Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10


Standard operating procedure: CheckUser and Oversight

Original announcement

Well done. When does the timer start on people with the tools today? From today? Or from the last time they used the tools? Is there any plans for a minimum threshold of uses in a given time frame? Or if I'm a CU, can I keep it indefinitely with one check per 365 days? rootology (C)(T) 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we really want to be doing all we can to get rid of as many CUs as possible? For my part, I'd like to know what the method for recovering the permissions is. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be "on request", barring exceptional circumstances. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 07:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't want to get rid of CUs to get rid of CUs, but no "rank" on Wikipedia, from +Rollbacker up to +ChairoftheWMFBoard or +ExecutiveDirector(the people really in charge) are permanent. Any of the technical ranks can be removed from any user at any time if the community deems it required to be removed: Abuse Filter editors, Account creators, Administrators, Bots, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Founder, IP block exempt, Imports, Oversighters, Rollbackers, Stewards, Transwiki importers, Uploaders.
Since we are currently requiring for the community to vet and validate anyone with access to the AC, CU, or OS capabilities, I would imagine any user who has not previously been vetted in public by the community would be--that's what the AC said previously, at any rate. I wanted to confirm and to make sure the system couldn't be easily be gamed by a random (even if needed) CU every 300+ days or something similar. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
If CUs are "gaming" this system, we have bigger problems than inactivity.
I remain unconvinced by the argument that elections are worthwhile, particularly for people who have previously been trusted and considered competent before, unless circumstances have changed dramatically.
One more question for the Committee: is the functionaries-en mailing list included in this measure?
[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of the people with CU or OS access rarely used them. These people don't need the tools. We don't need lurkers on Funct-l, CU-l, and OS-l, so the people not using tools or commenting in discussions will be removed from the lists. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. The categories listed at Wikipedia:AC#functionaries-en are "Arbitration Committee members and former members, CheckUser and Oversight operators, and selected other editors". Are we to presume this has changed? Are you going to remove these guys from the list? Are we to assume, then, that functionaries-en is no longer considered by the Committee to be an advisory group and that it solely exists for the purpose of co-ordination among users with the CU and OS permissions? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Just speaking as an outsider, but I've been getting the vibe since last year's AC that the general trend is heading toward the sitting, elected-by-the-community making decisions, or wanting to, without all the prior arbs weighing in on everything... and that the sitting arbs would go to them when they want feedback. Which makes sense, since so many of the new Arbs the past two years came in with demands from the community to fix what many perceived as a failing, archaic system, and reinvent aspects of it. Which they're definitely doing. rootology (C)(T) 17:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Then say so, do it publicly and be done with it. I for one would absolutely respect that. If I was on the Committee, I might well even vote for it. I am less impressed by the gradual creeping move to remove the ancien régime under the pretence of inactivity. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, they seem to want to baby-step it along, which I can respect as well, since we know that everyone here reacts so well to sudden change. ;) In fact, I wish they (the sitting committee) would go all out at once and announce that future AC elections would be ratified solely by the community (there is an exceedingly simple and fair method for that here) and then limit all the core lists to people who need to be on them. Appointment to the AC directly from the Community, control of the AC from the Community, no offense to Jimbo--the AC can keep him on the list if they want, since it's their list--but if you did this and added in shorter terms (2 years) and term limits (2 terms), you'd have a constantly evolving and vibrant AC year over year that answers to no one but Wikipedia itself. But imagine if they did that all at once--people would be berserk. rootology (C)(T) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that these points tend not to have been phrased in this way but in (rather incredible) terms of inactivity, and done in a little-by-little way rather than up-front and openly. If the members of the current Committee want to remove former members from the list (and I think they do), then let's hear that. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the people that have access as former arbs will remain on the funct-l IIRC, ArbCom-l was pruned periodically in the past to remove people that were no longer active. Similarly, we will likely prune the Funct-l of people that do not comment in order to keep the membership of the list to active users that are engaged in the discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No, arbcom-l was not pruned. And what on earth is the rationale for "keeping the membership of the list to active users that are engaged in the discussions"? Confidentiality? Again, we have bigger problems if you don't trust the members of the list to keep things private. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There have been leaks before from all of the lists. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I need to check the archives to make sure, but I do think that it was pruned to remove people that were no longer active. The issue is more complex that saying that we don't trust users to keep issues private. We know that in some situations issues have been leaked from private lists. The leaks happen for a variety of reasons. But in each instance decreasing the number of people with access decreases the risk of accidental or deliberate leaks. The leaks are of great concern to the Committee. We want to give people greater confidence in the Committee and Committee related lists, so removing lurkers seems prudent. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The confidentiality argument is a reasonable one, although I'm sceptical it will have any impact whatsoever. What will you do if a list member removed for inactivity comes back and asks to be let back on the list? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight is correct about past pruning. Paul August ☎ 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My mistake then. I confess to being surprised -- could you give me a name or a date? (Privately, obviously.) [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Sam, you participated in the discussion last March (2008) when we removed 5 former arbs. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
How embarrassing! [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

Original announcement

Thank you for all of your work on the Committee. It's a thankless job and you've served admirably. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work, Sam. I have three questions for the Committee, and Jimbo, that both require answers for the community.

  1. Was your history as Fys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) known to Jimbo and AC before your election and appointment?
  2. Were they aware edits between your two accounts overlapped?[1][2]
  3. Are you being replaced with the next runner-up from the last election?

Thanks. rootology/equality 17:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. No, the current Committee was not aware of the past history here. We're still looking into whether anyone else may have been informed, however.
  2. See #1.
  3. Given that the Committee is currently well ahead of where we traditionally have been in terms of both size and level of activity, there aren't any current plans to call up additional members until the next regularly scheduled election. That may change as we move forward through the year, though.
Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I was not aware and my informal checking with other former members has not revealed that other arbs or former arbs knew. I thank Sam for promptly addressing our questions over the last 24 hours so we could move forward. I agree with Kirill that we do not need to replace him now. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding my confiormation that this wasn't known by any arbitrator I'm aware of, last year. So far as I'm aware, Sam's contributions as an arbitrator were both above board and of a uniformly fairly high quality. I'd be prepared to review that impression upon evidence, but that would be so for any user or functionary. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

After the facts become clearer, I think a motion from the Committee with a brief background and timeline would be appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks Kirill and Flo. Sam-- you were a fine Arb during your time. Thank you. rootology/equality 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Fys (talk · contribs) was renamed from Dbiv (talk · contribs) [3] CHU.
In 2005 Fys was elected an admin (RfA) and ran for Arbcom in 2006 (ACE), he was desysopped in 2006 (RFAR) for extensive abuse of admin tools.
In 2008 Sam accepted and voted in the RFAR on William M. Connolley and Geogre RFAR, among other things restricting WMC's admin abilites. In 2006 Fys filed an RFC against WMC [4] who had blocked him [5][6].
In 2006 Tango (talk · contribs) blocked Fys [7] and in 2008 Sam made extensive comments about Tango at his RFAR. I wonder if the arbs can indicate what type offwiki (Mailing list) comments were made in regard to this case after Sam recused.
I've identified another account that is related to Sam/Fys, however it is his real life name and not otherwise linked these accounts. Is there any knowledge of this account to ArbCom?
I agree with MZMcBride that further comment/motions from ArbCom will be required.MBisanz talk 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Sam Blacketer has made the current Committee aware of the other account you refer to here. Risker (talk)18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. I believe Sam should also be desysopped in light of the passed deysop motion against Fys. Utterly disgraceful. Abusing the trust of this community and misusing your admin tools and your judgment as an Arbitrator. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? What past desysop motion?? I just saw Nishkid's diff. I agree, and at the least any access to AC tools, CU, OS, etc., need to be immediately removed today. rootology/equality 18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's slow down a bit. If there isn't serious misconduct as Sam Blacketer, and he created the new account to make a clean start and move past his problematic history, then immediate tar and feathering can wait until a full account has been developed. Nathan T 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Fys desysopped. He abandoned Fys/Dbiv, returned as Sam Blacketer, gained adminship and membership into the Arbitration Committee, and participated in cases against individuals who he had clashed with (WMC, Tango, etc.). I see serious misconduct all over this one. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And as I noted above, he overlapped both accounts. This is very bad, on the same wavelength of the games that Poetlister pulled on Wikiquote. rootology/equality 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that such participation is wrong, but I still think it behooves us to approach this situation more carefully and with a full understanding of the facts. His participation in the WMC case did not effect the outcome, and he recused from the Tango case after a single paragraph of comments which did not effect the outcome. Yes, such behavior is wrong; but it absolutely does not rise to the Poetlister level, and even that outcome waited on a complete investigation. Nathan T 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<-I tend to agree with Nathan here. Sam is a prime example of someone who learned from his earlier mistakes and made a fresh start. While, in hindsight, it has the appearance of impropriety, I don't believe it was done in bad faith. I also don't believe that an investigation of Sam's conduct toward those involved in Fys's desysoping & blocks (the investigation does need to happen) will turn up any bad faith actions. --Versageek 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Everyone take three steps back, make a nice cup of tea, and allow the full facts of this situation to unfold, before jumping to any rash conclusions. We've already driven one editor away from Wikipedia this week for past actions that were blown way out of proportion. Let's not make it two. Happy‑melon 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Versageek, how is deceiving the community about their past not an action of bad faith? If he honestly felt he had a good track record as Sam Blacketer, why didn't he appeal his previous desysopping to the Arbitration Committee? Why did he feel the need to continue covering up his past, if he didn't believe that his past would cloud his chances of political ambition on Wikipedia? What does this say about the Arbitration Committee if Arbitrators are willing to overlook the fact that he was formally desysopped in 2006? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Steady, you're doing it already. It only "says [anything] about the Arbitration Committee" if they were aware of the coverup and wilfully took no action; you have absolutely no evidence that that was the case. Equally, you have no idea what actions were or were not taken and why. Unfounded speculation is the source of 99% of on-wiki drama, in my opinion. Happy‑melon 19:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and at this point there is no evidence that either present or former AC members knew anything about this. As I said above I didn't know and I have no knowledge that any others did either. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I was actually talking directly to Versageek. I mistakenly thought Versageek was on the Arbitration Committee, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've finished my researching and only found a couple more noteworthy points:
Fys showed he was deeply involved against JzG (talk · contribs) at JzG resignation, insulting JzG, more JzG insults (among many other places), after JzG had blocked him [8]. Sam voted on the JzG findings at a past RFAR and is currently voting on JzG findings at a current RFAR.
Sam commented extensively on Everyking's appeals at RFAR talk and voted on at least one of the motions that dealt with Everyking and Phil Sandifer. Fys endorsed Phil Sandifer's response at RFC.
Fys was blocked by Viridae [9]. Sam voted to admonish Viridae at RFAR.
Fys supported SlimVirgin's position at RFC. Sam voted not to desysop SlimVirgin link. MBisanz talk 19:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just blind, but where did Fys support anything at the SlimVirgin RFC? --Conti|✉ 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, found it, he was User:Dbiv at that time. --Conti|✉ 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually do not see any "insults", only critics. Ruslik (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Sam voted against sanctions for JzG at the current RFAR. It would be inappropriate to suggest that his votes were coloured by an old grudge; quite the contrary in fact. JN466 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To Sam: thank you for your service and by doing the right thing and resigning from the Committee. This comes as quite a surprise, so let's not rush to judgment. Would like to see a full explanation, preferably by Sam himself. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


For people reviewing, it is probably worth noting there are 2 block logs, one for Fys and one for Dbiv since block logs were not transferred in old renames. MBisanz talk 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the committee did not find out about these other accounts of Sam's back in February when he indicated his intention to resign? It would be good if an approximate timescale of when the committee found about them was provided. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

They found out roughly 24 hours ago. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on correspondence from an arb, on the functionaries list, I believe that Sam informed the rest of the committee last night. Paul August ☎ 20:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) There is absolutely no reason for desysoping Sam at all. — Aitias // discussion 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitas, I think you are making an indefensible argument.
  1. Concurrent use of multiple accounts, a potential breach of WP:SCRUTINY.
  2. Failure to disclose prior block log at WP:RFA.
I think those are reasons to take a closer look. Had there been full disclosure of these circumstances, the community might not have granted ops. Jehochman Talk 22:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Blacketer is listed as an admin open to recall. There is already a mechanism in place to deal with desysopping.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Given MBisanz's findings, case updates?

