over a period of around 2 years. Some were by summary motions on-wiki (at the request page or the motions page or some other page), some were off-wiki decisions announced here. I believe there were also some desysoppings that took place before the noticeboard was set up, but they haven't been put at Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 0, which may or may not be complete and isn't on the listing of the noticeboard archives, so maybe I am misremembering that. Anyway, the above should be ample material for anyone really wanting to sit down and do a thorough review of best practices (both from the perspective of arbitrators who will be able to review the discussions at the time, and from the point of view of those in the public gallery). Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflicted with the section below)
 * You are right that there are more that weren't listed there, but let's go through the first 22 that you mention.
 * Sockpuppetry/banned user (1, 6, 9, 10, 16, 22)
 * Failure to respond to a case request (2, 4/7, 17, 20)
 * Motion for resysopping following a desysopping, whether that be an emergency desysopping or one that was voted on by the Arbitration Committee (3, 5, 12, 15)
 * Failure to respond to the Arbitration Committee's query about paid editing (4)
 * A motion that does not involve loss or gain of administrator tools (8, 18)
 * Motions following public votes and discussion, which were arguably far more serious than the current case (10)
 * Motion following review by the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee, fully conducted with the cooperation of the editor in question (11, 13)
 * Compromised account (14, 21)
 * Wheel warring (19, 20)
 * Do you believe this situation is analogous to or as serious as these 22? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good question, but you need to ask it of those who can answer it. I don't think anyone outside of ArbCom can fully answer that question. It is probably possible to read between the lines here, but I don't think that will help. If ArbCom want to say more here, they will. If they judge more should not be said, they rightly won't say any more, other than possibly attempting a clarification at some stage. When this talk page discussion erupted, I would have asked for the discussion to halt for a few days pending review (if you phrase this the right way, it is actually possible to get people to wait and see, rather than jumping in and commenting), and then issued a follow-up clarification. The real distraction can come from massive talk page threads like this, where all focus is lost in the subsequent noise, and not much gets done. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC) PS. Could you list somewhere the other ones not mentioned above?

RfC
The above discussion relates to a decision of the Arbitration Committee in which an editor was desysopped for inappropriate conduct without a prior arbitration case or an on-wiki motion. Many editors have voiced concerns about whether this manner of proceeding was appropriate with respect to transparency and established arbitration procedures. This request for comment is intended to provide the Committee with advice about whether it should modify its procedures so as to take these concerns into account, and if yes, how.

Added to Template:Cent. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by Sandstein
The Arbitration Committee should not remove advanced permissions from an editor without either The foregoing does not apply This proposal does not limit the use of confidential evidence as a basis of the Committee's decision as provided for by the arbitration policy.
 * a public arbitration case, or at least
 * an on-wiki vote on a motion after the editor has had an opportunity to respond (on-wiki, if possible) to the concerns that may warrant a removal of the permissions.
 * if the editor has explicitly requested that public proceedings should not take place, or
 * to temporary removals of advanced permissions in order to prevent their misuse for the duration of public proceedings. In that case, the Committee should initiate the appropriate public proceedings at the same time as (or immediately following) the temporary removal of permissions. The temporarily removed permissions are reinstated if the public proceedings do not result in a decision to remove them for an indefinite duration.


 * Opinions:
 * Support as proposer. In order to address the concerns about transparency and procedural justice voiced above, this proposal aims at ensuring that a public hearing occurs whenever the editor at issue has not explicitly waived it, but without compromising the Committee's ability to take precautionary temporary measures or to consider private evidence. It is worth noting that the current arbitration policy does not provide for, in my understanding, any other form of proceeding but a public case as described at Arbitration/Policy, so even an on-wiki vote on a summary motion should remain an exception rather than the norm (at least as regards new disputes as opposed to motions related to prior cases). The editor should be given the opportunity to respond on-wiki to the concerns raised against him, unless compelling reasons prevent this, e.g. in the case of possibly compromised accounts or if the response would reveal confidential information.  Sandstein   22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The committee's actions regarding Rodhullandemu were neither transparent nor fair, and there is obviously significant community opposition to their attitude. We, the community, must establish and approve procedures that the ArbCom must follow to avoid similar future situations. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose For better or worse this is what we elect Arbcom to do. If they did it every other day, sure, I'm on board with this. Otherwise; fuck no. If this pisses you off; go form an opposing committee and get community support, I'd probably be behind you... There are a lot of editors talking about fairness above, bottom line is that Wikipedia, like life, is no fair. We are not a democracy, or any other form of -cracy. It is surprising to see so many long term editors expressing surprise at that :S How many of you have ignored disruptive editors who cite freedom of speech? Same principle :) --Errant (chat!) 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I understand Rod has been informed of his ability to request a public hearing is he so desires. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact is a significant majority of ArbCom-initiated desysoppings directly concern privacy issues, often stress/mental health related. It is wholly inappropriate to discuss these publicly.  Roger  talk 22:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. But such evidentiary matters can remain private even if the process occurs in public, which is what I propose. This is, in my opinion, a reasonable balance between the need to protect the privacy of all involved and the community's desire to ensure that ArbCom decisions are the outcome of a fair decision-making process, which includes the right to be heard before a decision is made.   Sandstein   23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I have significant concerns about what occured here, but do not agree with Sandstein's solution in that a non-public process is not necessarily unacceptable so long as it is fair. ArbCom taking a decision for a non-emergency desysop without taking evidence or inviting a defense is unacceptable.  However, had they initiated a discussion with the editor and taken evidence, and the editor was comfortable with the in camera hearing then my concerns would largely be addressed.  Even starting with an emergency desysop (which is within ArbCom's power) might be acceptable so long as the editor was immediately notified and explicitly told this was an emergency and temporary measure pending a hearing at which the editor's evidence would be taken (on or off-wiki, depending on the editor) and that the decision would not be prejudiced by the temporary desysop.  In that case, it would be desirable for the decision to emergency desysop be taken by (say) 5 arbitrators who would then present evidence at the hearing and recuse from the decision-making process that followed.  ArbCom deals with personal and sensitive information and should not be forced to place such information on-wiki, but standards of fairness in decision-making are still essential.  EdChem (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disregarding the issue of whether Rh&e (an admin I have supported) has been "unfairly treated", I do not wish to see any furtherance of the near impossibility of removing advanced permissions from editors that currently exists. In this instance, the community can quickly determine whether Rh&e should continue to use sysop flags by commenting in a RFA; the former admin only needs to start one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment  Obviously I'm not going to offer an opinion, as you want to get the opinion of others. However, could you have a think as to what you would do in a situation (doesn't apply in this case) where there is third party confidential information involved, or where arbcom has confidential information about the admin that it doesn't want to disclose publicaly, but the admin is firmly refusing to accept the pearl handled revolver (I'm thinking an instance the previous committee did have where the admin had some kind of psychotic break, and it really wouldn't have been fair to trundle all that out onwiki, even though the chap concerned was convinced he was peachy keen). Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence on which the decision is based can and should remain private in such circumstances (the problems can be described in appropriately general terms), but this should not prevent the procedure from being subject to public scrutiny.  Sandstein   22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Define how this would work in practice. I can't see how you can scrutinise the procedure - how would you scrutinise an HR procedure at work that was confidential and you weren't privy to. Stand outside the door while the meeting took place?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking your mental health example, how about posting a motion that says: "Because of private evidence relating to Foo's ability to exercise the function of an administrator, after having asked Foo to comment on this evidence by e-mail of (date), and with no [or: no satisfactory] reply having been received by (date), Foo is desysopped", and then voting on this in public.  Sandstein   23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So this isn't really about scrutinising the procedure - that's just different words. Do you really think a different set of words would avoid a shitstorm?  If we had said 'Following the recent report at ANI, and a private exchange of correspondence between Rodhullandemu and the Committee concerning same, Rod is desysopped', followed by posting the sigs of all the Arbs that had already voted behind the scenes, would that really have been any better?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because in this case it would not have been clear that the editor had an opportunity to know (a) what specific concerns the Committee has about him (a link to an ANI discussion isn't enough, as such discussions typically contain many and varied opinions) and (b) that he had an opportunity to respond to these concerns before the Committee voted to desysop him.  Sandstein   23:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you'd still be in a position where the Arbs were saying one thing and the editor was saying another, same as you are now. You'd have no mechanism by which you could know who was right without seeing the correspondence.  It's still how can you publically scrutinise a private process. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't, but if you have a public vote, then there is no need to scrutinise the private process, because all can see that the editor did have an opportunity to respond to the charges against him before the vote concludes. Of course, in practice, almost all people (including me) will believe ArbCom if it says A and one editor says B, but in general, transparency is preferable to trust.  Sandstein   23:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But if the editor has to post an onwiki rebuttal, any privacy will be lost. Are you saying that desysops must be held in public then? Because if your response is 'he could respond by email', it comes back round to how would you know.  Arbcom says he responded, he says he didn't.  Again, how is this any different to what we have at the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How can we both offer a chance to resign privately in lieu of a desysop and hold the "real" vote on-wiki? Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if the editor does take the offer and resigns on their own, then there is no removal of permissions by the Committee, and no proceedings, public or otherwise, need to occur. If they do not take the offer, there is a dispute that needs to be resolved in a transparent process.  Sandstein   23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that could work with a first, private vote to "resign or desysop", private communications, and then a public vote to desysop. It wouldn't have changed the outcome in this case at all, to the best of my understanding--what you got was a reposting of the "first vote" tally in lieu of a second, on-wiki vote. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. My concerns do not relate to the outcome, which is very likely correct, but to how it was arrived at. It is in the Committee's own interest to choose a procedure that ensures that it can prove that the editor had an opportunity to be heard, even if the evidence and deliberations remain private.  Sandstein   23:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, if the editor has to respond onwiki then privacy must be compromised. If he can respond by email, then how can you ever prove whether he did or not. Think about it man! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in many cases (as apparently here) privacy is not an issue. And in cases where it is, the editor can choose whether he wants to make his statement in public or merely write that "I have sent ArbCom an e-mail to rebut these charges". Whether he has actually sent this mail does not really matter; what matters is that all can see that he had an opportunity to do so.  Sandstein   00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) You've got it backwards, Sandstein: the evidence and outcome is public, the deliberations and communications are private. If the evidence is sufficient to justify the outcome, and the Arbs asserts that we've held our deliberations, why is there a need to "show our work"? With a committee of 18, about 15 of whom are currently active, the best assurance that ArbCom is handling things in an above-board manner is the size and diversity of the committee. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Other commentI'm not sure what the significance of the onwiki vote is. In this instance, we held an offwiki vote immediately prior to issuing the motion, which was unanimous.  Other than giving more warning/time for gossip, what would the purpose of the onwiki vote be. Perhaps you might want to bring that out a bit further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To bring the process to the community's attention and to thereby ensure that the editor at issue has an opportunity to be heard before the decision is made. It is not clear that such an opportunity was provided in this case.  