Can someone please review the cases that Fys/Sam/whomever voted on, and if he was inappropriately voting there, see if any of the fixed decisions would have been altered 1) without his vote, 2) with the majority having been changed? I am absolutely against any such findings, decisions, or remedies (if any) standing, and they need to be undone if his vote decided them. If any have lapsed, but were thus affected, I'd like to ask the AC to issue official apologies to the affected individuals. rootology/equality 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go on the record here to state, without hesitation, that no such thing should take place. While Sam definitely should have made this disclosure earlier, and that it is almost certain that his probabilities of having been elected would have been significantly affected if that information was known before he had a seat, those votes were made while he was an arbitrator in good standing. There are a number of things Sam should have done, but there is no suggestion that he has not acted as an arbitrator with diligence and neutrality during his tenure— or that his votes have suddenly retroactively become invalid.

This new information means that his continued presence on the committee is not appropriate— not that he has become an unperson and that every trace of the past two years need to be "undone".

If anything, Sam is an illustration that it is possible to turn over a new leaf from a bad start on Wikipedia to become a respected and productive member of the community. I agree that he went about it the wrong way, but not that his past behavior is suddenly false. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm somebody who had a bad start and turned over a new leaf, using the same account, not a new one. If Sam had recused from the cases where he should have, your logic would be sound. Any case where he should have recused but didn't should be subject to review upon appeal by any party. It's not fair to have an adversary participating in the deliberations. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Just echoing what Jehochman said. I don't want the entire AC history reviewed and 'overturned' back to his appointment, just a review of the cases he was required to be recused on (which MBisanz has been citing extensively already). rootology/equality 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, recusal is usually determined by the arbitrator themselves. Unless the community considers the rest of ArbCom uninvolved on matters relating to Sam Blacketer (which if it did, would be riddled with problems of its own), the options available are limited and time-consuming. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a problem all around, since Arb recusal should be enforceable in some way. The "doomsday" situation of an Archtransit or Poetlister reaching the AC has happened, here. Something needs to be done to make sure everything Sam touched was clean. rootology/equality 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There was not evidence that Sam was indefinitely blocked on another name. This verifies that his account was not indef blocked. He also did not operate on an outside website and manipulate many admin here to helping him get around his indef block. As such, your comments are highly inflammatory and a gross breach of Civil. Sam is still a member in good standing regardless if he lied or not about who he is. He already resigned, so any of the above claims are purely punitive and damaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ottava here, what he did may have been somewhat deceptive, but comparing him to banned users who only acted good to be able to abuse the admin tools is rather inappropriate. I don't think there's anything to suggest that the only reason he was a good user was to become an arb and abuse his authority. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This leads to a more general question, tho: When should an arbitrator recuse? Should an arb recuse himself when he signed a view on an RFC about a party to a case three years ago? That doesn't seem very practical to me. --Conti|✉ 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That's actually a very good question, and not one that's trivially answered. Most of us use a fairly simple standard ("Can I be impartial, and will I be perceived as such?"); and many of use interpret even that fairly liberally— I will usually recuse on request when the case is marginal. But I agree with you that "Has interacted at some point in the (distant) past" rarely justifies recusal. — Coren (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the issue here is what should qualify for recusal?, but are there facts that are relevant?. The participants in these cases were unable decide if they should ask Sam to recuse because they were unable to connect his prior actions. Admin and Arb actions should be trackable, even if it is through userpage redirects, rename logs, etc. Otherwise it obscures transparency. MBisanz talk 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In that, we agree. In fact, that Sam participated on a number of cases where his recusal would, in normal circumstances, be considered is the primary reason why his resignation has been tendered. My point is not that this shouldn't be the case, but that reexamining those cases a posteriori would not be useful and is not required or justified. — Coren (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
For all the good it would do? I can't think of any cases from which an arbitrator recused at somebody else's request (except for FT2 on one occasion, but even that was like pulling teeth). — CharlotteWebb 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we can ask the question, Would a reasonable arbitrator have recused in this situation? If somebody had blocked Fys, no way should Sam have been in on those deliberations. The Committee would not have permitted it. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Strongly agreeing with Coren here. — Aitias // discussion 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
From looking very briefly at his voting on those cases, I don't think removal of his votes would not impact on the findings made. I didn't look in too much detail though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that like others, I had no knowledge of Sam's prior accounts until the last day or so.

On the general issue of when arbitrators should recuse themselves in given circumstances, I have posted my own views on this issue on the workshop talkpage in the Ryulong case, for whatever it's worth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement forthcoming

There will be a statement from the Committee sometime this evening (EDT). — Coren (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

hopefully it'll be along the lines of 'Sam done wrong, and has had all privileges removed from his account, we hope he'll stick around and edit productively 'cos we're nice people.' Zero drama, and the right thing to do, I reckon. Privatemusings (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)ps. while we're in 'uncovering naughty behaviour, but maybe it's all ok' mode - d'ya reckon I could get amnesty on my alternate admin. account brewed up during my site-ban, and whom I have to work quite hard to keep below the radar - it'd be cool if I could just step into the light, and carry on admining...? ;-)
Cheeky boy, be patient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If the result is "let him keep admin rights" despite his blatant abuse of the community's trust, what's the next step? If Arbcom doesn't like the idea of desysopping him, what chance in hell does a case have to desysop him? Majorly talk 00:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I hadn't thought much on the admin aspect of it, having only just been able to digest this since finding out yesterday Oz time. We will discuss. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

< statement's posted now - I'd give it a solid 6 out of 10.... with poor marks for timeliness, and failing to end the matter in one dull swoop by resolving the admin. question in the only possible reasonable way, by removing sam's admin.ship - it's no big deal anyway, right? Privatemusings (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)... and I've gotta say that I think Coren's becoming my favourite arb! It's my view that only a gigantic boob would oppose such sensible measures... and sure enough :-)

Poor marks for timeliness? You are aware that there are 15 arbs editing from widely separated time zones? As for Sam's adminship, that hasn't been forgotten. Look around a bit and you will find what you are looking for. Carcharoth (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
From painful personal experience trying to get a smaller incarnation of this committee act quickly, I can attest just how logistically difficult such a thing is. From what I can tell the committee has acted well and with dispatch, and deserves our thanks. So my thanks to the committee. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Paul August; also, we didn't elect the committee to make sudden decisions without much thought or discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So...

Are there any other arbitrators who wish to come forward and admit they are reincarnations of a desysopped admin? This is incredibly embarrassing (for ArbCom), to put it plainly. Does "Sam Blacketer" still have admin rights? I would surely hope as well as resignation from ArbCom, his admin rights are handed back too. Majorly talk 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone has been desysopped for abuses in the past, it seems inappropriate to run again under a new account without disclosing that history. At the very least, another pass through RfA with a slightly more optimal level of honesty and disclosure would seem reasonable. MastCell Talk 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's such a shame actually. I never thought Sam or whatever he's called was abusive, or misused his tools. The fact he passed under a new name, hiding his past, just goes to show what a polical arena RFA is. It's not about whether the person would make a good admin (which I don't think anyone is disputing), but whether the guy has behaved or not for an arbitrary period. I've said it before: RFA should be about whether the candidate would make a good admin, not your own personal opinion about the individual. Whether he would have passed as Fys is unknown, but perhaps if he'd waited awhile, he would have done. Sigh. Majorly talk 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
@Majorly: Why? — Aitias // discussion 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh, because of his blatant deceiving of the community; his abusive sockpuppeting; his COI voting as an arbitrator. I could go on, but it's so patently obvious I shan't. A question to you: why should he continue, after deceiving the community the way he has? Are you saying it is acceptable to leave one username, and return as another, and make no mention of the fact you were desysopped for abuse, at any point? Majorly talk 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, but this explains a bit... that you should have to ask doesn't really speak that well of you, aitie :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
@Majorly: No, I don't think this is acceptable (it's indeed unjustifiable) and I'm in perfect agreement with you — however, the point I was trying to make (above) is that we should not ignore the very huge amount of good work Sam has done. Hence, I cannot see a reason for desysoping him — no instances of abuse of the tools as Sam Blacketer (i.e. while using this username) have been presented. Taking this into account, desysoping appears to serve no other purpose but being punitive. Of course, in case I'm missing something, I'd appreciate any pointer. — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Tons of editors have done good work, who would never be admins, because of their "bad" past. Adminship is not a reward for good behaviour or work. ArbCom voted to desysop Fys, therefore Sam should have run as Fys. Instead he deceived the community. Someone who has betrayed and misled people this much, regardless of whether they abused tools or not, is unfit for adminship in my view. Adminship involves having a certain level of trust in the community. Finding out this has been going on behind our backs is hardly trustworthy. Majorly talk 00:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, Coren puts it much better than I ever could. — Aitias // discussion 17:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What has that got to do with his adminship? Majorly talk 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I disagree that it's embarassing for ArbCom. They have no control over who is elected to the Committee, and rightly so. I'd say it's more embarrasing for the community, but even then, barely so. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's credibility has just suffered a new low with this. Majorly talk 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, just what could ArbCom (by which I mean the 15 current arbs) have done to avoid this? As soon as we became aware of this we paid it immediate attention, and we are currently discussing the wording of a statement on the matter. It takes time to get agreement between 15 people on the wording of a statement, and not all of us are around yet to contribute to the discussion. If you want to help prevent this happening again, please come up with some constructive suggestions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea, I'm simply stating facts. Taking a firm approach and desysopping the user in question should have been the obvious response to this. Majorly talk 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing with Majorly. This has every appearance of being yet another example of wikipedia's two-tier system of justice. Firm action's required, not hand-wringing; regular editors don't get away with undeclared sock accounts. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that Sam personally attacked people or acted incivil? Do you have evidence that he blocked people inappropriately? If so, please provide it. He already stepped down over the matter, and he only desired probably what you also would desire - a chance to start with a clean slate without having done anything majorly problematic. Yes, it was bad that he had two accounts simultaneously, but is there proof of abuse during that time? If so, please provide. Of all the people that we should be forming a mob to attack, I think Sam is far down on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, see the evidence near the top of this thread. Also examples: [10], [11], [12], [13] etc etc. There's loads more, just look through the contribs. Majorly talk 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Anything not over 2 years old? If you want to make a case for there being a double standard that he isn't desysopped now, you should definitely show incivility that is less than a year old. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
He didn't use his other account after 2007 so you're asking for the impossible. The fact is though, he was making those kind of comments while he was grooming his Sam Blacketer account up for adminship (and later arbitratorship). He would never have been endorsed by the community had they known this. This deceit and sly behaviour is unbecoming of an admin. He might not have abused tools, but he abused the community's trust. Majorly talk 03:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you know? The comments seem mild and I've seen people say far nastier things and pass their RfAs. And deceit at an RfA? Did you call for Tan's desysopping? Or are you? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Who is Tan, and what has he got to do with someone being desysopped for abuse and returning under a new name and getting adminship, whilst still continuing to edit under the previous name, making frequent uncivil remarks and personal attacks? Majorly talk 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Your recent point was about being deceptive during an RfA - Tanathas was a case of just this that was revealed rather quickly. I'm surprised you didn't know about this, as it comes up quite often at ANI and WT:RFA when talking about "gaming" RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
He admitted he gamed the system? That's nothing compared to this. Majorly talk 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(to Ottava): "He already stepped down over the matter, and he only desired probably what you also would desire - a chance to start with a clean slate without having done anything majorly problematic." I don't desire that at all as it happens. I'm not ashamed of anything I've done; admittedly I may not do it exactly the same way again today, but neither would I run away. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you don't desire for people to hold a few early mistakes against you, which obviously snow-ball over time (people like to all it "progressive blocking"), I'm sure you can understand someone who would, no? I'm not asking for him to be seen as innocent (as he isn't). But I am trying to point out that what he did was understandable and not as awful as a lot of people. Merely perspective. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Clean start"

I thought this was accepted practice, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name. The overlapping was presumably done to keep those who'd connect the dots from interfering with the clean start, which seems to have been successful. I do wonder how many regular editors are actually "reincarnations" of this type, but I don't care if they do good work. --NE2 23:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a clean start, as he has apparently been voting on things that affected his former (desysopped) account. Also it says "Discontinuing the old account means specifically that the old account is not used for editing ever again." Sam edited with it again. Majorly talk 23:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Discontinuing the old and starting the new simultaneously would kind of give away the clean start to anyone editing in the same general area, no? --NE2 23:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A clean start would typically also mean editing all new content areas, and not voting in Arb decisions in line with your previous username's disputes, as well. rootology/equality 23:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Editing all new content areas? Seriously? Shouldn't improving the encyclopedia in one's area of expertise be the important thing here? --NE2 23:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Always, that comes first, and that's just one of the two examples I cited. Based on this information and tool, the Sam and Fys accounts heavily overlapped. The problem is that if you go back in again with a new name on the same content areas, if there are disputes, it's flat wrong, as it gives you an unfair advantage in content disputes over the older users. The other important (more important) factor is staying away from your old conflicts and conflict areas. rootology/equality 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
So were there any old conflicts that Sam carried over from his old account (apart from the recusal issue)? That's a serious question, because I honestly don't know the answer. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, 463 pages in common is pretty low. In fact I'd bet half of them are ones we all have in common. I checked for shits and giggles and as far as drummed-out admins go it turns out I have 1916 pages in common with CSCWEM, 1536 with Everyking, 1025 with Darwinek, 893 with Ryulong, 744 with Betacommand, 676 with Majorly(!), etc. plus I have a similarly high number of pages in common with certain people whom I actually go out of my way to avoid. Damned if I could name such pages off the top of my head as it's sheer coincidence, not the product of stalking, tag-teaming, or anything like that. I did notice that Sam/Dave did in fact refrain from editing his own bio and the Peter Tatchell article from which he was topic-banned. His interest in Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox (whoever she is) is what convinced me after Tarantino popped the question on WR. — CharlotteWebb 00:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Since when does "a clean start" mean "editing all new content areas"? That sounds kinda weird. I suppose you could say that a clean start means that problematic behaviour should not resurface, which might mean editing all new content areas, depending on the situation. --Conti|✉ 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That's always been my interpretation. You and I get into x number of fights over the years over Some Page. We both net 5 blocks in 2 years over it, and then one of us vanishes, comes back as someone new--and I go right back to Some Page eventually, with a clean record. How is that right? rootology/equality 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends what the blocks were for...were they for revert warring, or for personal attacks? Does the old argument resurface, or has it been resolved? --NE2 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That entirely depends on your behaviour. If you come back and act collegial, honor policies and guidelines and clearly improve Some Page, then I'm really not sure if your previous block log matters much at all. If you act just like you used to, tho, and soon earn another block, then yes, that would be an entirely different situation. --Conti|✉ 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the page when Sam created the new account. There is nothing about a clean start there, and there are a lot more loopholes and relaxed views on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
To be pedantic then, if the written policy at the time (December 18, 2006) described practice accurately, then what he was doing was even moreso wrong. rootology/equality 23:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In February 2004 the Arbitration policy on transparency was added and has essentially remained that way since then. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm… I'm not sure it would be unreasonable to interpret that as "multiple active accounts", or to mentally check that box by saying "I do not [currently, present tense] have/use multiple accounts". This should be clarified if there is an expectation for abandoned accounts to be revealed as well, though I suspect in the majority of cases there will only be a few trivial "false starts" totally unprovable and not worth mentioning. This line of reasoning does raise (and beg!) the question of whether arbcom would have taken any action. I'd go so far as to suggest that if he'd revealed his former identity at the beginning of his term, he'd be able to convincingly deny it now, having had the advantage of a dozen fellow arbcommies willing to help cover all six(?) of his footprints. — CharlotteWebb 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The policy at the time [14] linked to the section "Alternate accounts" which includes including WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name (see history). I think it is obvious that even legitimate socks should be included in this disclosure.
More generally, in a policy section called "Transparency" it should be expected that too much transparency is preferred to too little - if someone wasn't sure whether the policy required them to disclose a prior account, they should do it anyway, or ask.
There has been a bit of discussion between arbitrators of what would have happened if he had revealed the "Fys" account to the other arbitrators and Jimbo prior to being appointed. I would hope that Jimbo would not have appointed him. It is very likely that Jimbo wouldn't have appointed him given that he had passed over him in the 2006 election. If he had revealed his prior account at the beginning of this year, my guess is that he would have been removed from the committee as user:FT2 was. Or he could have temporarily stood down while a Request for comment was undertaken. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Notifications

Should we notify the most affected parties as none of them seem to have commented thus far? By my figuring it would WMC, JzG/Viridae, Phil Sandifer/Everyking, Tango, and Calton. MBisanz talk 00:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any urgency. Let the Committee have a chance to make a statement. Jehochman Talk 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, it is a holiday weekend so I suppose things will move slower than usual. MBisanz talk 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh and I should note I am wearing my editor hat here, not my clerk hat. If there is arbitration related-work to be done, I shall be recusing as a clerk. MBisanz talk 01:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would have made a difference in either my or JzG's rulings from the C68-FM-SV case (he is just one arb). The name Fys didnt ring a bell until I saw the entry in his block log where I blocked him, then it all came flooding back. ViridaeTalk 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to ask this

But it may be prudent, so I can play the villain as always. Has he been Checkusered to ensure everything today is on the up-and-up? rootology/equality 01:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. If ArbCom wants to do that, that's their call. I'm steering clear. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 01:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No. Please hold off on this for the moment, until the committee has made a statement. As Nathan has said above, lets take this slowly. There is plenty to digest already. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No no -- I emphatically didn't want CUs to all leap at once. But I simply hope that the results (negative or positive, and if positive, which accounts beyond that certain one are disclosed--we have to treat Sam like any other user here) are either included in the statement or announced swiftly afterward. rootology/equality 01:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't checkusers done on all ArbCom members when they are newly elected? Or are they? Seriously, I don't know. --Moni3 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would they be? Checkuser is not for fishing. Majorly talk 03:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Moni - well, if we want to go that route, why not have all admin CU'd also? Simply put, chances are people will just game the CU system by using the various tricks to get around it. Also, CU would probably not be able to look a year back to find out. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
To ensure decisions made about content and against editors aren't being made by users who have been previously blocked by subjects in ArbCom disputes. I had to get my fingerprints processed in every state I sought to teach in. I didn't see it as fishing. --Moni3 (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
CU, Oversiters, and ArbCom have to identify themselves now, however, it seems that Sam came before that change was made so there is already a system in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems perfectly sensible for me, but it's against foundation policy for use of checkuser. Though of course, it is very easily gamed. Majorly talk 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Then let's ask the Foundation to authorize checkuser of every editor seeking access to a position of trust. This seems prudent. Yeah, people may try to game checkuser, but evading checkuser takes considerable effort, which will discourage some. Jehochman Talk 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I would increase that to anyone who votes at any elections (RfA, ArbCom, etc) also, to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but is checkuser anything more than an investigation into an editor's IP address? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Not really. However, it is sometimes seems like a scary black mark that gets people who act like sockpuppets all riled up and offended when you go to request a CU on them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
CUs can also see the operating system and browser details. Maybe more things too. Majorly talk 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a limited inspection of the web server logs. When you request a web page, the URL, your IP, your browser type and version are all recorded. Checkuser looks at a subset of that data, related to editing only, not viewing (I hope!). Whenever you visit any website you reveal this info to the website operator. Also, fish CheckUser is not for fishing is a tradition of en-wiki. Checkusers are authorized by the Foundation to use their tools however may be prudent to protect the project. Fishing is not prohibited by the Foundation, as far as I know. However, it would not hurt to ask them for clarification before implementing wider use of CU to protect the integrity of our elections. Jehochman Talk 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The data that CheckUser draws on is entirely separate from the web server logs. When the extension is installed, the regular recentchanges table is supplemented with a "cu_changes" table which records IP, XFF and user agent information along with the regular information about the change. Page reads are in no way recorded. --bainer (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser's code is open source; what it collects is not secret. IP, Agent (your browser, browser build, etc.). If you click on this link--I don't own this site, no idea who runs it, visit at your own risk, etc.-- http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ -- you can get an idea of the kind of data Checkuser can capture today and in the future. That is it, legally. rootology/equality 03:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Man, if anybody ever checkusered me they'd get a headache. I use at least four different browsers and hop around on all sorts of IP addresses. Jehochman Talk 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I shudder to think how compromised my reputation would be if CU recording viewing information. I'd like to keep my television entertainment preferences sheltered from public view.--Tznkai (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
CUing my Tivo would make people laugh. And not from the preponderance of Family Guy, The Soup, and the Daily Show... rootology/equality 03:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see thanks. In that case who does a checkuser on me will think that I have an unhealthy obsession with medieval English bishops. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't everyone only edit Wikipedia whilst they are waiting for The Porn to download, anyway?
We all here are knowledgeable enough to know that CU is useful in discovering things that most on Wikipedia would be had, but we are also all knowledgeable in our experience (long term editor, admin, Arb, et al) here to know that a requirement option is fundamentally flawed. Forget all beans, I use a Sprint aircard. I think we know how easy I could IP hop if I choose. I could be Ottava! I do, however, consider myself to be a trustworthy person and I do my best to maintain honesty and accountability. So if I ran for RfA today, and you CU'd me, I could hide another account with ease. Wikipedia does not need a Patriot Act to keep it safe, all things in time will sort themselves out. Remember this guy? One of the most open secrets in our political history. Haste is a devil. Keegantalk 05:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CU Results

In response to a direct request by the Arbitration committee, I have run a checkuser on User:Sam Blacketer, and I have been asked by ArbCom to post the results.

There are no other accounts that can be linked to the above two based on the information that is currently available. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is is true that Sam Blacketer did not reveal this additional account in his recent communications with the committee? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I am not a member of ArbCom and not privy to their internal communications; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, Sam gave us enough information that we would be aware of this other account, which is openly connected to User:Dbiv and has been since August 2006. More than this, you would be better off asking Sam yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's see if I've got this right. You're suggesting that I should ask someone who has been found to have engaged in a deception whether or not he revealed the full scale of that deception to the committee? Rather than ask the committee if they were aware of the full scale of the deception? Makes no sense to me. Why all this repeated fudging? Why not simply say "yes" or "no"? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not speaking for Arbcom, of course, but does this answer your question? --Conti|✉ 15:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, read the notice on User:DavidBoothroyd and then look at the edits of that account (including its deleted contributions - ask someone else to summarise or review them if you can't see them) and then look at WP:SOCK. If you have problems with what happened there, please decide how you want to take it further. A full account of your concerns in one place would be better than the scattergun commentary scattered over this page. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A few straight answers to a few straight questions would be better than all this blustering fudging. As you well know, I can't see deleted contributions. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason I'm not giving straight answers is that there are privacy concerns here. It is not clear whether Sam Blacketer's actions mean such concerns can be waived, and there are reasons to think that at some point the privacy concerns will need to be addressed, so that's why I'm being cautious here. If you want a short answer to your original question, the answer is "no" (it's not true). And again, I would direct you to Sam's talk page. He is not some sort of pariah, and he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, as you will see there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I never suggested that Sam was a pariah. I was simply asking the committee what the extent of their knowledge was, a question that Sam cannot possibly answer and the committee seems unwilling to answer. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You got an answer in the last post: "If you want a short answer to your original question, the answer is "no" (it's not true)." I regret not just saying that straight away, rather than trying to explain things to you while balancing other concerns. It really wasn't worth the effort. Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone with a passing familiarity with Sam's old account would have already known which real-life name it was associated with, and realized the account bearing that name was also his. Let's not insult arbcom's intelligence too much now. That said I'm not sure why Sam should have felt obliged to reveal any more information to arbcom (pursuant to the committee's "group confession time" treatise) if he had already agreed to resign from it. — CharlotteWebb 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

He told us this before he resigned. The earlier "agreement to resign" (back in February) was merely him saying he intended to step back to do article work. This resignation (in May) was different, and ArbCom moved to issue a statement, in part to make clear that he cannot take up the rest of the term he was elected to (though he is of course, free to run in future elections). An earlier resignation in February would have left him open to "returning". If this matter had been exposed after a "sabbatical" resignation, I am sure ArbCom would still have closed off the door for return, requiring a re-run through a community vote. Carcharoth (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A point

I would ask that, when ArbCom prepares a response, to consider that Sam was one of the few ArbCom members not to have CU or Oversite tools (and the only not to have both) and the possible positive or negative reasons behind him not seeking the tools. In terms of the community, Sam did start off and make many, many edits at the beginning, which shows knowledge and use that makes it hard to assume that his account was new. There are many others like that who have been granted admin tools. He was also granted ArbCom status after only a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for the future

Could we make it a stipulation in future that all ArbCom candidates must publicly disclose previous accounts before the election? If there are privacy concerns, they should at least disclose publicly the number of accounts, timeframe, and number of edits with those accounts, then send the usernames to Jimbo.