Sandstein   22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And how would you do that. It seems in this case that what's happened is that the committee is saying that the editor was given an opportunity to comment, and the editor is saying he wasn't.  With the actual evidence in camera, how are you going to tell who is right (or if it's just a mismatch of expectations).  As above, can you give more detail on how you envisage scrutinising the procedure without access to the evidence? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With a public case or vote, the question of whom to believe about whether the editor had an opportunity to be heard would not arise, because the editor would have at least the opportunity to comment after the motion was posted on-wiki.  Sandstein   23:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So we post the motion and the 15 or whatever arb signatures (3 were unavailable I think without looking), and he has the opportunity to post a rebuttal. How is that different to what we did? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference lies in that in your example, his statement is merely a rebuttal but he has no opportunity to influence a decision that has already been taken. (I realize that I may be very much influenced by my professional experience as an administrative lawyer, where audi alteram partem is of paramount importance even in inquisitorial proceedings.)  Sandstein   23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But in what you're saying it would still only be a rebuttal. Whoever at the start of the whole discussion said that the problem was that any appeal has to be made to the same jury who found against the plaintiff was right.  It's that, if anything, that's the problem (if it is a problem). If the committee has examined the evidence, discussed it, considered that the chap ought to be desysopped, offered him the pearl handled revolver, discussed it with the chap, and he won't go...of what significance is having the arbs post the message onwiki with onwiki signatures. Yes the chap could if he wished make an appeal to the gallery, he could ask to have an entire arbitration case if he wanted.  In what way is that different to the situation we are in now? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I suggested in the discussion above that the initial desysop decision be made by a panel. But even if not, a situation where you tell a user "these are our concerns, you may resign or give reasons why you should not be desysopped" differs materially from a situation where you say "these are our concerns and you will be desysopped unless you resign".  Sandstein   00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the devil's bargain I was faced with: "Go or be pushed". The language of the email I got from Roger Davies made that quote plain; however, I strongly disagreed with the allegations against me and should have been given an opportunity to meet them, which is why I asked for "further and better particulars" of the case against me. There's considerable cogent discussion elsewhere as to the treatment of my post to WP:ANI in relation to an edit-war in which I was allegedly involved, all of which seems to have been ignored by Arbcom, because it seems like the trial in Alice in Wonderland: "sentence first, evidence later". As regards talk of "rebuttal" that is total red herring: I wasn't told the evidence against me, even when I asked for it. That is only one reason why this whole thing puts Wikipedia's governance in no good light as far as the public are concerned. Rodhull  andemu  01:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Newyorkbrad summed it up years ago:   "Last month, a situation arose that should have been addressed discreetly by senior administrators and with a minimum of public discussion. Instead, it became the topic of extensive discussion on-Wiki that caused egregious harm to vulnerable editors. ... The community needs to be more skilled in identifying and dealing with the (rare) sensitive situations like this that need to be investigated and resolved in a highly sensitive and confidential fashion. Newyorkbrad 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)"  The community has long decried that we have no effective desysopping procedures even in egregious and obvious cases (such as the one that led to this RFC), yet when the arbs did what they were elected to do, with discretion and to avoid a public spectacle involving sensitive personal details of a real person's life, they have been hounded.  Buck up arbs: you knew you weren't elected to be "popular", and the outcry by a few dissenters here after a perfectly appropriate handling of a desysopping-- for which there was already adequate community support at ANI, and ample on-Wiki evidence   -- is unjustified.  This isn't the real world: anyone who thinks their Wikilife is over because they can't block a vandal probably needs a Wikibreak anyway.  And all of those hounding the arbs over this should be resoundingly remembered in next year's arb elections, if anyone is still stupid enough to run after this spectacle.  Sensitive and personal details should remain so.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Rather than proposing changes, it might be better for a review to be done of the previous cases of non-case actions relating to admin tools (mostly, but not all, desysoppings). There are around 23 of these available now for anyone wanting to do a retrospective review (see here), though it is probably best done by ArbCom in the first instance, as it is their working practices that may be modified and they will also know which ones needed handling sensitively but rapidly at the time. Other than that, I agree with Sandy - the problem is expecting certain elements of the community to do anything other than assume the worst of ArbCom when they plead that sensitivity is required. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know of at least one past case where I strongly oppose a re-examination for the very same reasons involved in this case-- vulnerable parties should not have personal and sensitive details reviewed on Wiki. So, no to this as well, unless it's done in private.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant a review of the processes and best practices, not a review of the decisions reached. Obviously in cases such as the one you mention, such a review of the processes used could only be done by ArbCom, but one of the advantages of new arbitrators arriving each year is that they can be asked to look at how things were done in the past and to give an objective view on whether things could be have been done better. In my view, the main things needed are to be clear on the reasons for process, to ensure communication takes place and that each party knows what is required of them at each stage, and to wait until things are clear (resisting calls from the public gallery for immediate actions). The final thing is for the statement issued on-wiki to make clear that the steps were followed and opportunities made available at each step of the way. See the examples I pointed to earlier where follow-up postings made things clearer following the initial action. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering we almost elected Sandstein, I'm no longer comfortable with even current arbs reviewing past cases, and will factor that new Arb election processes have resulted in arbs elected with lower support tallies into any future arbcases requiring disclosure of sensitive personal information. But I understand your point. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have some sort of a logging/need-to-know process for such information. I haven't looked at any past private info that hasn't been brought up by longer-serving arbs as being relevant to a current case... but you have only my say-so on that. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per LessHeard vanU and SandyGeorgia. -- Lear's Fool 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my comment above. Please read the onwiki material on this, then consider the increasingly thin or non-existent reasons offered by Rod for refusing to show anybody his e-mails, and then form your opinion of this sad series of events. Did we elect the arbcom to have them savage vulnerable editors? No. Then why insist that they do so now? Bishonen | talk 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC). P.S. And did we elect Sandstein to sit on ArbCom? Not quite, but, my god, we almost did. That was stupid, stupid, stupid. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC).
 * I do not advocate making sensitive information public in any form. I am merely advocating for a sufficiently transparent process to ensure that the affected person has had an opportunity to respond to any concerns before a decision is made. See my reply to Elen, above, for how this might work in practice.  Sandstein   23:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Elen's response to you makes a lot more sense than yours to her. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment Sandstein, LHvU, SG and Bish make good points. Furthermore, communications are not often as clear-cut as one would like. Really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like to see us develop an advocacy system to be used in non-public processes that result in sanctions, whether involving admins or anyone else. Any editor subject to non-public sanction by ArbCom should have the right to choose a "public defender" from a panel of volunteers screened in advance as appropriate. The advocates will be given full access to the correspondence. This would mean that all cases before ArbCom would involve either transparency or representation. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know of one case where this worked well (a now deceased editor intervened on the behalf of someone who was drug into an arbcase to review private sensitive e-mails that she had received from a subsequently banned editor, to help avoid making them public ), but what if the "advocates" later revealed private, sensitive information? No, we don't elect advocates, and we can't take that risk. ArbCom is elected-- what is written to them should be private.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with people possibly being sanctioned on the basis of evidence even they may not have seen, and which may not be correct or fair. There has to be a way to challenge evidence. Where it's very sensitive, the idea of having a representative—from a carefully chosen panel (e.g. bureaucrats and stewards)—who must be shown all the correspondence, would be a compromise. (I'm not saying that happened here by the way, that Rod was sanctioned on the basis of evidence he didn't see; I'm only suggesting this for the future.) SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this idea has significant merit, and it is an option I would be happy to explore; perhaps in a separate forum. At the end of the day if an accused editor asks someone to help organise their defence in such proceedings then there is no real way Arbcom can refuse access to the emails. I believe we actually have some sort of setup for this anyway in the obmudsman positions? This could be extended to community appointed positions for editors willing to defend on behalf of others. The argument about access to private information isn't overly compelling IMO; arbcom's only limitation is a community election, and we know very little else about them, no reason equally trustworthy (indeed, potentially even more trustworthy) individuals cannot fill a different role. --Errant (chat!) 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been involved in close to half a dozen instances of deliberations with arbs over highly sensitive personal information, and if my e-mails were disclosed to anyone other than those elected and identified to the Foundation, I'd say something that would make me subject to WP:NLT. In most cases, the evidence was all plainly in sight anyway; there were no secrets and nothing the parties weren't all individually privy to anyway, as in this case-- only information that shouldn't be made available to The Whole Damn Internet.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest; I'd trust someone I personally chose to represent me over Arbcom, who are elected only vaguely and poorly identified to the foundation, any day. Don't get me wrong, I support Arbcom. But I would not trust them with highly personal information, and would definitely take extensive steps to deny them access to it if the situation ever arose. Handling personnel information has sod all to do with duely elected commitees and identification procedures and everything to do with personnel trust. I realise that becomes an issue when there are two sides to a dispute (how do you trust someone the other side trusts...) but this works reasonably in practice in the real world courts system. Anything arbcom sees or deliberates should, in practice, be 100% available to the interested parties, period. And there should be no real limitation on the "defendant" sharing that information with a third party they wish to represent them. In the very very few cases where arbcom sees information that really should go no further, well, they themselves shouldn't really be seeing that in the first place and the situation should have gone to known WMF representatives. It's the sanest approach. --Errant (chat!) 00:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone who's BTDT a number of times, I'd say the only problematic arbcom decisions I've seen involved very public cases-- they do a fine job in dealing with sensitive information appropriately. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't at all disagree, however I don't see any real issues with a neutral third party being involved in those private correspondences as an advocate. Imagine, if you will, if Rod had had such a person and right now he/she was posting here to assuage concerns on Rod's behalf. I can't help feeling that might have averted the clusterfuck. (or if it really was a whitewash then it cuts it the other way more deliberately). I see no real down side ;) --Errant (chat!) 00:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To confirm, Rod has seen all the evidence there is, there is no secret correspondence from third parties. However, if there were, as I commented to Sandstein above, then it does become tricky.  One could perhaps consider having a third party act as advocate or guardian ad litem, but they would have to be from the arb/oversighter/checkuser/steward pool, given that one would be handling confidential information. However, it should be borne in mind that the Arbs do try to see all sides, and there are many of us, so there is quite a round of views, and we're Code Napoleon, not adversarial in structure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The only overt evidence against me is two links to ANI, posted here; if there is other evidence, it has been kept from me and I have had no chance to controvert it, despite a request to Roger Davies obo the ArbCom: reply to that request: NIL. Rodhull  andemu  00:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rod, they've said repeatedly that the public evidence is all the evidence they're working off of. Was there something in the private correspondence which wasn't in the public emails?