As things stand, some candidates are asked if they've had previous accounts, and some aren't. Some give clear answers, some give ambiguous ones. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The names should be sent to the AC, not Jimmy. One point of failure is unacceptable, and the trend is to move away from the old model. If people don't trust to disclose to the AC itself, why are they even running? rootology/equality 03:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
They may well be asked to disclose, but people lie. Majorly talk 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The names of accounts can't be sent to the ArbCom if there are privacy concerns, because we don't know who all members of the ArbCom are, as this case shows clearly. We can't ask people to send names of previous accounts that might identify them into a void. If not Jimbo, then Cary, but it has to be a known, named, responsible person. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The simple solution for this is the ensure that the current committee is trusted by the community. This is needed for other reasons, and is part of why this why this is happening right now. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of the reason it's not fair to ask people to trust it is that we don't know who everyone is (or used to be), so we can't just say "the solution is for the Committtee to be trusted." It's a vicious circle. Best thing is if ArbCom candidates are formally asked to disclose upfront. If they can be trusted, they won't mind doing it, surely. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it was a standard question for all candidates in the last election, but I havent checked closely. It was part of MBisanz's questions. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
... and it looks like not all candidates filled out a guide: Special:PrefixIndex/User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/. If an arbitrator hasn't been asked, it should be done. And I am sure the community will be very keen to ask this in the future. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
John pointed to this earlier, which already stipulates the above and has been in place since 2004. Although the second point may allow for some privacy, the third should have been enough to expect information of previous accounts to come out to the committee then. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There is something different about being formally asked to disclose as part of the election criteria, and being asked more casually by another editor during the election. The former would concentrate the mind more, and would make the candidate realize they were about to commit a fraud. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Irrespective of when and how it is asked, arbitrators and candidates are expected to answer questions of this sort honestly. If they dodge the question it should be explicit that they are refusing to answer. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the point, really? Are you suggesting "Sam" did not realize what he was doing? Do you think that the next "sam", whomever he used to be, will read that question and think, "gosh, I never thought it might be a problem that I was banned last year?" What would we be doing differently now if we had a diff of a formal questiona dn answer to point to? Thatcher 04:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) John, if you look at the number of candidates and number of questions, we can't assume that a queerly-worded response to, "Have you had previous accounts?" will be spotted. What is wrong with making disclosure one of the nomination criteria? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am in full agreement that these questions need to be integrated into election process for the future. Ideally it should happen prior nomination, but that isnt as important as it being done prior to appointment. We often have late entrants, so we dont want to add a hurdle. Arbitratators should also be identified prior to appointment - arbcom-l has sensitive info flow across it all the time, from checkusers or oversight situations that are difficult. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency needs to be updated to reflect the shift in the expectations of the community.
We also need these same questions put to sitting arbitrators so there is no grandfathering going on. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hate to be cynical again but I think anybody put on the spot like that would pattern their denials after those of the next candidate whether they're guilty or not. So if the first response looks queer they probably all will. This is a natural consequence of holding all the interrogations in the same week. — CharlotteWebb 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the only way to actually stop this--and that's doubtful, if enough time has elapsed--is compulsory Checkuser on everyone the day they announce their candidacy. And if they're smart, they let their Old Bad History lay dormant long enough. If someone did it for malicious reasons, and had half a brain, they can get away with it. User:EditWarrior2004, real identity unknown, blocked in Jan 2009, could be admin User:John Smith III by the end of 2009, known by real name, and running for the AC in December 2010, giving his drivers license to Cary in January 2011. How would you tie them together, if he didn't tell you? rootology/equality 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that most people who do this don't fully understand how fraudulent it is. I think that especially applies to older users like Dbiv, who was here when Wikipedia was a much more casual affair. It would concentrate the mind wonderfully if they were expected formally to declare that they had never operated previous accounts, before being allowed to stand. Of course, the very dishonest ones will lie. But a formal declaration would weed out the mostly-honest-but-not-taking-this-deception-very-seriously brigade, which I suspect covers most Wikipedians. No one has said why requesting prior disclosure would be problematic. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This makes sense to me. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
IT's not unreasonable, I just think it won't yield useful results. (Checkuser won't help if the candidate has a lick of sense in his head.) Thatcher 04:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this would be useful - I believe some folk take advantage of some of the gaps in these areas, so in fact, 'sam' can genuinely say that he told no direct lie, and many out there in the 'real world' will struggle to see that he did anything wrong at all. Forcing an arbcom candidate to tell a direct lie might give some pause for thought - particularly if folk have real world status to think of (it seems sam is a local politician, for example). Privatemusings (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Asking for disclosures forces people to go on the record with a statement that can be judged true or false. Lying by omission is much easier for most people than saying something that is outright false. Thatcher,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, but if people have to actively dodge, it makes deception harder and some will screw up and get caught. Jehochman Talk 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I asked each nominee in the last election if they'd used any other accounts within the last year. I suggest that it be asked of every candidate in future elections. I can't recall now why I limited it to one year, but most respondents replied that they'd never used any other accounts.   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will, you and Matt had the right idea. I had thought that it was a question to all candidates (see above). We need to go back and check all answers by the successful candidates. I think the community was aware of this potential problem at the end of 2008. The problem was that during prior elections we had lower standards. A lot changes in a year around here, and we should be avoiding grandfathering people in implicitly - grandfathering in should be explicit and discussed. I am also beating myself up about this a bit, as I asked about Sam Blacketer back in December, but I accepted the answers I was given. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to require identification to be a candidate, to weed out all but the most determined folks? rootology/equality 05:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, from my online experience, it wouldn't do any help at all. Intent to deceive or mislead, whether for malevolent or benevolent intent, cannot be stopped if the agent of action is determined in their goals. As I said in my post above, Wikipedia does not need a Patriot Act as a result of this. Privacy on the internet is of utmost importance for achieving our goals here and elsewhere. Just my personal philosophy. By the way, my name is Keegan. Keegantalk 06:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Privacy is good, but to be on the AC you have to surrender your privacy to the WMF. That's just how it works. rootology/equality 06:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A corollary to my post: What Jayvdb stated above, not before candidacy, but before the appointment, in regard to my statement. Keegantalk 06:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That way everyone's dog-tags can be leaked to SATX whether they win the election or not? That's unreasonable. — CharlotteWebb 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to remember the Chinese proverb: "The fish rots from the head". What's required now to restore faith in a system that looks increasingly creaky day by day is for every one of the present ArbCom to agree to be checkusered. Otherwise how can anyone know who is to be trusted? What happens after that is for the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're saying CU every single sitting Arb, and then force disclosure of the results to the AC as a whole? rootology/equality 06:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And before anyone asks the obvious question I would have no objection at all to being checkusered myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure would be a good way to restore trust. Have a really good CU like Dom run down every IP and name by every Arb, do NOT pass the results to the AC directly. Dom hands it off to the Audit Committee, who vets Dom's work, and then the Audit Committee hands it off to the AC. If the AC tries to 'cover up' or 'munge' anything (I doubt anyone on there would be even that stupid), the Audit Committee could simply call bullshit and Game Over them. rootology/equality 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Reform and real accountability has to start somewhere. Where better than at the top? --Malleus Fatuorum 06:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. But let us go a step further and require all administrator candidates to reveal all previous and alternative accounts upon acceptance of nomination. NO exceptions, NO buts. Failure to so would result in immediate removal of the RFA in question. Being caught lying after the fact would result in immediate and permanent removal of the sysop bit and a ban of at least one year.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • How, exactly, do you intend to enforce this? (And anyone who says "checkuser" is automatically disqualified from further participation in this conversation due to terminal obtuseness. It is far easier to create alternate accounts that are technically undetectable than it is to maintain alternate accounts with different personalities and interests. Anyone who can master the second will have mastered the first. Checkuser only catches people who are stupid, lazy, or who just don't care about getting caught. )
Funny thing is, a lot of people opposed Sam's Arbcom candidacy on the grounds that he was too new, but none of the squawkers on this page who were eligible to vote at the time seem to have done so. Thatcher 14:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually opposed good Samwise's candidacy (see #46 under opposes:). As for enforcement, I expect it to be enforced the same way all rules and policies are here- arbitrarily and unevenly. But at least it will give an extra layer of security againsts fraud and corruption. By your same logic, we may as well scrap WP:Sock alltogether because it is unenforcable except for the stupid, lazy and apathetic (are you implying here that Sam was a poor puppeteer?). Or better yet, let's scrap WP:3RR because clever puppeteers can easily evade that as well.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I missed your vote. Sam was apparently caught by Tarantino on Wikipedia Review by behavior, not checkuser, as the only edit he made from his alternate account within the checkuser database was after the disclosure. I should probably add "overconfident" to the list of cases in which checkuser works, though. Thatcher 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed a lot of the frauds and abusers here are caught by those punks and ghouls over at WR. Perhaps we should give them checkuser;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the "squawkers" might feel more inclined to participate in ArbCom elections if the result was binding, and not subject to the personal whim of one person to decide whether or not to accept it? As a matter of principle I refuse to take part in such a corrupt system. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The eventual changes that are brewing (more people are vocal about it every single year) for Jimbo to be removed from the AC selection process is a separate issue. It's even doubtful he retains true authority to even de facto appoint someone today. The community would have it in their power to block such a thing, and I'd be at the forefront of leading that block. rootology/equality 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To the barricades!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the line taken by SlimVirgin and a few others here. Furthermore, what is fatally absent from the way in which ArbCom is constituted are the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances. As we know all too well from RL, the fact that decision-makers might be elected is insufficient to the maintenance of open, transparent governance. Any community or societal power structure requires a separate and publicly accountable body or officer to oversee this among those in whom power is vested. Parliaments do this by instituting ombudsmen and/or anti-corruption agencies that are at arm's distance from the elected; the enactment of freedom-of-information laws is now commonplace in western jurisdictions. Although such measures can themselves be corrupted for neutered over time, their existence is the basic platform for protecting the governed from both individual cases of wrongdoing by decision-makers and the development of systemic corruption among them.

On WP, it is a particularly idle notion, as currently in force, that when arbitrators' perceived neutrality is brought into question (as countenanced in the rules) that it be up to arbitrators themselves to decide as individuals whether they have a conflict of interest in a particular case. Nor is the matter righted by the potential for ArbCom to act as a group to force out arbitrators when they become an embarrassment, long after the damage is done. CoI is written into the rules as though it were taken seriously, but it takes no insight to see that—in the absence of the separation of powers and of checks and balances to ensure openness and enforcement—CoI policy and practice as they have evolved for arbitrators are serving the community poorly. It is disappointing that Jimbo Wales did not foresee that the absence of such basic measures would become a significant problem, and seek proper legal advice to set them up long ago. It would be unreasonable to expect Jimbo to perform an ongoing role in this respect.

Why is it, for example, that an arbitrator in the current Dates Case can have written privately to two parties informing them that some of his/her votes were made on the basis of (i) knowing the parties well, and (ii) a sense of obligation for past assistance by those parties? Does this arbitrator's failure to disclose and recuse at the outset indicate a basic misunderstanding of what CoI is, or an intent to pervert the course of justice, or somewhere in between? We need better than this. Tony (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems well balanced, iff your claim in the last paragraph is true. What do you propose? Happy‑melon 09:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you substantiate that claim? If you can't, you shouldn't be making it. Either make evidenced, justified claims about specific members of the Committee, or don't say anything at all. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 09:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I can indeed substantiate the claim: I am in possession of the documentary evidence, which I am prepared to release. Tony (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Tony1, you said that last time you made allegations about arbitrators in regards to the date delinking case, and did not provide any evidence in spite of repeated requests to do so.
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 1#Jayvdb and the Dates Case: the question of recusal
Submitting the evidence to others for verification should really be done before you make allegations publicly.
Anway, again I request that you put the evidence in the hands of someone neutral and trusted. If it is confidential in nature, it should be submit it to arbcom-l@wikimedia.org, or another user who is well trusted and not a party to this case. user:casliber is someone who comes to mind, but I dont really mind who. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to handle it if you'd rather keep it away from arbcom-l, but I'd second John: you must be able to substantiate such a claim with suitable evidence. Happy‑melon 12:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I, for one, would be very interested to see this evidence. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I can only speak in broad terms for privacy's sake and because I do not have the "evidence" but the issue Tony is referring to here is that of partial recusal. How (I'm speaking from Tony's point of view here, not my own) can an Arbitrator abstain on proposals about certain editors and a) not publicly declare his reasons for these abstentions; b) stay objective on the case when his relations with these editors may compromise his feelings on the matter (not saying that they are)? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have forwarded the evidence to Kirill Lokshin, and to Happy Melon, who offered to act as an uninvolved admin. Tony (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have received the forwarded evidence; if genuine (not that I'm suggesting otherwise, it appears legitimate and corroborates with public evidence) it does indeed validate Tony's claim in his 08:55 post. Happy‑melon 15:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As someone facing a year long block in the current arbitration case, I must say this is very troubling news... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Balance of power is a tool of democracy and we are not a democracy. However, we still have accountability, so I would lean towards a system like that. Regardless, I think the spirit of Tony's concern is Juvenalian - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "Who watches the watchmen". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since all the relevant data is now public, I can explain. In his capacity as an editor, Rlevse has worked (and continues to work) closely with Dabomb87 and The Rambling Man on Featured Lists and other articles. As such, he felt unable to act impartially in motions in the Date Delinking case specifically concerning those users; but in a case with nine named parties and remedies against nineteen users, determined that it was unnecessary to recuse on the entire case purely because of a CoI with such a small part of it. Apparently, this 'partial recusal' is a fairly common practice. As such, Rlevse has explicitly voted to "abstain" on every FoF and remedy concerning Dabomb or TRM. This creates some confusion, however, between these 'recusal' abstentions (eg FoF 31, Remedy 24), and abstentions due to a genuine apathy over the remedy (eg Principle 12, Remedy 1), which while irrelevant to the mechanics of the voting, makes the process less clear than it could be. Rlevse has now clarified the nature of these abstentions. Happy‑melon 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How... dramatic? The issue is that he didn't vote? Can this thread be moved to an appropriate /Evidence page, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, just to make sure I understand. Are we seriously discussing the fact that an Arbitrator that might not be impartial towards specific editors wisely chose to abstain from voting on proposals regarding those editors in order to remain rigorously impartial might have done something wrong? Grasping at straws to find cause to complain, anyone? — Coren (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride and arbitrator Coren: I am disappointed to find what appears to be a vein of sarcasm in your comments: please correct me if I got the wrong impression. The community expects these matters to be taken seriously.
As you both know, in all cases of partial recusal, the critical issue is that the fact of and reasons for the recusal be made public (as Wizardman did in a recent case, but which, critically, Rlevse has not). There must also be no doubt of prior neutrality towards other parties. I note that arbitrator Casliber recused fully from the Dates case at the start solely on the basis that he was "a good friend of Tony's" (possibly an overstatement, and I mean no harm in saying that, Cas, but really, we rarely communicate, on- or off-wiki, and I haven't even made it onto his userpage lists of WPians he's met or emailed with). It is highly unsatisfactory that arbitrators are applying such wildly different criteria to full, partial and non-recusal in a way that damages the notion of consistency and justice.
Two issues come to mind. First, was the privacy of Rlevse's communication to serve other purposes we don't know about? The mere possibility that obligations in the opposite direction could be created by such a clandestine message, for abstaining from motions that would disadvantage those parties must be open to public scrutiny (I'll hold off here if you keep assisting my nominations). Read my lips: I am not accusing Rlevse of doing that, whether consciously or unconsciously, but natural justice demands that justice not just be done, but be seen to be done in all cases, scrupulously, and even where the parties involved have no personal intention to thwart the course of justice. Emblazoned in the Policy Rules for ArbCom is the expectation that arbitrators:

will decide cases according to the following guidelines, which they will apply with common sense and discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community ... (3) Sensible "real world" laws.

The second issue raised by non-disclosure is an unfortunate spin-off: questions are being asked about whether Rlevse has other undisclosed conflicts of interest, such as, for example, resentment at critical reviews of one or more of his featured article/list nominations. We are left wondering whether he has thought through the meaning of part of his message, "I know you well from all the help you’ve both given me on featured content" in relation to other parties in the case, and the obverse, "I know you well from all the tough criticism you've given me on my featured nominations, which think was unfair".
I hope I'm not breaching confidentiality by conveying that one arb. (not Cas) has since put it to me that part of the problem here is an air of conspiracy to the affair, and that letting some parties know the reason but not others tends to lead only to trouble. My take on what I regard as the wise opinions of this person is that ArbCom needs to set out clearer rules for (1) when to recuse fully; (2) when to recuse partly; (3) the proscription of "silent recusals"; and (4) how to set the balance with how editors become parties to ongoing cases in the first place.
In addition, I want to return to my first statement above, in which I argued that there must be another person or body at arm's distance who, without fear or favour, will judge significant issues of conflict of interest where they arise on ArbCom. Jimbo lacks the necessary uninvolvement for this role, in my view. Tony (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This issue of the proper method of recusal and when an arbitrator ought to be recused is one that has returned a number of times, always with an amount of suspicion and discontent. It may be that we should make firmer expectations of when a recusal is necessary, and what disclosure ought to accompany it, in order to avoid having to deal with this problem over and over into eternity. Arbitrators aren't federal judges, they don't have extensive training that would enable them to identify problematic conflicts, and it makes sense to have clear guidelines so that arbitrators and the community know what to expect.
In the future it would probably help if such a discussion wasn't introduced by a comment that seems to accuse an arbitrator of misconduct (even "perverting the course of justice" by acknowledging to friendly parties that his "votes" are based on a prior friendship, when such votes were actually abstentions and nothing else). Tony, your lead up mischaracterized what actually occurred and I think that was a mistake. Nathan T 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Tony1 alleges an illogical problem. If Rlevse was on overly good terms with two of the parties, surely friends of those two parties (such as Tony1) would enjoy a little more sympathy from Rlevse if he was going to be giving any, and it is the people on the opposing group of parties that would be the ones to complain that they are being harshly treated by him not recusing on this case. I doubt Tony1 is writing for the enemy here, and oddly enough, those most like to be mistreated by Rlevse's participation are not chiming in to express their displeasure with him participating in this case.
The plain fact of this situation is that Rlevse doesn't feel able to vote true on those two parties, but is not influenced on the core of the case or the other parties. He felt it was necessary to inform those two parties of his reason for abstaining so that they didn't draw the wrong conclusions, and he also informed the committee. Typically community members ask about a recusal if they feel it needs an explanation, and usually one is given. Instead Tony1 alleges misconduct right off the bat, and uses "[his] votes" rather mentioning that it was the "abstain" that was giving him reason to be concerned. And of course Rlevse was quick to publicly state what the reasoning was.
It would have been better if Rlevse was clearer from the beginning, however all you had to do was ask Tony. It would be great if guidelines existed, but good luck to anyone who tries to define when I am going to be partial. And often the case turns out to include parties and issues not disclosed at the outset. As an example, I recused on Fringe science as it seemed at the time of opening to revolve around entirely ScienceApologist, who I have previously blocked as a clerk, and felt he would not appreciate my involvement. In the more recent motion I again recused, but this in turn meant that I was approached by ScienceApologist and we started talking offwiki - I ended up proposing an alternative motion that was still quite harsh, but more favourable to him. My alternative motion failed miserably but the point is that my bias, as perceived by others, shifted from one end of the spectrum to the other within 24 hours, and I voted in my alternative motion and/or a recent clarification (despite my prior recusal). I regret not participating in the Fringe science case, as I think I could have saved ScienceApologist from himself by proposing the more measured remedy back then, avoiding lots of drama for everyone.
On another case I have had people email me asking to recuse, and I have emailed parties to inquire whether they thought I should recuse. I am sure the other arbs are regularly facing a similar dilemma.
If we are looking for clarity in this, my recommendation is that we adopt a policy where all arbs must vote in all circumstances, except in very clear situations or when they are marked away. This isn't a lone judge situation; we are a committee, able to be held accountable for our publicly viewable votes. With 15 votes, the occasional vote motivated by malice wont affect the outcome. OTOH, if a party has managed to pissed off enough of the arbitrators that it makes a difference to the outcome of a remedy that effects that party, the remedy is probably appropriate anyway. The problem with this approach is it means all arbs will need to vote more often. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no sarcasm in my comments, Tony, I am simply flat-out stating that your expressed concerns are ridiculous. Not only did you misrepresent the facts making it look like an arbitrator had voted in conflict of interest when reality was that he explicitly recused from voting because of that possible conflict, but you ended your tirade with a loaded question implying that "the course of justice" had somehow been perverted by an Arbitrator carefully avoiding a situation where he could not be impartial.

I'm certain that you'll understand that cries of injustice by ArbCom, that are entirely based on a flimsy and patently unreasonable pretext, cannot appear as anything but a self-serving attempt at discrediting the proposed decision that could end up sanctioning you. That appearance is made all the worse by the fact that your complaint was introduced as a segue in an entirely unrelated thread where tempers were already running high about a different member of the Committee. — Coren (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting mechanics and other issues

Reply to John V.: You say: "If Rlevse was on overly good terms with two of the parties, surely friends of those two parties (such as Tony1) would enjoy a little more sympathy from Rlevse if he was going to be giving any, and it is the people on the opposing group of parties that would be the ones to complain that they are being harshly treated by him not recusing on this case." One's friend's friend is my friend? One's friend's enemy is my enemy? One's enemy's enemy is my friend? I would be incivil to call this a simplistic view of tribal relations, because sometimes it might be true. However, it is irrelevant. The more worrying aspect of your statement is the assumption that Rlevse would allow his friendship with one party to leak into his attitude towards that party's friends in the case. Arbitrators are expected to be neutral towards all parties, regardless of who knows whom. As you've pointed out, my revealing of Rlevse's failure to disclose involved two of my friends (with more than a little flack from one of them), not members of the other side: does that tell you something about the privileging of justice and transparency over friendship?

John Vandenberg, you haven't answered my central point: it is the disclosure that matters. "It would have been better if Rlevse was clearer from the beginning, however all you had to do was ask Tony." Why would he ask me? And why would I ask him, for that matter? In a process that we can be confident is free from smoke and shadows, one should normally not have to go around asking arbs have a conflict of interest: you would trust them not to have it, or to disclose. That is why the disclosure—at the beginning, preferably—is essential (see Casliber's).

"With 15 votes, the occasional vote motivated by malice wont affect the outcome."—Two problems here. First, are you saying that malicious voting is not worth worrying about unless it's more than occasional, and that it doesn't matter even if it is occasional? Second, on the mechanical level, the total number of voters, whether 15 or 50, is irrelevant if the voting is on the cusp, isn't it? One vote can change all. A local Abstain is very much a vote, and is just as capable of changing the outcome as a Support or an Oppose (struck after advice from Kirill). That is why your and Coren's (and McBride's) assumption that Rleve's moving his vote from either Support or Oppose to Abstain is, in the larger scheme, somehow neutral—and different from moving outwards from Abstain to Support or Oppose—needs to be seriously questioned, in principle and logic. Abstaining is utterly different from being neutral in relation to the other options: it changes the numbers. See below.

Reply to Coren: I politely asked you to correct me if I'd got the wrong impression, and I used moderate language in "what appears to be". Are you not expected to use moderate language in response, whatever my tone? Not this: "I am simply flat-out stating that your expressed concerns are ridiculous." You appear to make what is widely considered a personal attack when you are pillorying the parties in this case for doing the same thing. I'll take that as a "My post contained no sarcasm". Is that what you really meant? Your central point rests on the assumption that voting "Abstain" couldn't possibly be partial. I do not believe that is a credible argument: voting "Abstain" (0) is to alter the outcome every bit as much as to "Support" (+1) or "Oppose" (–1). Arbitrators essentially have three numerical options, all of which change the vote in relation to the threshold. The threshold does not itself change unless there's a full recusal at the start of the case. So take your pick, you have three choices, and choosing a zero may just as well be critical in a vote of 12 arbs (threshold of 2, is it?) in whether the vote is, say +7/–5 (= +2), if the arb had voted Support, +6/–5 (= +1) if the arb voted Abstain, which here has altered the outcome, or +5/–5 (= 0) if the arb voted Oppose. As above, there's a belief that Abstaining equals neutrality: an Abstain is fundamentally capable of changing the outcome. You appear to believe otherwise in your statement: "Are we seriously discussing the fact that an Arbitrator that might not be impartial towards specific editors wisely chose to abstain from voting on proposals regarding those editors in order to remain rigorously impartial".