 * As I asked earlier - You are complaining loudly, but not posting the emails. Arbcom gave you permission to post them.  Why won't you?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per SandyGeorgia. -- Avi (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mainly because I don't like hemming future needs in by rule. In general, editors should have the right to an on-wiki hearing, as it appears Rod was offered, but hard cases make bad law, and it is plenty forseeable that there be cases where an on-wiki vote benefits none and harms some. And I say this as someone who is concerned about ArbCom transforming into a legislature and not a body to resolve disputes; reactionary rules like this have the quite real ability to cause harm in the future. If folks have lost trust in this ArbCom, (not saying they or I have) well, there will be elections in nine months to decide half the seats; that is the check and balance on ArbCom power, not limiting the Committee's ability to handle private matters privately. Courcelles 23:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For all I can see, what needed to occur here is exactly what occurred. This was probably the best possible outcome in a scenario where an editor's reputation could have been permanently damaged by on-wiki proceedings, either by his own hand or by others. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal, Fully Support ArbCom Decision and Shame on those stirring up drama, with the exception of RH&E who deserves our consideration and understanding. When an editor goes so far off the rails that the elected representatives of the community concur nem con that he should not continue to be an administrator, we should be express our understanding for the editor involved, not use them, in their evidently distressed state, as a means to score points or air grievances. ArbCom is an elected body, and it is a body that conducts itself in a democratic fashion. Editors who disagree with ArbCom's actions have the same recourse as citizens in any representative democracy: they can vote for someone else next time. Geometry guy 01:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support proposal. Hiding behind a "private hearing" and then carrying out a public action related to it sucks.  Public actions deserve public hearings on them.  And Geometry guy, if we voted everyone out and a new arbcom in every time we disagreed with them, we'd have no new editors left to take on the job within a few years :) <font color="red" size="2" face="Tahoma">Barking <font color="blue" size="2" face="Tahoma">Fish  01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as being an unnecessary restriction on part of ArbCom's clear venue - the establishment of behavioural and other requirements for sysops (for that is what admins really are). After reading the wall above, I note only a few dominant facts: 1. The issues about Rod had been adequately discussed by the community.  2. ArbCom and Rod were in contact before any decisions were made.  3.  ArbCom has the authority granted it by the community and, more importantly, by the WMF to establish specific rules concerning sysops who have a specific ability to affect Wikipedia in substantive ways.  As nearly as I can figure, this is all that matters, and the bickering is of no value given these facts. Of course, if someone demurs that these are facts, that is another matter entirely. Collect (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to comment on two of Collect's points: 1) Absolutely correct--my vote hinged on evidence which had already been brought up on ANI, and to which Rodhullandemu had already had plenty of opportunity to respond in that forum. It's not like we found some new infraction which hadn't been answered, it's that we looked at what the community had been saying via ANI, including Rodhullandedmu's responses thereto.  As far as 2) goes, it is my recollection that the email conversation and desysop'ing discussion were occuring concurrently. Since there's currently no plan to provide that correspondence for community review, I'm not sure how much that matters. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking afresh at that thread, and the storm it generated, it's perfectly clear that I was being misrepresented, ganged-up on, and perhaps deliberatly misunderstood. It's difficult to AGF under that pressure. It would only have taken one admin, or editor, to post "I'll take a look at this", and do so, before it descended into a meta-brawl. Is there really any surprise that in those circumstances, I may not have wanted to respond for fear of further mistreatment? Rodhull  andemu  01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you expected to plead "no contest" by failing to engage the community when you not only had the chance but were expected to do so, but then somehow escape the presumption of culpability in any future proceedings? If you could wind back the clock and do that again, would you have chosen to engage more directly?  And, while we're talking about things you might have done differently to avoid  this outcome, do you think that quoting a certain dead American actor-turned-conservative-activist in your reply to ArbCom constituted "negotiating with ArbCom"? Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this a serious, helpful or neutral question? WP:BLP applies here as it does anywhere, and you also are in danger of violating the privacy that hitherto, you have sought to uphold. When was I given a chance to engage the community, in the face of an onslaught of criticism that seemed totally biased against me? Rewriting history is a wonderful counsel, but impossible. I'd give chapter and verse if what happened in the Walter Raleigh edit-war, with diffs, but haven't been given the chance, and this is not the proper venue for that. Suffice it to say that I asked for fresh eyes, to avoid being seen to being involved, and got roasted (and not in the comedy sense) for my pains. Well, hot dog! I won't take anything to ANI ever again; I'll just sit back and let this encyclopedia suffer. Please reconsider your intemperate response. Rodhull  andemu  02:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but to which of my three questions are you referring? Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sensible to the perception that ArbCom acts as "prosecutor, judge and jury", and how it can be viewed as unfair and susceptible to result in erroneous decisions, especially when proceedings are mostly secret. We should keep in mind of course that this is due to the structure of ArbCom, not arbitrators themselves, and that there is no ground to doubt their honesty and integrity in handling this matter. We should always look carefully at proposals to improve the system, as a new election will not change the system, only the people. I am not persuaded that increasing the publicity of such proceedings could be a solution, the idea of panel may be worth considering, although that should probably be considered as part of a larger proposal, I may have some ideas along those lines which we could discuss in calmer times. (nb: This comment should not be construed as taking a position on any of the substantial matters concerning this specific case.) Cenarium (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support To regain general community credibility, if not perform damage limitation, ArbCom should now strongly review its own procedures, and particularly decide whether it has a duty to act fairly. It's no use saying "well, you can always vote for another lot in nine months time", because there is the potential for similar damage to occur long before then, if they are prepared in the future to act as shamefully as they have done in my case. Rodhull  andemu  01:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do people read these proposals before commenting on them? Several have expressed concerns that vulnerable individuals should not have their circumstances displayed in public. That's a laudable sentiment, with which I strongly agree. But the proposal specifically states The foregoing does not apply if the editor has explicitly requested that public proceedings should not take place. To me the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between avoiding OrangeMarlin-style abuses and sensitivity to personal circumstances. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "OrangeMarlin-style abuse" was not a matter or private vs. public as much as it was one arb (mis)speaking as if for the entire committee. The decision here was unanimous.  And OrangeMarlin wasn't an admin-- it is within the remit of the arbs to desysop.  No, the community doesn't benefit from these spectacles in general, nor is it benefitting from the current one, but comparisons to OrangeMarlin are wrong. In this case, I decided to forego the public spectacle, and not launch the RFAR, which unlike OrangeMarlin, would have happened if an admin hadn't intervened.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So secret proceedings giving the accursed no right to present their evidence are OK then? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what happened here, nor is it likely to happen in another case. Besides reading the proposal, read the entire page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. This is ArbCom, not GovCon.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 02:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes "This is ArbCom, not GovCon." (as Fastily put it). However, the actions that ArbCom took in de-sysoping Rod was not "GovCon-ish" in the slightest. They were doing what they were elected to do. as Geometry guy pointed out, "ArbCom is an elected body". As an elected body, they have been elected to preform certain tasks that pertain to the Arbitration of situations. In this case, the members were doing their jobs; jobs that we elected them to do. If people don't like the actions that ArbCom took in regards to Rod, Malleus, and company, vote them "out of office" in the next ArbCom election.-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 04:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In the event where there is significant risk of harm, physical, mental, or otherwise, to the subject of an ArbCom decision, it would be extremely irresponsible for ArbCom to make it public - especially if the evidence relied upon, which eventually has to be referred to in any decision anyhow, would have dire consequences. Do I have to utter the words "H Incident"? — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 04:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Short Brigade Harvester Boris pointed out the condition "if the editor has explicitly requested that public proceedings should not take place" as a way to alleviate concerns about vulnerable individuals. The problem is, that provision is insufficient. One set of scenarios where this is true is when it is a third party that is a vulnerable individual - if an editor is credibly found to be abusing a person, and the victim is unwilling to go through a public case, ArbCom may have no real choice but to carry out the whole thing privately as possible. At the very least, it is a difficult question involving the best possible judgment, which is part of what we elect them for. Another problem is that the provision forces the editor to explicitly request proceedings not take place. For certain kinds vulnerability, its unfair and unrealistic to expect affirmative action of that sort, because of pride, embarrassment, or a dozen other reasons. Not to mention all the times where it is silence that is playing a role in provoking action. What is better for vulnerable editors, generally? To be given the opportunity privately to go away quietly, or to have a case opened against them in public, held hostage against the editor declaring to all that (s)he is vulnerable? And how else could it be proven, except by breaking confidence or taking ArbCom at their word?--Tznkai (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Bishonen. Especially per her addendum. This is a bad idea cloaked in a thin veneer of reasonable sounding rhetoric. Also, it's process wonking. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hope I'm misunderstanding here, but I'm reading that as implying "And did we elect [name] to sit on ArbCom? Not quite, but, my god, we almost did. That was stupid, stupid, stupid." is not only a suitable thing to write on a talk page, but actually counts as an argument?? --Kotniski (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All that is being conveyed is that Bishonen is not alone in that view. But frankly, Lar and Bishonen have put it far more lightly (and succinctly) than I would have. When an user seems to repeatedly show poor judgment, and they almost made it to ArbCom, it's only natural for the Community to count itself lucky for not letting it happen. I think it's a reasonable to come to the view that had Sandstein been unfortunately elected to ArbCom this year, the situation (which led to this RfC) would have been far worse than it is now (if the proposal and comments are anything to go by). From what I can recall, the proposer repeatedly supports foolish and ill-considered policy proposals (like this self-proposed one). Such proposals seem to push for more unnecessary process wonkery at the expense of principles that are dearer (and more important) to the project's well-being. Note: I'm not commenting on Rod or any specific desysopping or handling; I'm commenting on the general effect this proposal would have on the project. Lar has accurately noted that despite its appearance, this proposal is detrimental in reality; it strongly goes against the interests of the Community (as well as simultaneously, in this case, going against those of ArbCom). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So the fact that you disagree with someone over some proposal of theirs makes it all right to start calling them names and implying that anyone who voted for them was "stupid"? This doesn't seem to be the way Wikipedia's discussions should proceed, and it's certainly not appropriate for present/past members of ArbCom to set this kind of very poor example.--Kotniski (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which present/past members of ArbCom are you referring to as setting a very poor example? And what example, exactly, is it that's being set? I think it's fair to point out that this is not the first misguided proposal or administrative action that Sandstein has done, IMHO. We are none of us perfect of course. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, those who are calling their fellow editors "stupid" or condoning such statements. That's an extremely poor example for anyone to be setting. And the proposal looks quite constructive on the face of it - why not explain rationally why you oppose it, or suggest improvements to it, instead of abusing the proposer? (And since none of us are perfect, including those who we did elect do ArbCom, why should be be especially relieved that we didn't elect a particular candidate just because he isn't perfect?) --Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's try again... Which present/past members of ArbCom are calling their fellow editors "stupid" or condoning such statements? Please be specific. As for my opposition to the proposal, I'm satisfied I've given constructive reasons. Finally, none of us are perfect, but some of us are less perfect than others. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, if none of the people involved are present/past members of ArbCom, then I was mistaken, sorry. But the point was that the type of comment is not acceptable on a talk page, and experienced editors should not be setting that sort of example. It's clearly extremely uncivil towards someone to call their almost being elected "stupid", and in any case is totally irrelevant to this proposal. I don't care if the devil himself has put forward the proposal - it should be discussed on its merits, not rejected with worthless ad hom arguments. --Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets get a few things straight. (1) I don't see an editor being called stupid; I see Bishonen calling the outcome stupid (the outcome being that he was almost elected). I'm not sure why you are taking it as if it was personally directed at all voters who disagreed or were uninformed. I suspect that you are overreacting (due to an assumption of bad faith towards Bishonen, Lar, myself, and/or goodness knows who else) and think that perhaps you should re-read the comment in a new light. (2) I think this proposal has been opposed for reasons which are rational. Maybe some don't see how this proposal is detrimental or are too emotionally involved to see that or maybe some disagree, but clearly, a lot of editors do think it is detrimental and they have already stated (above) a number of reasons for coming to this view. (3) We like to think we have voted for (or chose) the best people volunteering for the task at the time at which we did. That's preferrable than thinking everyone is not perfect and randomly picking arbs with our eyes completely blindfolded. ArbCom has a lot of critical responsibilities which need to be fulfilled appropriately and effectively; being an arbitrator is a privilege and several of their decisions affect many parts of the project. If an admin, who has repeatedly exercised poor judgement then continues the sorry pattern while as an arbitrator, or misuses their privilege (even in good faith), then many parts of the project can become adversely affected. Alternatively, those areas can be disadvantaged, particularly if a more suitable candidate stood in the elections and are likely to have handled it more effectively (eg; because their track record is much better). That's why many editors are conscious about what choice they made in an election; they trust (or even hope) that they made the right decision so that it does not damage the project more than necessary (or better still, that their decision helps maintain/improve the project). Many people can become understandably frustrated if they nearly did something they would regret. Personally, all I interpret from that is that users care about the project and I happen to think that's admirable. In this case, it does seem to be that more than one user is relieved due to the continued pattern which can be seen in the proposer's decision(s) and/or proposal(s). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take these accusations to the appropriate place, with evidence to back them up. I just find it sickening that this kind of off-topic tirade is considered perfectly within the norms on ArbCom-related pages - the place where in a healthily functioning system the drama should be brought to a halt, not stirred up even further. I'm not going to comment further about anything on this page - I hoped to make some constructive criticisms which might possibly be taken on board in future events, but I see I'm just getting drawn into this ridiculous circus where everything is personalized in a very unpleasant way.--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, what you hoped for and what you accomplished were two different things so rather than blaming everyone else, it might be the time to reconsider your own approach in offering input. Specifically, if you aren't interested in answers to "off-topic" questions which you've asked in this very venue, then perhaps you should have directed them to the more appropriate venue (or not raised them at all); that would save others the time of responding to your own questions, only for them to be labelled as an "off-topic tirade". Additionally, it might help if you stopped casting aspersions and making unwarranted bad faith assumptions in this very venue, even in future discussions, so that what it is you are hoping to convey does not get lost in the noise. Frankly, in other matters, I have seen you provide constructive criticism and it has been effective, so what transpired here does seem to be more of a shock than anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone's answered my questions (which were really only rhetorical). Unfortunately I don't see anyone apologizing for or withdrawing the offensive comments either, so I can't dispute that I haven't been effective here, though it's perhaps not me you should be shouting at for that. Anyway, that's all from me on the matter.--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not shouting at you for anything; it was, ironically, a criticism though (trying to point out what sort of thing ought to be avoided in order for it to be more effective). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm generally supportive of proposals which mean to serve as restraints on institutionally or socially powerful wikipedians. We should not give arbcom carte blanche to take action without some process or recourse.  But I think the temporary summary desysopping powers should not be hemmed in.  Arbcom should be able to act quickly and privately on concerns regarding admin abuse.  I would suggest that these summary desysoppings be made temporary.  If arbcom sees fit to remove the tools without some formal case (for good reasons stated above) they should be forced to make at least some of those reasons public after some time period.  In a situation like this they should be able to desysop someone for 60 days (give or take, I just pulled that out of a hat) before starting a formal and public motion.  If no one on the committee or in the editing public wants to start a case after 60 days the bit should be returned. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Consideration of whether a new rule should be adopted that either "an on-wiki vote on a motion after the editor has had an opportunity to respond" or a "public arbitration case" is a necessary precondition for removing advanced editing privileges (i.e. de-sysopping) is a different matter entirely than asking whether existing rules or conventions already require that, or whether ArbCom acted within its discretion but unwisely or inappropriately in conducting deliberations without advanced notice or public record. I'm a little uncomfortable with a new inflexible rule, and think such a rule would need further comment and perhaps a trial period, but I would certainly argue that even without the rule ArbCom could have done a better job keeping the community informed and should do so in the future.  They probably made the right decision here, but there's no way to know.  How about asking ArbCom to think of a way to maintain accountability and a verifiable appearance of fairness, and if they won't, to ask prospective arbitrators to share their views on the matter when evaluating them before elections?  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See now, I'm not sure - and I'm open to discussion here, what the community was supposed to be kept informed of. There's an incident at ANI - on a public noticeboard - where an admin is blocked, and people are talking about starting an RfAR.  And I'm there saying 'Arbcom are aware of this issue, leave it with us'.  Then we're on the admin's talkpage, telling him this isn't going to go away, and asking him to contact Arbcom. Then we're talking with the guy in private for a couple of days.  Then we make an announcement.  What else are we supposed to have said - I'm seriously open to suggestions here. Are we supposed to have posted a note saying 'Arbcom is discussing with Rodhullandemu whether to desysop him.' Kind of negates the point of the private conversation, I would have thought, when we were hoping the chap would maybe think it was for the best to go quietly, and a desys not actually be necessary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So now, no, you're not so sure? You stood for ArbCom on the basis of community confidence, and now you doubt that? However, you are correct to do that. Your continued use to me in emails of "This isn't going to go away", because that is the tone and language of a power-fiend, and I find it creepy and threatening, is unacceptable. However, your reference to discussion between myself and ArbCom is misleading; we are talking about two days exchange of emails, in which there was no discussion, as such. It was an entirely one-sided exchange, with me being given zero opportunity to counteract a decision that appeared to have been already taken, as the established chronology indicates. As regards your purported reasons for desysopping, they do not meet any rational test of fairness, including as they do reasons entirely unsupported by any evidence. You thought I would "go quietly" in the face of a witch-hunt? You do need to get a grasp on some realities here, because being bullied into resigning is not a position I am prepared to take. Rodhull  andemu  01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (To Elen of the Roads) - Formally announcing in advance that ArbCom has decided to debate this in private for reasons of [x], and that Rodhullandemu has been shown the evidence and is invited to participate, is a pretty good suggestion and would have gone at least some distance towards keeping community confidence up. (To Rodhullandemu) This situation might be possible to diffuse, if you're willing to take steps to resolve this instead of lodging a protest, however valid, against Arbcom.  Would you be willing to take a couple months off with an assurance of becoming an administrator again if you meet certain conditions?  Or on some probationary basis?  Would you be willing to consider a community recall procedure or standing for election again?  I can't say that any of these are good ideas, but it sounds like nobody really wants the current outcome, that's just how it stands right now.  Just a thought, perhaps something you should take up privately with ArbCom. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say that any of these are good ideas, but it sounds like nobody really wants the current outcome, ...  Where on earth do these notions come from? We've got an RFC here that shows the community solidly supports ArbCom's deliberations and outcome, respects the privacy of a valued contributor even if he doesn't, and yet we are still seeing efforts to drag this specatacle into public.  Pena ajena.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with most of what you say, I'll point out that editors comment in the RFC about a proposed policy, this doesn't imply that those opposing it endorse ArbCom actions or the outcome unless they say so. (Noting that I likely won't follow up because the discussion is not particularly interesting and I've other business to attend.) Cenarium (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wikidemom, I think you've missed something. Suppose you were an admin and were going all to pieces (say your mum has died and it's hit you really badly). There's been some reports at ANI, someone was going to open a public process, and Arbcom has said - publically at ANI - leave it with us, we'll take the necessary action. Arbcom are then trying to get in contact with you to see what can be done, but all you've told us so far is that your mother is deceased - or worse, your sister has emailed us to explain that mum has just lost her long battle against whatever. Would you, as the admin concerned, then want us posting a notice here saying "Arbcom are in private discussions with Wikidemon over the future of his adminship, because he's gone off his head here and here because his mum's just died of whatever."  Honestly, would you?  Arbcom are elected to deal with private matters, and at the end of the day, the community is going to have to deal with the fact that private matters are private, and details are not going to be released to the enquiring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The privacy issue is, in view of my previous contributions here, a red herring, and it does no credit to the ArbCom that they cite these as reasons for not making the reasons for my desysop fully public. In that way, although they seek to pray that in aid of secret negotiations, they are misdirecting themselves. However, in the circumstances, i.e. that ArbCom are not prepared to fully expose their faulty procedures, I am prepared to forward their relevant email exchanges between myself and them to any interested party. I have already done that to one colleague; if there is sufficient call so to do, I will copy them on to an external website, and link them here, if only to clarify that what the ArbCom say has happened, hasn't happened. Rodhull  andemu  01:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having discussed this among a subset of active arbs, I will offer to verify the emails. Any editor who wishes to confirm that the emails that Rodhullandemu has sent are both accurate and complete may email them to me.  Upon receipt of the emails, I will confirm whether the emails provided match what ArbCom sent to and received from Rodhullandemu.  I will provide no details of any discrepancies in content, merely indicate whether the record is accurate, complete, both, or neither. This should provide assurance to the parties to whom Rodhullandemu chooses to disclose the email messages that they have received authentic correspondence. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But what is the point of verifying privately-received communication? It's still been privately received, so there is a duty on the recipient not to disclose the contents. Pronouncing a public opinion on whether the conduct is proper or not will inevitably rely on the actual content, which remains private. There are two ways out here: RH&E can consent to public disclosure; or in another maybe/maybe-not similar situation I recall, an ad hoc committee of 3 trusted editors privy to the matter passed judgement as a group. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per GG, SG and Bish. Fainites barley scribs 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, exactly, per GG, SG and Bish. And those who are quick to apply conspiracy theories, to distrust the arbitrators we have painstakingly elected, should think again. We put them in this position partly to conduct cases on-wiki, and partly to deal with sensitive stuff we don't need or want to know about. It is for our protection and that of others. Let them do their job, please. Tony   (talk)  08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a good way to reduce ArbCom's notorious secrecy and opaqueness of its decision-making. If the matter is so delicate and private that no on-wiki arbcase can be launched, then at least the vote and the comments by the person under investigation should be kept public. I have not examined the present case thoroughly, but ArbCom definitely has conducted outrageous secret trials in the past, with the editor in question being given a chance to defend himself only after the ruling has been made. And even then what he has to do is prove his innocence which, as anyone can understand, is difficult even if he is in fact innocent. Secret trials are extremely frustrating for editors who are forced to take part, and opaque decision-making can cause massive drama on-wiki (especially if the accused editor has a high-profile and many friends to defend him) as we can see on this page. Therefore I think this proposal is a good compromise between the need for privacy and the need to get rid of ArbCom's secret trial traditions. (In the future, I think this proposal should be extended to all arbitration cases and not just desysops and other user rights removals. Admins are usually high-profile users and have many friends, but still they should not be given preferential treatment over regular editors.) Nanobear (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The vote is public (or did you miss that the announcement shows which 13 arbs voted for the proposal, and which 5 were unavailable). And are you really supposing that Arbcom should force some shellshocked admin, who has run of the rails because (picks example at random not connected with this case) she's suffered depression following a sexual assualt, to post what she is saying to the committee on wikipedia. Come on, think this through.  The bottom line is that Arbcom has been tasked with desysopping admins, and with conducting necessary confidential business, and the community's desire to have the ins and outs of everything, do not rank higher than the need to maintain confidentiality where that is necessary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But (damn, whenever I say I'm not going to comment further, I always do), in that case, you would surely not want to give the impression that you are punishing that person permanently (and we all know that desysopping, whatever the theory, is seen and felt as a punishment) - you would hopefully protect the encyclopedia by temporarily removing admin powers, but make it clear to the person and the community that this is being done as a stopgap measure pending resolution of certain matters, not as a final sentence. I don't know how much difference it would have made in this case (or even if the situation in this case is significantly analogous; and I don't want to know), but I'd have thought, knowing human psychology, that doing it that way would have increased the chances of retaining the understanding of the person involved, keeping dialogue open with them, minimizing the drama erupting in the community, and bringing the person quietly back on board when they're over their problems.--Kotniski (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not punishing them at all, we're trying to protect them and the project. In this case, when or if Rod feels that he's over his problems and feels up to it, he could ask the community to re-endorse him - he has by no means lost the confidence of all of the community even now. I will agree with you that the phrasing might have been improved - what was meant was that he's not banned from seeking adminship in the future, but people have read it as exactly the opposite for some reason.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course he's not banned from seeking adminship, but if it had been only a temporary suspension, then he wouldn't even need to go to the community and be quizzed on his personal matters - the Arbs (who already know the details) could just restore the mop themselves when the problems were overcome. Of course that can happen anyway - but phrasing it as a temporary measure would have been more sensitive and less likely to produce antagonism and drama. Anyway we seem to agree more or less that there was a problem with the phrasing, and you guys know the details and I don't, so I'll make this my last comment on the matter.--Kotniski (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not very interested in this particular case, but I am interested in the openness of ArbCom's decision making. As to your question "are you really supposing that Arbcom should force" someone to post his defence on-wiki - no, I'm not. Sandstein's excellent proposal guarantees privacy "if the editor has explicitly requested that public proceedings should not take place". I think Sandstein's proposal is a good compromise representing a relatively mild change, but it would have a big effect on promoting openness in the ArbCom process. Nanobear (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not on the specifics of this case, but in general. There are cases (and I've seen them in the past) when there are private reasons why a person should not be exposed to full public spectacle, and we have to trust the people we elect to judge those for us. In this specific case, we are simply not in full possession of the facts, and so I at least do not feel I can judge it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification
I believe I saw above that Jclemens and others on Arbcom gave Rod permission to post the correspondence between him and Arbcom. Can you confirm that?