I ask that arbitrators use polite and moderate language towards me. I'm sorry if you regard me as an irritant, but the matters I raise are of major relevance, not of a pesky mosquito buzzing around. We need to get them right and move on. Tony (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here about the effect of abstentions (or perhaps I simply don't understand your example). Under ArbCom voting rules, a formal abstention changes not only the total, but also the threshold, so it is equivalent to an explicit recusal in terms of result.
To follow your example, in a vote of 12 arbitrators, where the other arbitrators are split +6/-5:
  • Entering a vote as "support" goes to +7/-5; since 7/12 > 50%, the motion is carried.
  • Entering a vote as "oppose" goes to +6/-6; since 6/12 <= 50%, the motion fails.
  • Entering a vote as "abstain" stays to +6/-5, but also reduces the total to 11; since 6/11 > 50%, the motion is still carried.
  • Being recused on the motion also stays to +6/-5 and reduces the total to 11; since 6/11 > 50%, the motion is also still carried.
This is not, admittedly, the most intuitive way of counting abstentions; but it does have the useful (or not, depending on your perspective) property of making an abstention functionally equivalent to a recusal. (It also means that there's a functional difference between an explicit abstention and simply failing to vote, incidentally.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 09:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What Kirill said. I was about to give a detailed explanation of why an abstention was a recusal— but the explanation given is correct. — Coren (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And also a functional difference between abstaining and opposing. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
About "all you had to do was ask Tony": it seemed obvious to me when I first read this in context that there was a comma missing before the last word. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hans, that possibility had occurred to me, which is why I wrote the subsequent clause. And my point still is: why should a party have to ask? Most wouldn't; it's not proper to rely on parties to ask.
Thank you indeed, Kirill, for explaining the complicated mechanism for counting absentions, which is not quite as I'd understood (the 6/11 bit for partial recusal via abstention, whether "silent" or open). However, it still shows that Abstaining rather than Supporting changes the outcome. An Abstain is a meaningful vote, equivalent to an Oppose under this split: it is not a withdrawal. I don't actually know which way Rlevse would otherwise have voted, and it should not come down to penetrating his mind to ascertain whether it would have been "Support", with a potentially different outcome. I was castigated above because his vote was Abstain; I'm pointing out that whether Abstain or Support is relevant under the split we're discussing. As you explain, the numerical effect (/11, not /12) is the same for Casliber and Charcaroth, who formally and fully recused before the start. The difference is that their potential impact on the outcome by doing so (and it is a possibility depending on the split and how they would have voted) is open and explained for all to see. Silent recusal such as Rlevse's is a genuine matter for concern, not as MZMcBride and Coren felt in their posts above—a put-up job by me. This is a valuable discussion, and my subsidiary concern is that I was not stirring up dust for the sake of it. Openness mattered in this case.
Thanks to whoever inserted a title to this subsection; I have added "and other matters" because I raised a number of issues to which there has been no response. I have coloured the relevant text red. I do not want to be perceived as a pest or a trouble-maker—nor do I want to take up my or arbs' time endlessly debating these matters; but it is important that I set the record straight and reject the intemperate statements above that were aimed at me. Tony (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think your position on "abstaining rather than [doing something else] is tenable"; of course abstaining instead of supporting changes the outcome. This is the whole point, no? By abstaining rather than supporting or opposing, the Arbitrator removes his influence on the result - they make their position irrelevant to the outcome. Of course this is different to explicitly supporting (or opposing, for that matter), and deliberately so; how can this not be absolutely the correct action to take when an Arb feels unable to render an objective decision? It is wrong to make a comparison between support/oppose and abstain; because that is to compare between a just system (where only impartial Arbitrators vote) and an unjust system (where Arbs with a COI also vote); of course there will be the opportunity for different outcomes in such an experiment. The comparison must be made between the system where the Arb with a COI recuses on the entire case, and the system where the Arb with a COI on particular remedies abstains on those remedies, and as Kirill has explained, the situations are identical. I agree that it's desirable for the reasoning for an abstention to be indicated, and I'm glad that that has been done in this situation. But the final outcome is not affected by the presence or absence of such an explanation. Happy‑melon 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How to restore trust in the current AC

Thanks to Malleus for this idea.[16] Here's how you restore trust in the AC in the wake of this.

  1. Dom and another CU run full checksuser checks, down to the IP level, and across all associated usernames vs. all active Arbs, independent of each other. Run down the connections until all searches are exhausted.
  2. The results of this (who has what usernames, if any extra), go to the Audit Committee.
  3. The Audit Committee vets their work, to make sure all connections were checked and nothing is omitted.
  4. The Audit Committee hands it over to the AC.
  5. The AC must disclose all accounts held by the Arbs, unless there is a factor like a username's edits or name itself 'outing' an Arb. If that happens, that Arb must justify that exclusion (which will be noted as an exclusion in the final public report) to the rest of the Committee.
  6. The AC publishes a report of who is who. If the AC munges, distorts, or alters the intent of this to protect anyone contrary to the spirit of the exercise, the Audit Committee in public will correct the error. The AC will have to deal with the total failure of trust in them that this would likely cause.
  7. Any Arb who chooses to not participate will surrender access to any sensitive information such as Checkuser, Functionaries-L, the Arb Wiki, the Arb mail list, or Oversight, if they decline.
  8. Trust is restored, as much as is possible.

Thoughts? rootology/equality 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary: one somewhat bad egg (there's been no suggestion that Sam did anything wrong in his ArbCom role) doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the other ArbCom members who, let's remember, had to go through a fairly tough public election process to get the job and are constantly under scrutiny. Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The entire threads above is littered with evidence of Sam doing things he shouldn't of done, based on his history as Fys and Dbiv, and he also went through that grueling process. rootology/equality 06:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Without wishing to prejudge, let me remind you (Nick-D) that it's only one bad egg to date, and one that decided for whatever reason to give itself up. The selection process clearly isn't "tough" in any real meaning of that word at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is an OK starting point. Hopefully the arbs are pressing each other more firmly as we speak to clear up any identification issues and running checkusers probably isn't a terrible idea, although I doubt they would turn up anything of interest. I suggest that we wait a day or two and then draft things like this as part of a policy proposal, maybe something Arbcom can incorporate into its new policy. This is one way to address the problem; I am sure we can think of other ways as good or as supplements to it. We just need more debate, ideas, etc. MBisanz talk 07:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is the response to every proposal to wait? Nothing will ever get done here if we're all just waiting. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying we checkuser them all at 9am tomorrow, either. We keep CU records a couple months, waiting x days or a week or two isn't going to kill anything, so long as something like this happens. rootology/equality 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Waiting isn't a terrible thing. It allows time for more facts to be uncovered, new ideas to arise, etc. I thought it was crystal clear October 20th, 2008 that Hemanshu should be desysopped [17]. Others disagreed and said we needed more discussion. On January 3rd, 2009, after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hemanshu, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hemanshu, enough people agreed on the issue [18] that he was desysopped rather uncontroversially. Discussion took a little over two months there, but didn't hurt anything and did achieve an acceptable result. MBisanz talk 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Rootology's suggestion strikes me as a good idea. If any arbitrators have any more surprises, this would be a convenient time to make them known. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And my rationale for supporting Malleus's idea is very simple. Sam's actions will now make many of us now look twice at and question twice every action by all the Arbs. Is this legit? Undeclared COI? Why is he voting for/against that guy? Its like the current British MP finance mess--a handful did Very Bad Things, and now all of them are under the gun. Or in an even simple analogy, if the neighbor kid accidentally defecates in your swimming pool, you don't throw out the pool, but you have to quickly chlorine bomb it to clean up, before the water is wholly trusted again. That's all this proposal is, to me, so that no one reasonable will doubt the current Arbs in the wake of and due to Sam's actions. rootology/equality 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Why CU every Arb? Why not CU every CU and Oversiter too? How about all Crats? How about all Admin also? If you are going to hunt down one group, why not be fair and have everyone lay all of their cards on the table. There are less than 2,000 admin, so it shouldn't take that much time. And no, I don't believe this should be done and I think it is ridiculous. Any results would be skewed by the fact that it is very easy to game the CU process, so this will just give a false sense of security. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's ridiculous at all, a good idea in fact, but one has to start at the top, else nobody else can be trusted. The "false sense of security" is the one we have now, with these anodyne reference to "trust". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Malleus, I dealt with people who are quite capable of using over 10 different IP ranges that aren't detectable as related. Chances are, CU has become basically obsolete when it comes to the difficult people. Mandate identification with high standards and you might have a chance, but that would only help prevent multiple admin (or whatever else) accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Anonymizing IP addresses is hardly a difficult trick, but if CU is so useless then why do so many object to the current members of ArbCom being subjected to it? After all, it won't reveal anything, will it? Would it have revealed anything if it had been done three months ago, do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It's thought that this might create a precedent for more casual use of CU. For example, it wouldn't have helped uncover Sam since he's been on ArbCom, but it might have if he was checked during RFA. Do we want to go down a slippery slope to CUing all candidates for any position? I don't think it would be terrible, but some would strongly disagree. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Before we invade the privacy of all those other people who just happen to wind up on the same dynamic IPs as us (or the same iPhone network or Blackberry network or stay in the same hotel, or fly through the same airport, etc.), I'm curious to know something. If nothing is found, will those posting on this page believe it? Or will they just say that the checkusers are hiding something, or that they didn't do it right? I understand the frustration that is being expressed here, but I'm not persuaded that establishing such a privacy-violating precedent is the best way to do this. At a time when there's been broad support for tightening up the use of privacy-related tools, this is out of step with the comments of the community on the issue of privacy in the bigger picture. This discussion needs to involve more than the couple of dozen people on this page before we completely rewrite our checkuser policy in a way that may not be in accordance with WMF policy. Taking some time to talk about this with the rest of the community is not going to have a significant impact on the results of any of these checks, should they proceed, but this kind of change in practice, that has the potential to affect almost all editors in some way, should not be done as a knee-jerk reaction to quell discontent after what we all agree is a very concerning situation. It isn't "doing nothing", it's making sure that we hear what other people think. Risker (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Just in regards to your question; I was in pretty much dumbfounded that Sam=Fys, but the rest of you have always been basically open about stuff. Some people--and this isn't hyperbole, it's just the way things are, and people will try to game stuff--will look askance at a lot of AC stuff now. The reason I wrote up the suggestion as so multi-layered was specifically so that, if/when the results came back negative and clean, only the crazy people could dispute it, since at least what, 18, 21 people had vetted it by then? If they didn't trust it at that point, they never did trust the AC or the CUs anyway. Wikipedia isn't some X-Files level conspiracy, no matter what some people like to pretend. rootology/equality 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Why stop at arbcom? If you want to restore trust in wikipedia, why not CU all bit holders--admins, crats, CUs, OSs, all of them? There have sure been plenty bad apples over the years to justify that using the rationale being used here. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Who's talking about trust in wikipedia? The subject is trust in ArbCom, and no amount of wriggling will somehow magically alter that fact. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about the trust in wiki, let's not do this piecemeal, let's do the whole shebang, clean up the whole house, not just one room. Are all the people clamoring for this willing to be CU'd themselves? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, absolutely. If somebody is an administrator, they should consent to being CU'ed periodically to make sure they aren't playing games. If anybody doesn't like that, they should resign. Jehochman Talk 09:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This is exactly the problem we have when people don't give things time and instead try to jump around screaming with "answers." Controversy, conflict, and drama beget irrational ideas. (Probably the reason they steal my toothpaste every time I try to board an airplane. Damn you, Crest!) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Deja Vu. :) Now, I bet someone will use it as evidence to request a CU on us. :) Uh oh, Rlevse! Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
".. do NOT pass the results to the AC directly. Dom hands it off to the Audit Committee, who vets Dom's work...". The place is full of holes. The audit committee is not independent of arbcom but a subset of it, so it'll never work. For example, how will anyone know if Jayvdb (talk · contribs) is not Werdna (talk · contribs) when a hypothetical CU reports to Audit sub-committee, if Flo and Roger are actually prepared to turn a blind eye either because he is a "true believer" or because he is doing such good work? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please go have a look at the membership of the Audit subcommittee. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought electing the current arbcom was supposed to restore the trust. What's lacking now - community outreach? a trust-restoration sub-committee? My own lack of trust is based on past experience with arbitration and arbs, continued lack of transparency, and recurring incidents that show some current or former arb is unreliable, dishonest, or untrustworthy. Maybe instead of the community's trust the arbcom should focus on its own trustworthiness. Tom Harrison Talk 14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How to minimize this happening again

  1. You can't stop it happening again. Like a hack or security breach, it will happen.
  2. You can only mitigate.
  3. Mitigate by forcing all people to disclose to the WMF to be a candidate. If you win, you have to anyway with no exemptions.
  4. Full CU dig upon your submitting your application.
  5. Random CUs until the close of the elections, at least 1x a week, like Major League Baseball drug tests.

Thoughts? rootology/equality 06:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the Audit Subcommittee should pass it off after that to the Ombudsman.
Here is my point, and is the last I have to say on the matter:
We operate in part on the principle of assuming good faith of contributors. This is a remarkable departure from most internet forums and discussion channels. We, being anyone who ever does a thing to build this place, hold hands and sing kumbaya on not a daily or hourly, but a minute by minute, edit by edit basis. We maintain our community to the best of our ability, work everything out, and manage the place as best we can with a self built framework of government the likes the which the world has never seen. How we operate boggles my mind every day, but we do and we do it in an effeciant manner in context of every other system of government I've ever witnessed and/or learned about. In the past five months, including this affair, the ArbCom has taken care of as many administrator related cases as it has in the past 5 years.
Were Sam's actions in starting a new account and winding up on ArbCom offensive to the community? Yes, it looks like we all agree about that.
Has the standing committee been as shocked as us? Yes, it looks like we all agree upon that.
Has any malice occured to any editor because of this deception? Yet to be determined, and not by me.
Should we all just sit for a minute and stop posting here? Yes. I love you all for the work you have done, are doing, and continue to do. Can we puhhhleeeezzzeee just relax and wait for the Arb announcement, sit back, and stop causing each other to hit "refresh" or check our watchlists? No amount of armchair quarterbacking on the communities part will deflate the growing tensions.
Keegantalk 06:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't much matter what the committee decides if it doesn't also agree to something along these lines. Things are very quickly shoved under the carpet here, but not this time I hope. So no, now is not the time to sit back and wait. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
By sit back and wait, I mean that I do not have any presumption that this will be swept under the rug. What I mean is to accumulate all the relevant information, which I trust will be forthcoming, and then proceed with proposals. With that, I hope my point is made (it doesn't have to be accepted). Happy editing to all. Keegantalk 06:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What information is it necessary to have available before addressing the basic problem of lack of trust? Are you suggesting that some vital information may come to light proving that there is now complete faith in the integrity of ArbCom? If so I fear that you're going to have a long wait. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
My time is yours, I do this for fun. Imagine my real life... Like I said, I'm just opining. You really don't have to respond to me just when I'm saying something. As online discussions grow longer, the point is lost by relevant interests of involved parties. Sometimes, Malleus, I'm just sayin'. I am not here to argue a point when I say that I am not. I am truly not. If you're interested in discussing points with me, click on email this user, and I am always willing to spend my free time talking politics after I have availed myself of other voluntary duties. Wikihug to you. Keegantalk 07:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not interested in wikihugs. Real hugs are a quite different matter though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A firm handshake then. Happy editing to you. Keegantalk 07:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason for disclosure to WMF or CU just to be a candidate. Why not do that stuff after the election, as a requirement for being instated? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why waste voters' time? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not a waste as there are usually enough acceptable candidates even if one or two choose not to disclose. Anyway, knowing the requirement to disclose a priori given one is elected should be sufficient. Why would someone who is not going to disclose ID to the foundation run for ArbCom knowing that they have to disclose now even if they choose not to recieve the CU/OS bits. Remember, anyone with those bits is already identified to the foundation as part of WNF policy that supersedes EnWiki. - Avi (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If I may, this would be completely pointless. Anyone with half a brain would stop sockpuppeting before the elections in order to make their sock account  Stale. I hold the arbcom to a standard high enough to think they got more than half a brain ;). To my knowledge nobody is routinely CheckUsered before being appointed to any position, not even CheckUsers. -- Luk talk 15:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
An imperfect check does not justify having no checks at all. Because something hasn't been done before is no excuse for not doing it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Checking would give a false sense of security. Technical evidence is here to support behavioral suspicions, not the other way around (no fishing). -- Luk talk 15:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Because there is some kind of "rule" against fishing doesn't mean that there should be no fishing. It simply means that the rule needs to be changed. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Some good candidates may be reluctant to disclose for privacy reasons, but willing to disclose if necessary to become arbitrators. Asking them to disclose just to be a candidate is an unnecessary invasion of privacy, and may discourage some from running since they may not find it worthwhile disclosing for a mere possibility of being an arbitrator. Any candidate might waste voter's time by running and then not being willing to fulfill the various duties of the post. We can't prevent that. I also agree with Avi. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Why would anyone nominate themselves for an election they didn't expect to win? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea, but it has happened. May I reiterate, that in order to receive the OS//CU bits one has to ID to the foundation anyway, so asking every Arb to do so, once elected, should not be a big deal in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Doing it beforehand is no big deal either. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Some people are able to plan ahead for more than one possible outcome of a situation. If only those expecting to win nominated themselves, and their expectations were always accurate, we'd save a lot of voters' time because all elections would be by acclamation. I disagree: disclosing is a big deal for some people. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Those to whom it's a big deal are quite welcome not become members of ArbCom. Your logic is of course flawed in any event; the expectations of the candidates and those of the electorate are not always going to be in harmony. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess we each have our own criteria for voting for arbitrators. Personally I would tend to prefer people able to contemplate more than one possible outcome, and perhaps able to predict the probabilities with some degree of realism; and I would have no problem at all with candidates who prefer not to reveal their identities unnecessarily: I don't see why that would be anyone's criterion. I agree that expectations may not be in harmony, but see no flaw in my logic as a result (perhaps you missed where I said "...and their expectations were always accurate..."). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between being prepared to identify if it becomes necessary, and being prepared to casually throw your identity around as a gesture of good faith. It should not be necessary to do the latter on this project. Besides, IIRC at the last ArbCom elections Cary said he'd rather not be deluged with unnecessary identifications. I'll try and look that out. Happy‑melon 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you get the WMF or Cary Bass or Jimbo or whoever is snickering at your driver's license photo to unlearn your personal information when your candidacy proves to be an epic fail? Retention of this data would continue to jeopardize you for no possible benefit. I mean how does one know somebody in the office won't get drunk and start reading it off on IRC. — CharlotteWebb 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the reasons why disclosing to the WMF is different from disclosing to fellow volunteer Wikipedia editors is that WMF staff have more to lose. To wit, their jobs if they leak information. The trouble, as always, is identifying the source of any particular leak. Not every case is as clearcut as being drunk and reading stuff off on IRC (and that example, if I've been following things around here correctly, didn't involve ArbCom or the WMF, but involved an administrator-to-be). The difference here is between losing adminship and losing the job that puts food on the table. I may be being naive here, but I trust the WMF to look after private data. Having said that, I think that identification should only be required for successful candidates. Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh Carch, unlike the dinero what's-er-name cabbaged onto, the egress of information is rather more difficult to trace. — CharlotteWebb 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Any sort of mandatory Checkuser investigation will inevitably violate the privacy of those other than the target of the check. IP addresses are not magical barcodes imprinted onto our DNA, unique to each of us. Over time, sometimes a long time, sometimes not so long a time, different and completely unrelated users will share an IP because of the way ISPs and large networks (say, university networks) shuffle the addresses around. Its much more invasive than a background check because its not just the target that gets investigated.--Tznkai (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More or less what Tznkai said. I think this is probably not the place to be having a discussion about whether or not checkuser should be used for fishing expeditions like this. While the candidate him or herself may have no issue with being checkusered, the same cannot be said for the editors who coincidentally have also used the same dynamic or otherwise shared IP with a candidate. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust that will only show up the information for one particular editor; it's both indiscriminate and incomplete. This idea requires the input of a much, much broader segment of the community than ever reads this page, as it has the potential to impact the privacy of hundreds, if not thousands, of editors. Risker (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds to me like the usual wikisolution to every problem. "Let's do nothing." The privacy argument is in any case absurd. The web logs exist and I have no doubt can be freely examined by the system administrators and very likely the developers anyway. (I mean administrators in the conventional sense of the word, not wikipedia's.) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The developers have no access to server logs. The sysadmins do, but the actual web server logs don't include usernames, and do include all page views, so they aren't particularly useful for things other than statistical analysis and diagnosing server issues. In any case, the sysadmins are just as bound by the privacy policy and private data policy as the checkusers (probably more so since most of them are WMF employees). Though all the sysadmins WMF staff have global checkuser rights, so access to the logs isn't really relevant. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the problem is less severe, in that the non-identified Arbitrator is the exception, not the rule, since the sitting Arbs usually have CU and OS. I think now there are no non-ID'd Arbitratrators. As long as we require identification to the WMF before being appointed an Arb, what is the problem? -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
So the arbitrator is ID'd, so what? What about all his/her socks? Are they ID'd as well? It appears very clear to me that there is no will to clean up this particular act though, so I see nothing to be gained by continuing to participate in this discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What particular act? Anyway, I think it is more secure to have the real ID of the person than a checkuser. CU is not magic, unfortunately, whereas having the identity of the Arb, as backed up by a government-issued ID, is more likely to ensure that we have trustworthy people. At least, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust template is not just there for show, Malleus; I'm not sure you fully understand how much (or how little) the CheckUser tool can do. The extension stores the IP, user agent (browser) and XFF headers of every edit or log action, for a period of ninety days (on WMF, see VPT). That means that the data from 23 February 2009 is being deleted as we write. We have excellent CheckUsers who can work miracles with that data, but if it happened before 23 Feb this year, it Did Not Happen as far as CU is concerned. A sitting Committee member could have been socking right through the elections, and there is absolutely no way CU could find out about it. The volume and readability of the data collected by the server logs is obscene (obviously I can't see the WMF ones, but my test wiki generates a couple of megabytes of vaguely-comprehensible babble every week and the only person who uses it is me); I don't know how long they're kept for, but I would expect much less than 90 days, or the volume would prove totally unmanageable. Besides, they're almost useless for a wiki-paper-trail, they're designed entirely around software debugging. There is no magic wand we can wave (or pixie dust we can sprinkle) and suddenly be able to say "oh look, we can comprehensively prove that our Arbs are legitimate"; that's not possible in the real world, never mind here. If anything, an inconclusive mass CheckUser would either inflame the situation, or create a false sense of security, neither of which is constructive.
On the other hand, I notice that the only sitting Arb who has not identified to the Foundation is Vassayana, despite having been appointed in the most recent election. Is there a story behind that omission? Happy‑melon 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't mistake me for a fool, I'm perfectly well aware of what information's available from a log. I'm looking at one right now as it happens. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Then what's the point of pursuing this agenda any further? Unless our current arbitrators are idiots, checkuser will show "no sock activity within the last 90 days," while possibly needlessly invading the privacy of users who work or go to school or who live near enough to an arbitrator to be in the same IP range. 67.240.82.249 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. Let's just pretend that there's no problem here, and that we're all daft enough to trust the present system of governance if that makes you happy. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Not what I said. The problem is your suggestion will not address the problem. Checkusering arbcom members and candidates will have the same effectiveness as taking a homeopathic remedy; you might feel like you have accomplished something, but its only the placebo effect. 67.240.82.249 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw a few things above and in other sections, and it made me think - right now, Arbs have to disclose, right? They should also identify themselves. Why not make this an obligation -before- elections and have the candidates checked out by WMF, AC, et al, in order to make sure that such things if problematic are revealed during the election (but not any breaches of personal identity - mostly online activity). Obviously, nothing is going to be happening to fix things retroactively, but wouldn't this satisfy most of the concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Because if Jimbo isn't choosing you for the seat, he doesn't need to know who you are, and because personal information has an awful habit of not staying in one spot. Sharing every arbcom member's data with every arbcom member would be sheer madness as you have no way to determine which one of them leaked it to a third-party web site. — CharlotteWebb 01:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with Charlotte, but I believe having Arbcom members disclose to the foundation prior to being appointed would be a good thing even if they do not want the CU/OS tools. -- Avi (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Personally, I find that argument unconvincing. (Disclaimer: I did, in fact, speak in favor of identification of candidates before the previous election). Candidates run under the expectation — or at least the hope — of getting a seat and having to identify anyways; the requirement of doing so preemptively is not onerous, and the issue of trust is exactly the same (that is, the information is not more or less secure by having won the election; if you don't trust Cary and the foundation with the information when you lose, you don't trust it when you win either). I am dismissing here candidates who run without the intent of being appointed; I'm not in favor of "joke" or "protest" candidates in the first place since they detract from true serious examination of the real candidates— to the detriment of all the community. I would certainly not bend over backwards to allow them the luxury of abusing the election process if they have no genuine intent to serve. — Coren (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • If they have to ID before appointment, why should they have to ID prior? Then again, I believe running for the WMF board requires IDing prior. I guess I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy; especially as the downside is not that we have a socking arb, but that we do not get an elected arb who at the last minute decides not to ID, even though they knew a priori that they would have to should they be elected. I'd rather not use divulging identification as a joke-candidate winnowing technique. But that's just my opinion, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • If there is personal information known and held, wouldn't that cause people to want to disrupt and sock less? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
            • That really depends on the person. By that I mean, in practice, many people will have greater incentive to use multiple accounts if the first one has been compromised by cyberstalksleuthers or through voluntary disclosure to the WMF (or if the same edits are evaluated by a different standard depending on which account they come from, when the "we can't have a checkuser edit-warring, that just looks bad" outcry becomes too great). Really, it works both ways. — CharlotteWebb 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
                • You mean like what people were attempted to do with Sam over there? And I know exactly what it is like for those individuals to have personal information, as they have quite a bit of mine thanks to Moulton. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It's not exactly fair to say we "had a socking arb" per se, as there is no evidence that he used more than one account while he was an arb. That is, he had abandoned his previous "main account" prior to being elected, and by the time he picked up his "real name" account to vote on his AFD he had already retired as an arb and pretty much everyone knew who he was anyway. Hell I had figured it out on WR about 24 hours before Sam announced it, but I wasn't going to say anything more if no one else did (I only found humor in his similarities to the so-called Poetguy). — CharlotteWebb 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • My point is this is a sacrifice people are generally willing to make iff and whenn the position is tentatively offered to them. By "tentatively" I mean on a "send us your papers and you're good to go" basis. While the WMF will likely maintain a blacklist of people to summarily reject for some well-attested reason, the identity of your identity should generally not be scrutinized in deciding whether or not to make this offer (matters of poor taste should be blamed squarely on the community) and it's really none of their business unless an offer is pending—just like your address and social security number are really none of your employer's business except if they need to know where to send the paychecks or how to report it to the IRS—but this is a volunteer operation and JAWSFFS™, and as such should aspire to conduct business more reasonably rather than less so. — CharlotteWebb 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Silly question: what would identifying to the foundation achieve in the end? The foundation asks OTRS/CU/OS agents to identify to have someone to blame in case the WMF privacy policy is breached. ArbCom has nothing to do with the privacy policy and is ruled by the community, not the WMF. I find the argument it would prevent sockpuppetry pretty unconvincing (what would happen? Your real name would be disclosed??). -- Luk talk 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Committee members have access to private information through various means, such as private mailing lists. For this reason, requiring identification for arbcom members would be sensible. It would probably have a dissuasive effect for matters like inappropriate sockpuppetry or other abuse; but of course wouldn't be 100% efficient, as the Poetlister case shows. Cenarium (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Luk - ArbCom appoints CheckUsers and Oversiters, which means that they are directly connected to privacy on Wikipedia. Also, they are given the options to have such tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
They need to be identified when requesting the CU/OS bits :). Private mailing lists are a good point though. -- Luk talk 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Some data