I believe I saw above that Rod has rejected posting such. Rod, can you confirm that?

I believe I saw above that Rod was invited to request a formal public case, but has rejected doing so. Rod, can you confirm that?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good questions all, but all remains open for now. It's all about misinterpretation, injustice and accountability, and the results may not be those that might be expected. Rodhull  andemu  03:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain, at least in brief, why you have not yet accepted the public case or posting of emails? Do you agree that Jclemens appears to have authorized the emails being released?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean any offense, but normally if an admin account is compromised the person responsible for it gets desysopped or even blocked. We do it to rank and file users regularly, and we reject unblock requests based on WP:GOTHACKED. If anything it seems Rod was given more slack due to his long record here, which until recently had struck me as exemplary. And then there were more problems with his use of the tools and repeated incidents of incivility. And now we see these non-answers to simple, straightforward questions. I don't know what personal problems are affecting Rod, and if he wants to keep that private I fully support his right to do so. If those problems are affecting his abilities to use the administrative toolset in a responsible fashion and behave in accordance with the minimum standards of decorum expected of an admin then I also respect ArbComs right to remove the tools. You can't have it both ways. Or he can appeal to Jimbo, I seem to recall that Rod was at one point one of the most active talk page stalkers at Jimbo's page, if anything he would be predisposed to be sympathetic to someone who essentially deflected a lot of the nonsense that goes on there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm the first and third, from my perspective. I cannot comment on the second, obviously. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am eagerly awaiting Rodhullanemu's straightforward answer to Georgewilliamherbert's straightforward (yes/no) question above. --Xover (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: The community does not possess a full set of facts
Just a reminder that the community is not in posession of a full set of facts concerning the factors and discussions that lead to this motion. Many have made suggestions about what the Committee could have or should have done; in many of these cases, the Committee already did what was suggested. I would also remind everyone that any actions or decisions of the Arbitration Committee may be reviewed by or appealed to Jimbo Wales, who has complete access to the factors and discussions that lead to this motion, including the email exchange between the Committee and Rodhullandemu immediately prior to the motion being published. I would invite anyone who feels the Committee has acted unfairly or without due process to request his comment. The irony here is that a public spectacle was exactly what we were trying to avoid. You may rest assured that the Committee will be examining this situation and its procedures to see what might have been done differently, and how we will approach similar situations in the future. – xeno talk  02:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You would be correct in the first sentence if ArbCom had been consistent about the allegations against me. The fact is, they haven't. Elen said above "it's all onwiki", and gave diffs. That is at odds with the email I got from Roger, which raised other matters not covered by those links, yet gave zero justification for them, even on request. It seems that this may have to go public, even if only to expose the inconsistencies between the allegations raised against me onwiki and offwiki. This is no way for a supervisory body to behave. Until tomorrow, then. Rodhull  andemu  02:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really think most people like and trust Jimbo enough to appeal to him? I respect him, as do many others, but that doesn't mean I'd go to him for an ArbCom review. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is a decent, fair man, as far as I have seen. However, he appoints ArbCom, and has no reason to overturn their decisions except in cases of manifest injustice Neither, currently, does he necessarily have the time to get involved in this, for his own personal reasons. Rodhull  andemu  02:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perfect example of the Streisand effect :-) - Lord Roem (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. There is little we can do to stop those who inherently feel that the mere fact of Arbcom is anti-wiki from posting comments to that effect, and there is an entire cultural group on this project who seem to have great difficulty coping with the absence of absolutely black and white rules. Not one person in this entire page has said that the outcome was wrong, with the exception of Rodhullandemu, whose view is to be expected. None of the suggestions for changing the process would have had any effect on any of the desysoppings that have happened in the last 2 years, except for perhaps adding another few steps that simply extend the harm to the editor involved. (Arbitrators live around the world, and we aren't all available at the same time...why should it take 48 hours to revote something that we've already voted on once?) *That* would be a perfect example of the Streisand effect.  Risker (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that certainly would be. Lord Roem (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that we don't have (and presumably oughtn't to have) the facts of the case, how is it of any significance that no-one has said the outcome was wrong? No-one except ArbCom members has said it was right, either - or if they have, they've got no basis for saying so. But we can still observe the problems with ArbCom's people skills, and express more than a hope (because hopes have frequently been expressed in the past, and come to nothing) that things will improve in future instances.--Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one except ArbCom members has said it was right, either - or if they have, they've got no basis for saying so. Rather blatantly wrong. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So who has the facts apart from ArbCom? And why, given that they're supposed to be confidential?--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't think the onWiki evidence is enough for a desysop, then either you haven't seen all of it, or you have very strange standards for admin conduct. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What was confidential was (a) the reason for it being in camera and (b) the reason for it being urgent. The committee was attempting to protect a member of the community from having their bones picked over by the vultures - that is, till the peanut gallery arrived. Kotniski, do you honestly think that the committee woke up one morning and decided to desysop Rod? Or do you think that they might, just might have some reason for doing it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, if there is on-wiki evidence, then I haven't seen it and accept it might give reasonable grounds for someone to conclude the decision was right - I got the impression that he was being desysopped for something he wrote in private e-mails to ArbCom. And I certainly didn't say the committee had no reason for doing what they did - but if it was done to "protect" the user involved, they seem to have got things rather badly wrong. --Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that last comment. There are links to two ANI discussions posted several times here - that's a starting point if you want to read further. It's ironic, the community bays for an easier way to desysop admins who are "problems", then goes off the wall when Arbcom - who are tasked with desysopping admins - actually do take the bit away from one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You and others keep repeating that mantra, but please recognize one thing. There's a world of difference between desiring community based desysop and desiring star chamber actions.  Although both may reach the same decision the concepts couldn't be more at odds with each other.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminder: this RFC shows the community supports ArbCom. That a handful of participants are extending the spectacle-- precisely what the arbs rightly sought to avoid-- is unfortunate, and is doing no favors to Rodhullandemu. In Spanish, what is happening here is called pena ajena-- shame and embarrassment from outside observors.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just start the case already
Extending drama and creating a bigger fiasco over this than is necessary isn't really helping you, Rod. I also believe that these actions by Arbcom were not in line with the policies that the community has agreed upon, but i'm not going to join the shitstorm up above. If we're going to do this, then let's do it. Rod, do you or do you not want to start a public case on this matter? Please answer yes or no. If yes, then we should get this under way immediately to minimize the drama that always seems to occur in these sorts of situations. Silver seren C 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Rd232 talk 08:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) We elect an ArbCom to make difficult decisions. Sometimes (regrettably for transparency) it is best for those to be made privately.
 * 2) ArbCom made a private decision, with email discussion with the person affected. Those with some familiarity with the situation can probably divine why (further clues in the TLDR discussion on this page).
 * 3) The person now has the choice of making those discussions public, or of pursuing a public case, but (currently at least) does not wish to.
 * 4) Further discussion at this point (if the person doesn't wish to appeal the decision) is to the detriment of the person, and possibly of the community's faith in ArbCom. Either we trust them or we don't, and the choice to appeal the decision (either to Arbcom by arbitration case or to the community by publishing the emails) can only be made by the person affected. (It's probably in the person's interests not to make any hasty decisions.)
 * 5) Hard cases make bad law, and kneejerk attempts to reform policy without full cognizance of the private discussions is neither necessary nor helpful.
 * 6) Our sympathies should go to the person affected that they ended up in a situation where this was necessary, and encourage them to move on from this and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways; our thanks and commendation to ArbCom for taking a tough decision which would get heavily criticised whatever they did; and then we should all move on and get back to editing.
 * Reply...
 * True. The problem is not that ArbCom needs to act in private at times, nor that they did so in this case.
 * Wrong. ArbCom made a decision without consulting the editor in question.  JClemens has stated directly that taking evidence from the editor was not necessary.  Statements from JClemens and Roger Davies confirm that a decision was made before initiating contact with the editor.  The editor was presented with a fait accompli and a choice.  The face-saving choice was perhaps generous, but it does not make up for the failure to accord the editor the basic courtesy of considering his evidence / defense before making a decision.
 * The editor does not have the reasonable option of having a case because the 'jury' has already voted and the sentence passed. ArbCom's actions have made a fair case impossible, and the sooner they admit their mistake and undertake to never again make a permanent desysop without taking evidence ever again, the better.  The issue of fairness is fundamental.
 * Wrong. My goal here is to enhance ArbCom's reputation by ensuring that never again do we find ourselves in the situation of an editor being sanctioned without being permitted to defend himself or herself.
 * Hard cases do make bad law, but this is not a hard case. The issue here is a basic principle - take evidence before making decisions.  As for the notion that you can't help to improve ArbCom policy without knowing everything ArbCom does (i.e. being on ArbCom), that's just rubbish.  The OrangeMarlin affair proved that good policy improvements can happen when the community gets worked up over an outrageous action.  The improvement required here is ensuring policy mandates what fairness demands: evidence taking before decision making.
 * My sympathy does go to the editor who has been damaged. I believe less damage would have been done had he been treated fairly at the start.
 * EdChem (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to give an adequate response when to do so would mean going into details of why ArbCom wanted to keep the matter private (I'm not privy to inside knowledge, but I think I know why). But essentially, you're treating this as a criminal issue (someone's been accused and convicted of something) when it is actually an issue of someone being found unfit for a particular, onerous duty. Rd232 talk 11:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree because I don't think the private details are relevant to my concern. I don't object to ArbCom seeking to handle this matter in private - I think they were correct to do so - and I have formed no view on whether the desysop was appropriate.  Their mistake was deciding to desysop without first presenting the evidence to the admin in question and waiting for his response.  This could have been done in private, off-wiki.  The problem was that evidence gathering should always precede decision making and conclusions should not be presented as fait accompli.  The admin in question would likely feel much less persecuted had he been engaged in dialogue before the decision was made, and I want to try to ensure that no one else is mistreated in this way ever again.  It would have cost ArbCom nothing to delay making a decision until there was a dialogue with the admin - if there was a genuine emergency a temporary desysop could have preceded the discussion.  By not doing the admin the courtesy of talking with him, but instead deciding on a permanent desysop which was then presented as a fait accompli, ArbCom damaged its own reputation but more importantly, they have harmed the admin in question in a way that was not necessary.  It is disappointing that the arbitrators do not seem able to recognise the problem.  EdChem (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bravo, EdChem - You hit the nail on the head. It's odd, ArbCom doing this, cause I made a comment here a few months back on someone's AFD about staff here, with a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude, and was told I was wrong.  Clearly I'm not.  This is precisely what Arbcom have done.  They've shot themselves squarely in the...foot, by making themselves look bad and taking a user's privileges without having the decency or courtesy to listen to the evidence from the accused, or discuss it with them before making the decision to do so.  The Arbcom need to accept that in this case, they've done the wrong thing - they need to reinstate Rodhullandemu's administrative rights, and redo the case properly - you ask the questions BEFORE you pass sentence on the accused, my lords. NOT AFTER. <font color="red" size="2" face="Tahoma">Barking <font color="blue" size="2" face="Tahoma">Fish  13:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior to the motion being published, the subject was contacted and asked to contact the Committee to discuss the matter. They chose to delay in doing so, citing personal reasons. This much is public record . When the candidate did eventually get around to contacting the Committee, the character of that discussion informed the Committee's actions.
 * Given the unfortunate fallout, I think there are certain things we might have done differently (hindsight being 20/20).
 * @Edchem, the desysop is not permanent, as we have not enjoined the subject from requesting administrator rights at the appropriate venue. – xeno talk  13:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeno, we are aware of the sequence... "prior to the motion being published" is still "after the decision was made". I am disappointed that no arbitrator has yet endorsed the idea of  evidence / discussion before decision-making.  As for the desysop, it isn't "temporary" in the sense of the emergency procedures, and not going to be reversed by the Committee, so "permanent" seems an apt term to me - but I am happy to use any term that more accurately conveys the situation.  EdChem (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The committee did consider the evidence and discussed the matter prior to reaching a final decision on how to proceed. The Committee made every attempt to include the subject in those discussions at the earliest stage, but cannot compel anyone to make contact in a timely manner. – xeno  talk  14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be great if I could accept that statement at face value, but unfortunately it has already been contradicted by earlier arbitrator statements. JClemens explained why there was no need to take evidence from the admin in question before taking a decision.  Roger Davies confirmed that the consensus was reached before the admin was contacted.  That evidence may have been requested after ArbCom decided to desysop is irrelevant because the decision was already taken.  I don't doubt that arbitrators were concerned for the admin, it is just so disappointing to see that damage was done by a mistake that was easily avoidable.  EdChem (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I share your disappointment at the way this has all turned out, and will work to ensure that removal of permissions procedures are clarified or amended to better handle similar situations in the future. – xeno talk  14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Ed, my initial contact with RH&E was the day before any decision had been made. By the time he actually contacted us events had moved along somewhat. He wasn't actually presented with a fait accompli; options were discussed with a view to opening a dialogue. This failed miserably. Despite what you think, consensus is not immutable.
 * I know that your expressed sympathies are entirely with RH&E but it is also important to reflect on the impact of poor administrative actions on both the community and, particularly, on newbies.  Roger  talk 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also important to reflect on the impact of knee jerk, pre-judged actions on the wider community, shit like this can scare damn good editors and admins off. <font color="red" size="2" face="Tahoma">Barking <font color="blue" size="2" face="Tahoma">Fish  15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This was being discussed by ArbCom for some time (probably ~2 days, but I'm recalling that form memory--for a landmark, the discussion was ongoing before Elen reduced his block length) before Rodhullandemu responded to us. One thing that may not have been clear from the above was that the timing of the desysop--including the posting on-wiki--was a direct result of an unhelpful and belligerent response from Rodhullandemu to the specific request that he cease using the tools while the matter was under discussion.  While I was not online when that happened, my clear impression from reading the email threads a few hours later is that the arbitrators who did read that response unanimously viewed that email as a sufficient cause for an immediate desysop. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Roger's timeline. It should come as little surprise that responses to ArbCom in the past have been delayed by people deciding to "take a break" when we have asked to discuss their perceived misconduct with us.  I have no idea what Rodhullandemu's motivation was here, but I certainly wasn't going to stop reviewing the evidence and forming an opinion simply because he'd not decided to respond.  Again, regardless of whether or not he had, there was a pattern of misbehavior lasting over months that no explanation could excuse. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Roger, earlier you stated that your initial contact was "after consensus to desysop had emerged", and that is akin to making a decision before inviting evidence. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the response made had the effect of hardening views in favour of a desysop, a topic on which (in case you haven't noticed) I have taken no position. If my sympathies were entirely with RH&E, I would be advocating the tools be returned to him.  I accept that his situation may have required a desysopping for the good of the encyclopedia, but that does not mean the way ArbCom acted was appropriate or acceptable.  ArbCom actions can do even more damage than admin actions.  Xeno has gone close to admitting that the procedures used here were deficient, which is good to see. I'm not calling for heads on a platter, or an apology to RH&E, or even an admission of what went wrong (though the latter would be nice).  I just want to make sure this never happens again, because the damage done here (particularly to RH&E) was avoidable.  EdChem (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Outdent) - Once again, EdChem, you've scored a bullseye :) Xeno has pretty much admitted that the way you went about this was entirely wrong, and that the procedures used in making the decision were faulty.  If that's not a good enough reason to go back to the start and reassess the decision, I don't know what is.  Right now, this is looking more and more dubious a decision, JClemens, and for the good of the Arbcom, their reputation as a fair and just panel (which is already in shreds) and the fact that people shouldn't be worried about what you do, they need to go back and restart this case, invalidate all decisions associated to it, and have another go.  As for the comment earlier that it was only a "temporary" desysop, it's clearly not.  A temporary thing is where you take it away, and give it back after a while.  This is permanent, since it's been already stated that RH&E would need to reapply for the permissions.  That's not a temporary thing.  <font color="red" size="2" face="Tahoma">Barking <font color="blue" size="2" face="Tahoma">Fish  15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What for it's worth, I'd personally be fine with restoring the tools, and hearing this as a case, providing RH&E undertook not to use the tools until the matter was resolved one way or the other.  Roger  talk 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise. – xeno talk  16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And provided Rod agrees that he wants an onwiki hearing, complete with everything that goes with it. Remember, he hasn't asked for that - something that BarkingFish, who seems so keen to see all the dirt dished in public, might like to take up with him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would any editor agree to an on-wiki hearing where the judges have all declared their position? Everyone knows what you all think, why would any observer consider a case anything but a farce?  Leaving aside those general concerns, there remains the fact that ArbCom tried to deal with this matter privately for good reasons.  I for one fear that trying to hold a case would only add to the damage already done to RH&E.  EdChem (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On that last point, I agree with you entirely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not misconstrue what I've written - I have nowhere suggested that "the way [we] went about this was entirely wrong". Any change in the procedure would not have changed the end result, merely the length of the resulting discussion. And - while I do not think this is the case - if the community is not satisfied with the end result, they could encourage Rodhullandemu to seek adminship without delay and support his re-gaining administrator privileges at the appropriate venue. But unless Rodhullandemu requests a formal case, we're not going to drag him through one just to restore our apparently shredded reputations. On the notion of "permanent desysop": a permanent desysop is one where the Arbitration Committee removes administrative rights and prohibits the user from seeking adminship from the community. – xeno talk  16:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads - I have no desire to see "dirt dished in public", what I have is a desire for the Arbcom process to be transparent, and not done behind closed doors with the motion only being made public after all the mess has been made. Xeno, apologies for miscontruing your comments, I've struck the offending section, but I would still like to note that you did state "I think there are certain things we might have done differently (hindsight being 20/20)" and "I share your disappointment at the way this has all turned out, and will work to ensure that removal of permissions procedures are clarified or amended to better handle similar situations in the future" - which says to me you thought there was something wrong with the way you handled the situation now.  Would you kindly clarify which bits of the process and/or procedures you thought were wrong, and why?  It would help to make it a little clearer for the rest of us. <font color="red" size="2" face="Tahoma">Barking <font color="blue" size="2" face="Tahoma">Fish  16:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem is that you can't hold the process in the open without the evidence being in the open. Arbcom aren't going to start pouring confidential information out onwiki just so the idly curious can gaze at it. The unfortunate truth is that Arbcom was tasked to carry out this kind of process, and that includes carrying out processes behind closed doors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I did not say anything was wrong, per se. In hindsight, the initial announcement could have more clearly explained what I wrote above at . – xeno talk  16:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion without sufficient knowledge of exactly what was said when and by whom is pointless and speculative; and it is weirdly ironic that as some damn ArbCom for supposedly judging without sufficient evidence, that damnation itself rests on a lack of evidence, trying to tease bits of information out about a process which ArbCom judged needed to be private. Phrases like "fait accompli" can't really be bandied about without seeing the actual exchanges at least, and preferably Arbcom's internal deliberations as well - which obviously runs counter to the point of making a private decision. This is why we need to trust the people we elect, because sometimes complete transparency is neither possible nor desirable. The best conclusion we can draw from this is that we should make sure that there is some reasonable mechanism for private decisions by ArbCom to be reviewed by (other members of) ArbCom independently. In this case, 5 arbitrators weren't involved and could review the decision privately if the community (or Rod) asked them to. With the new structure, it should generally be the case that there are sufficient numbers of arbitrators available for review; but maybe more thought can be put into improving this. Rd232 talk 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * People have repeated many times that all the evidence behind the decision is in the public domain, and I'm basing my dissatisfaction on precisely on that evidence. My complaints have nothing to do with what abrcom may or may not have done in process behind closed doors, my complaint is that the process itself has produced an outcome that presents as fact this idea that only Rod was the problem here, that he just decided one day to become a Grade A bastard and acted as such to everybody, and with him now desysopped, everything else in the garden is now rosy. This is not pointless speculation, and this isn't a matter of trust, this is factually what they have done, and it's total dereliction. We don't even need an arbcom to take this sort of action, Jimbo could easily take their place if this is all they are going to do in cases of feuding involving admins. Given his ability to take the wider view, imho he would do even better though. But no, Jimbo isn't even allowed to block abusive admins for a mere few hours anymore based on simply looking at their public actions, arbcom is supposedly a much better mechanism. In this case, it cleary isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because only one person was desysop'ed, doesn't mean anyone else is exonerated for their behavior. The fact that the community lacks another method for desysop'ing, but has plenty of methods to deal with other issues, certainly weighed in our decision to only address the single administrator involved in the most recent issue presented to ANI. The community is certainly not foreclosed from dealing with any other editors based on the limited intervetion of Arbcom. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes. First, if you intended this not to be an apparent exhoneration, you've completely failed, as the various comments in here from some people have already shown. Second, the committee exists to provide leadership and clear direction, to correct beliefs and behaviour of all parties in a case, to reinforce the lines in the sand, when normal community processes are clearly failing to uphold basic policies, which they clearly did in this case. And will do again. After other community processes failed/weren't even tried, the final ANI wanted an interaction ban or an arbitration case. You've handed down a desysop and no case. If you hold such stall in community processes, this disparity is odd. If you think the community processes failed, your lack of any other action or direction is also odd. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this post (at least in part) in my comment in the section below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "an outcome that presents as fact this idea that only Rod was the problem here, that he just decided one day to become a Grade A bastard and acted as such to everybody" - the outcome says nothing of the sort, and it is irresponsible to falsely interpret the outcome in such a way. Rod continues to be a valued member of the community, he is just (currently) not suited for adminship, for reasons which are best not discussed at great length publicly. It's for Rod's benefit that this was handled privately, and anyone who cares about him should allow the matter to rest ASAP. Rd232 talk 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh really? So, where did the committee make any statement to the contrary? They said, in entirety on the public noticeboards, "This user has engaged in conduct unbecoming an administrator including: placing blocks and page protections when involved; engaging in personal attacks and incivility; as well as feuding and edit-warring....Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.". Not even a hint that anyone else was involved, not even a hint that he is still considered a valued member of the community (on a cold reading, quite the opposite infact), and certainly absolutely positively no sign that this decision was made in this way partly for his benefit. Combine that with his own various statements on what he thinks of the matter and the committee, and your personal interpretation here, is effectively just that, from where I'm standing. And your insinuation that I don't care for him is rejected, with extreme hostility. I've seen exactly what he's been put through, for months, and I have seen exactly what benefit he has brought to the project as an admin. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This was a private decision, for good reason; if the public reasoning revealed everything about the private process, it would be pointless to have it private. And perhaps it should be ArbCom's job to be nice about an editor it's desysopping, but it isn't: it's up to the community to remind the editor and each other that the person is still a valuable contributor. "insinuation that I don't care for him"? no, rather an assumption of the opposite; though if you don't understand why this process was private, then clearly your familiarity with him is less than I thought. Rd232 talk 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've clearly confused me with someone else. I already said above "My complaints have nothing to do with what abrcom may or may not have done in process behind closed doors". And yes, plenty of people have reminded him they still see him as a valuable contributor, most of whom also think he has been shafted by arbcom in the way they handled this. It's not arbcom's job to recognise good contributions? So why do normal cases, and even other motions, routinely include such findings of fact? And once again, your assumptions about what I do and don't know about Rod are utterly rejected. MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's write some articles
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em; -moz-border-radius: 0.5em; -webkit-border-radius: 0.5em;"><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0;">I should sell tickets <p style="text-align: right;">Gold Hat Based on the brittleness of how this guy took losing his moderatorship, he's the last I want running things here. Let's get to work people. Lot of crappy articles that need upgrading. There's a whole world outside there kicking ass at writing newspapers and books and magazines. Let's up our game and drop the drama.TCO (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I have something to help with! There are about 300 cases that have been heard by the US Supreme Court between 2000 and 2010 that don't have a page! C'mon! Just find a red link and help out :) Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's really rude, both in what you said about Rod and also with the assumption that we aren't concurrently working on articles. Silver  seren C 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If half the people here (including some Arbs) spent as much time writing as they do pontificating and listening to their own voices, the encyclopedia would be much better.  Giacomo   07:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Did I read that right? Did someone above talk about writing articles? That is what the enemies of Wikipedia do, content editors. The only value content editors have is that administrators can block them. Wikipedia is now about the dignity and power and glory of administrators. On no account should an administrator be desopped unless s/he has clearly done something terminally offensive to the administrator corp. That means attacking other administrators. Why do you think there is such an uproar here? Being an administrator is for life. Desopping is a very serious matter. We cannot have administrators feeling anxious about it. As far as I know, Rodhullandemu never attacked another administrator. He may have obsessed about destroying top content editors who can do things he can't do, but that is his job. Many administrators can't and don't contribute any really useful content and it is essential for them to feel empowered and take the bastards down who can. Many administrators of that ilk profess to believe that Wikipedia has been basically written now, and that content editors are endlessly replaceable, and certainly always dispensable. But administrators are here for ever. Please, before you are terminated, stop this disloyal talk about "content", and support our glorious and beloved administrators. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, there's plenty of productive content writers who were glad of the fact Rod was extremely good at efficiently and more importantly, competently, easing their maintenance workload by doing what he was elected to do, be a decent admin. Second, if you think this special measures outcome doesn't affect your future ability to write articles or clean up crappy content, you are seriously mis-informed. There's a lot of people saying so, but quite a few would have been named parties had any case been allowed to happen, to investigate how this pathetic feud and environment of factionalism was allowed to develop and fester, sapping the time and energy of everybody. I doubt anyone here is daft enough to think that that is an environment that fosters fantastic productivity. Sure, winning particular fueds helps particular editors in their particular field. But despite frequent loud noises to the contrary, they don't comprise the whole pedia. They don't write the majority of content. They don't even write 1% of it tbh. I'd rather that instead of people forgetting about this issue and going off to write articles, they instead made sure that the committee that supposedly exists to protect the whole project, to maintain its productivity across all areas, clued itself up, and started to realise that they cannot throw around serious allegations of feuding and conduct unbecoming in an admin, and then simply pretend the swift desysop of that one person, and doing jack all else, does anything at all to stop that happening again, and again, and again, and again. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * and then simply pretend the swift desysop of that one person, and doing jack all else, does anything at all to stop that happening again - I think it stops the misuse of admin privilleges. ArbCom are expected to prevent such misuse because the Community has no mechanism of doing so. For the other issues in dispute, the Community does have measures - and if they have been tried and failed to produce the desired effect on all parties, then that's when a full arb case can deal with those particular issues. Obviously, nothing prevents anyone from attempting to resolve the other parts of the dispute if they are still in dispute. This was never a case so it was never going to bring the final type of resolution you've suggested here and elsewhere on this page; it was simply going to resolve the issue concerning misuse of admin privileges (or at least that's how I interpreted it). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The committee is expected to do a whole lot more than just act as emergency technical switch flippers, or that's at least how I understood their role. Community processes did fail here, and the outstanding issues not resolved by Rod's swift demotion very much are still arbcom level problems. The last ANI didn't even revolve around simple abuse of admin privelages, but far more serious issues. If they did realise this, having read the evidence, if a 'related issues' case would be accepted here on that basis, with the minimum of fuss or farce, then let them say so, to forestall the inevitable howls of protest and general misdirection that accepting it, or even formally requesting it, would generate (infact, if they were so minded, they could have already said so in the motion). MickMacNee (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that if Rod prefers a full case, AC are prepared to accept a case, but whether AC are prepared to accept a case, even if Rod does not explicitly prefer that, is something I am unclear about. On another note, some people might dispute whether related issues, in general, are far more serious than a misuse of admin privileges (as there is a heightened level of responsibility which comes with a position of trust, which means the expected standards of conduct and judgement are also higher). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought
I must trout us all... this has gotten way out of hand. Off to the articles! <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  09:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I do not think it would do us good to continue to discuss policy in a thread that relates to a desysopping that occurred in a private (and so, presumably, personal) context. There are some things that ought to be left well alone so far as possible, and this is one. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 11:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So can the guy have his mop back in the meantime? ArbCom needs to remember that while, logically, being deprived of the admin flag (or being subject to other partial restrictions on editing) for a time should be no big deal, they are in fact dealing with human beings who naturally react with great frustration and anger to having what feel like punishments imposed on them in public and under an incomprehensible or arbitrary process. It DOES matter if, by its actions, the Committee succeeds in driving good editors away from the project. I don't know what happened in this particular case, but I certainly know of one past case where a ridiculous ArbCom decision drove an innocent and good editor away, so I think Committee members have to be a lot more sensitive in the way they treat their fellow contributors. (I'd have thought that in this case a "X's admin rights are temporarily removed while the matter is being resolved" would have been a lot more tactful and less drama-inducing. Though I don't know all the facts either, so this is just a loose suggestion.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In what meantime? I think your statement "I don't know what happened in this particular case" probably sums up the merits of that suggestion better than anything I could say.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much a suggestion - more a question to those who say that the whole thing is unimportant and a waste of time discussing. If it really doesn't matter, then it can't be very wrong to do the other thing (and it would also defuse the drama).--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu discussion archived

 * Original announcement


 * Entire thread(s) archived with extreme prejudice.

All right, what little valuable discussion might have been in those threads have run their course. Some valid points were raised regarding how decisions of the sort should be made and/or announced, but process discussion does not belong in the thread for a specific incident. As for the incident itself, there is no point in rehashing it here any further. The person concerned (note the very deliberate use of the singular) is well aware of further avenues of progress if he chooses to avail himself of them. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a WikiGnome I have archived the WP:CENT listing to the RFC that was contained in this thread. If you disagree with my interpertation, feel free to undo my changes (1 to WP:CENT and 1 for the archive) Hasteur (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thanks for cleaning up after me. I didn't think about that crosslink.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but Coren here has played into the hands of the ruling bureaucracy by unilaterally stifling further debate. It is not up to one editor to establish consensus, and although many issues have been rehearsed here, not one has been resolved to the satisfaction of the community as I see it. Many questions remain open, and sidestepped by ArbCom. The privacy issue is a non-starter, and for the sake of clarity and openness, I hereby authorise and invite ArbCom to open a full case against me, with full disclosure, including emails, and that includes their own internal discussions. The downside of that, of course, is that (1) they will expose their disreputable procedures; (2) they are already on balance largely disqualified from adjudicating on this issue, having come to a conclusion without due process and (3) despite multiple input from disinterested editors, they have failed, and abjectly so, to validate their own position, even ex post facto. To quote new and inexperienced Arbitrator Elen of the Roads, "This isn't going to go away". If they had any honour, they would at least offer a middle position, but they haven't. It's about time they did. Rodhull  andemu  00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests. Hasteur has filed a request for arbitration. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Poor form, Coren, to try to shut down a discussion of an action that on first impressions seems hasty/harsh. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Rodhullandemu simply make a request for adminship and see what support he has from the community for his continued use of the tool. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That well is poisoned. Even if it's a completely idiotic decision by the Arbitration Committee, it carries a good deal of weight at RFA. I know this from experience. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is why I am not prepared to take that course in the face of the blatant injustice I have faced from ArbCom. The least they could do is to recognise their abject failure here, wind back the clock, and offer me a holding position which would at least recognise that on balance, my contribs here utterly outweigh temporarily, and unsupported allegations. But they won't do that, because they are convinced that they are right, despite community input. I've never been impressed by arrogance, and particularly blatantly unjust arrogance. Rodhull  andemu  00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting aside whether justice is something we should be seeking on a collaborative encyclopedia project, you have three basic avenues. You have the community and the tools we use to gauge community consensus such as RFA and RFC, you have ArbCom, and you have Jimbo Wales. You are refusing to appeal to the community, and you are refusing to appeal to Jimbo. You are simultaneously demanding that ArbCom reverse their action while adamantly insisting that they will not.
 * The couple dozen or however many of us who show up on these pages are not the community. We're not even a representative sample. If you want to claim the community has your back, prove it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong. You are setting aside basic human rights that are independent of venue. I have been denied the normal venues for response, especially RFC. It has already been pointed out by others that RFA in these circumstances is a poisoned well, so that, today, isn't an a reasonable option. As for an appeal to Jimbo, I know that he is fully aware of all this, and if he has any honour, will step in when the time is right, if only to prevent Wikipedia's processes being shown to be utterly foolish and arbitrary. What has happened in the last seven or eight days is so far from his values that he now must do this if he believes that this encyclopedia has any chance of survival with its present form of governance. It may be hard, but it does need doing, and rapidly. Rodhull  andemu  03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Human rights? Which one of those is being violated here? I must have missed the part about Wikipedia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yeah, Armcom screwed up badly here. But claiming that your human rights are being set aside? The Wordsmith Communicate 04:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So how ArbCom has/is handling your particular situation is an indication of how the entire project governance is doing? This incident is the one that is going to break the site's governance? Are you really that important? Are any of us? Are even all of us who are even peripherally aware of this particular incident, combined, actually that significant?
 * Something else to think about. Lets say, for the sake of argument that it is true that ArbCom denied you fair process (whatever that means) but they also genuinely believe that you are no longer fit to be an administrator, and this is based on incontrovertible facts. In some legal systems, we're willing to keep people in positions of responsibility for the sake of preserving the institutional fairness, even if it becomes clear they are unfit or even dangerous. Wikipedia is not such a system, never has been, and I doubt ever will be, even though so many processes have managed to accumulate over the years. Process can of course have value. It can make things easier, and more fair, and more clear, and many cultures encourage it. But at the end of the day, at Wikipedia we've always cared about getting the results right more than we've cared about getting there right. The point of being that, if there is reason out there for genuine, reasonable people to think that you're unfit as an administrator, the end result will be the same. The only difference will be the amount of pain and posturing we all go through.--Tznkai (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The odd thing here is that many members of the Committee have been such for a long time, and many others are students of its work... yet at nearly every opportunity, they completely fail to demonstrate that they have learned even the most obvious lessons of the past. Secret trials, protestations of "secret evidence" (soon contradicted by those same speakers), paternalist insistence that its "for your own good" despite your disagreement, etc. It just reeks. So you tried to do it "gently and humanely" by doing it in secret, and presenting Rod with a decision already made; big surprise his reaction wasn't quite what you'd hoped. Even assuming your expressed motives represent the whole, will you in retrospect concede that your actions were self-defeating? And that this should have been obvious to anyone who has followed ArbCom for more than the last year? (For what its worth, the best irony in this was "Stop and breathe" followed by "You disgust me." I chuckled.) <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've pretty much nailed it. Thanks for doing so. I fight on. Rodhull  andemu  00:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless of course, there have been successful applications of the taking care of things quietly approach. I mean, I don't know, and wouldn't know, since if they were successful, I wouldn't know. But, at least some success hidden from view is consistent with my belief that the majority of ArbCom is neither stupid nor crazy. They do however, tend to burn out. And a major factor in burn out is wiki-life under the microscope, subject to a vicious peanut gallery never deterred by incomplete information. And, as we all know, endemic exposure to the raw nastiness of this place causes Bad Things. A gradual but definite crescendo of antisocial behavior, long inactivity, and finally punctuated by high drama.
 * Yet, despite this long, repeated pattern, notice by experienced ArbCom watchers like you, dear reader, we still continue to collectively poke and prod what are supposed to be our best and brightest (which we seem to be running low on) inexorably down the path of burn out. You'd think it'd be obvious.--Tznkai (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tznkai is right. There have been issues dealt with sensitively that didn't erupt into drama, and he is also right that if you are only aware of the dramatic cases, it looks like ArbCom may have a high rate of mishandling things. But I would say that it not the case, and even in the cases of public drama, things are often handled well, but some elements stoke drama, possibly to their own advantage (though if people see through the drama-stoking, it usually backfires). Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, and I certainly won't argue the point that biting criticism is a source of dismay and the cause of some dissociation for arbitrators. On the other hand, they signed up specifically to make decisions that are often high profile (within our own little world) all while knowing, as they must have, that these decisions are often the subject of a great deal of argument. Previous committees and observers have suggested various ways of alleviating this pressure - introduce procedural rules that are binding on the committee, develop a settled set of controlling precedents, etc. All methods designed to establish a credible, consistent institution and to protect members from having to repeatedly make controversial decisions as though they were of first impression. Unfortunately, the committee in its wisdom has decided that it must have complete freedom in virtually every situation - and each time it avails itself of this freedom in a novel way, substantial criticism is the inevitable result. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Nathan, as far as I know, this was first use of Arbitration Committee/Procedures, so I'm not sure your comment that ArbCom repeatedly makes 'controversial decisions as though they were of first impression' applies in this instance. There have been various discussions over the years looking at ways to remove admins whose conduct is below the standards expected, and these procedures were formulated last August . In my view, we should resolve this case first, and then organize a discussion about how we can improve our procedures. PhilKnight (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Should we impose permanent sanctions on someone, without giving them the right to reply to accusations, offer evidence or even see the case against them?" I'm pretty sure that question has been answered before, conclusively. If the rules on procedure were binding (i.e. if the committee recognized that private proceedings using secret evidence against an unsuspecting perpetrator were not permitted) then this would not have happened. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T
 * Still less should they take one position in private, and another in public.  Rodhull  andemu  05:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight, could I ask if you are aware of the examples given here? I'm not sure if any of those are Level II, and from memory most of the temporary desysops were Level I, but I'm not so sure if a complete record exists of all desysops done under those procedures (such a record should be made, though possibly some details may need redacting). You also say 'these procedures were formulated last August'. Can I ask to what you are referring here? In the section I linked you to, I point to an announcement that was made over two years ago. But possibly there is something from last August that I'm forgetting. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Carcharoth, looking at the previous examples, I'm not sure if any of those are level II either. Otherwise, I stand corrected on when the level II procedures were formulated. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has license to remove administrator rights from any user. The license to permanently desysop applies even when made under procedures that do not seem to provide for doing so. The arbitrators could desysop me because they say a sign from the great god Tenri-O-no-Mikoto has told them to do so: it is their overriding prerogative to desysop an account, and that is not, in my view, the issue. It is problematic to desysop a user under the guise of Level II procedures when the desysopping is clearly not intended to be temporary. Two years ago, these temporary procedures were constituted by the Committee; what they should have done then, and what they should do now, is also provide for a procedure for indefinite desysops. An incomplete process is a bad process and almost as useless as no process at all. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 21:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And rest assured that when the specifics of this case are dealt with, we're going to update things to avoid this kind of confusion in the future. While we haven't been saying a whole lot publicly, there have been some really good insights and suggestions offered about how we can handle future involuntary desysops for cause better in the future. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Rodhullandemu

 * Original announcement

Probably worth noting that the case has been opened. Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - done. – xeno talk  20:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this not something (obvious to most) that needs to be deeply thought about and deferred for a month or two? Giacomo Returned 21:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting leaving it here, and waiting to see if Rod comes back, that might have some merit. He does have  history of leaving and coming back in a few days. The trouble is, Rod absolutely insisted that this be opened. Then, when Jimbo didn't back him up and overturn the desysop, he said he would have no part of the case. In the meantime, I've posted the evidence. People can make of it what they will, but one can't have it both ways.  Either things are done in camera or they are done in public. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I seriously think, it would be a good idea to wait awhile and see what transpires. I don't see any need for a hurry. Giacomo Returned 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that Rod wanted the case and a number of editors also raised serious concerns over ArbCom's actions here, it seems best for the case to go ahead. Presumably those who felt that ArbCom acted wrongly here will post evidence for this, and if Rod chooses to not particpate then that's ultimately his choice. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rod has clearly accused ArbCom of lying about its actions and the reasons for them. What's to wait for? Rod made it very clear that he wanted a case to be opened; if he decides to go awol when he realises that his bluff's been called then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel so tempted to link to the Wikipedia Review section. Silver  seren C 22:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to whatever you like, doesn't alter the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion is here, though just pages 9 and on are relevant to the current discussions. Silver  seren C 22:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe. However, I am sure the Arbcom will not be influenced by anything I have to say - so I have isued my ten cents worth or warning and dire gloom - on their heads be it. Giacomo Returned 22:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Giano, this would be as good a time as any for an "I told you so", in which ArbCom's self-described well-intentioned attempts to handle things off-Wiki have clearly resulted in a less than optimal outcome. I don't think any of us could dispute that. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's something of a self-defeating prophecy. If I say, "there is something I know but I'm not telling you because I don't want you to obsess over it", there's at least a decent chance that you're going to obsess over it just as much or more as you would have had I just let the feline companion animal out of the non-restrictive carrying container to begin with. --B (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're all very aware of the Streisand effect, B, but I don't think it played a role in this particular incident. The problem wasn't that we needed attention drawn away from the reasons for the desysop so much as we had reasonable reasons to believe that Rod would have likely suffered significant harm if we proceeded in a way that could have been perceived as public humiliation, hence the desire to provide him with a face-saving way out.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem now though is that everyone has their own pet idea about what those reasons might be. Was Rod lying about being terminally ill? Is he in some way incapacitated late at night either because of drink or drugs? I don't expect you to answer those questions, but they're questions nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would a decent gesture if you were to refrain from further commentary on this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because no good is going to come of further discussion. Rod has "retired" for the second time this week, so let's put it to rest. You don't have to buy him a pint, but nor do we have to speculate on his personal life. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rod has retired many times before, what's different about this retirement? And just to be clear, I'm not speculating about anything, I'm simply reflecting what Rod has himself said. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really this big a deal when someone is desysopped? I think one of the lessons learned with the David Gerard incident, when the Foundation's lawyer got involved because the ArbCom publicly listed the reasons they took the actions they did, was that it's often better for the ArbCom to simply say in situation like this, "So-and-so has had their admin privileges removed by the Committee.  The Committee will have no further comment."  Then, the Committee should have studiously ignored the subsequent public complaining by the ex-admin in question and other editors.  I'm sure that approach would have driven a lot of editors up the wall, including the desysopped admin, but it seems to be, in the long run, the best approach. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I draw the opposite conclusion. While it seems that ArbCom acted correctly in this instance they should reflect on the hostility with which the Wikipedia community views non-transparent decision making. Any time editors feel that Wikipedia is being governed behind their back they are sure to kick up a fuss.173.128.120.2 (talk)

Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2

 * Original announcement