I have done a little research on the two issues we're mainly focusing on; being identification and alternate account use. Only one sitting Arbitrator, Vassyana, has not identified with the Foundation. I have asked on his talk page why that should be the case; although not a CheckUser or Oversighter, he is on both arbcom-l and functionaries-l.

Only two sitting arbitrators have not (AFAICT) explicitly and publically answered the question "have you used alternate accounts", Kirill Lokshin and FayssalF:

Both were elected before the question became standard at ArbCom elections, I think we all agree that the enquiry should now be a compulsory question at ACE. It would probably be appropriate for these two Arbs to make such a declaration, in the interests of completeness. Incidentally, at no point during the ACE2007 elections was Sam Blacketer ever asked about alternate account use. Happy‑melon 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Curiuous; I was sure I remembered being asked that before, but perhaps I was mistaken. In any case, for the record: no, I have never used any accounts other than this one. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I only looked at the ACE election material; I haven't been digging through your talk archives or anything. However, thanks for that confirmation; makes things much tidier. Happy‑melon 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Identification Noticeboard isn't an exhaustive record of which individuals have identified. I wouldn't accept the I.D. Noticeboard as reliable evidence from which to draw conclusions, and suggest that, alternatively, we might ask Cary Bass, and/or Vassyana himself, whether he has identified or not. AGK 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The ID noticeboard is what the stewards use; so it would need to be posted there if he wished to be given CU/OS. Although I guess since he doesn't have them, you're right it's not compulsory. I have indeed asked for clarification on his talk, as I noted. Happy‑melon 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have written Cary to verify whether or not the Foundation has appropriate documentation on record for me.[35] Regardless of whether or not I have the CheckUser or Oversight tools, I should be identified to the Foundation. Arbitrators receive related and similarly serious information, even without the tools. Additionally, I ran in the election under the impression that identifying to the Foundation would be required. After I hear back from Cary, I will either ask to be added to the ID noticeboard or ensure that I correct the oversight if one exists. If anyone has any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. --Vassyana (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's everyone on the alternate accounts front. Happy‑melon 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I could elaborate on my answer: I don't think I have any account with more than ten edits, but I have created some throw-aways at terminals where I didn't want to login because I doubted their security. Additionally, I made an account User:Crimson Sox (I was in Boston at the time) in order to stealthily edit Learned Hand. I made a number of criticisms about the article on Wikipedia Review and was encouraged by Lar to edit it myself. At that time, I didn't want to link my WR and WP user names, so I created that sock. However, I abandoned it after two edits when I accidentally edited the page under CHL (see here), concluding that I'm not good at maintaining socks. Cool Hand Luke 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Somewhere in my answers I mentioned that I made a joke edit using a throw-away account - I couldn't find it when I was answering my questions, but I have found it. The accounts I mentioned in my answer are these, and this is the edit. The user in question knew it was me. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my account was renamed since answering that question, and because of SUL, I have an account still under my old name (user:thebainer). There's also a doppelganger at user:bainer (my signature). The accounts haven't edited of course. --bainer (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF

I've been using User:GarbagEcol (formerly user:Garbage Collection) for almost 2 years now and that's been declared since the time of its creation. It's been declared on my main account since September 2007. This information has been on both userpages since those dates.

I must note that I used to sign with user:Svest / user:Szvest using the same signature code (orange background and same 'Wiki me up' message) which was redirected to user:FayssalF on January 2006 after confusing user:Mistress Selina Kyle. user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington later redirected user:Szvest on January 2007.

I've identified myself to WMF (passport copy) in January 2008; right after being elected to ArbCom.

Additional note: I have the CU tool and have never asked for Oversight tool. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fayssal, that's a complete set now. Happy‑melon 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"The status of his adminship will be decided within the next 24 hours."

Can this either be appropriately updated or can someone point me to the statement? I don't particularly care when the issue is decided and I would like it to not be a hasty decision. However, if the Committee sets a self-imposed deadline, there's an obligation to either meet it or update it to accurately reflect the current situation. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We've just been discussing this. Given the need to wait for replies from various people, it will be at least another 24 hours before we can update on this. Thanks for the reminder, and can I ask that people who have commented on this elsewhere not repeat their comments here? We are already aware of the comments made about this earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is scandalous, but I have as much faith as I had previously had in the committee. It would be much worse if it turned out to be one of the better arbs.
Has this come out because of the tarantino post on wikipedia review, or was it coming out anyway? I think he should resign his adminship, but it's NBD so I don't care if he keeps it or not and don't see the need to force him out unless more misconduct emerges. Probably has a lot of experience by now anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"in Sam B we had by far the laziest arbitrator": That's an unfair comment, and if you were being fair, you'd redact it. Sam served on the Committee for over a year—a period which would burn out the majority of wikipedians. However improper some of his actions have been, you ought to not throw it back in his face, Deacon. AGK 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Per AGK. Well said. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with AGK, Deacon, horrid comment, and you should strike it, regardless of what Sam has done, he served the community in one of the hardest jobs in the community for over a year. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Are all editors who operate sock accounts treated with such reverence, or only those who're members of ArbCom? Can't help but notice that Deacon's question hasn't been answered, but no surprise there I guess. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You're misreading my comment, and I think you know that. Deacon's comment was otherwise an appropriate one and I'd like to see it answered. I simply dislike the showing of such disrespect towards another editor (and especially one who served the community in an exceptionally time-intensive, high-pressure position for over a year). AGK 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Any chance someone can do some stats on average burnout of arbs? I want to know when I can resigned without looking like I was a slacker... John Vandenberg (chat) 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, on reflection, a bit of a needless thing to say given everything else. Struck and removed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Only Kirill voted on more case proposals than Sam last year (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2008#Arb activity (2008) 2). --bainer (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I still don't understand that table. Which column? Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The column labeled "V" for "voted". The legend above the table tries to explain it. Perhaps it needs work. Paul August ☎ 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually re-reading bainer's post I think he's referring to the the % column following the "V" column, which gives proposals voted on as a percentage of all proposals for cases the arb was neither recused nor marked as inactive. Paul August ☎ 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: The situation has been resolved as far as ArbCom are concerned. Sam has let us know that he will be making a statement in the morning (BST) - presumably on his talk page. If everyone could please keep comments and speculation to a minimum until that happens, I'd be very grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    We have been deceived by a member of the highest level of Wikipedia's "governance structure" for a very long time, and you expect us to remain silent? The mound of bodies surrounding the great altar of Wikipedian hypocrisy is growing, and I don't intend to remain silent. Sean William @ 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    But if people keep comments and speculation to a minimum, where will I go to hear overblown and melodramatic metaphors absent evidence? – Quadell (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What a Joke

As someone who was recently and bizarrely topic-banned by one of the more recent ArbCom drive-bys - along with several others - I can only say that I find the above hilarious. Sockpuppets, secret re-admission and private emails admitting to relationships that require payback, all from a bunch of people with the authority to block and ban other editors on a co-ordinated whim? I know many people laugh at Wikipedia's more obvious content errors, but if they only knew about the utterly absurd and fraudulent bureaucracy that lies behind it, they might not be so surprised. You know, even if this is unfairly tagging everyone, it's the perception that counts if nothing else, just ask a British MP. And it's not as if ArbCom don't make sweeping judgments about everyone that come before them of course ... what comes around etc --Nickhh (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) PS: can I open a new account, pretend I've never been here before, and proceed to edit in areas I've been topic-banned from?

Sam Blacketer was an acceptable form of sockpuppet for a normal account (questionable in regards to the second RFA; unacceptable for an arbitrator to keep hidden), I dont understand what you mean by "re-admission", and the private emails mentioned by Tony1 were actually relating to abstaining due to a prior very positive working relationship. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, secret readmission in terms of Sam re-admining and re-arbing when no-one know who they were is what I meant. That is, secret to themselves if no-one else, until now. And as it happens, and as I've said elsewhere, Sam appeared to be one of the more reasonable arbs when it came to recent decisions. But the wider point is that the system is compromised by these events. As I said, people are being judged and banned ... by this lot? What else don't we know? I have personal issues with that of course, but there is a principle at stake too. --Nickhh (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
ps: you seem to have missed the main point as well, about hypocrisy and double standards, and about perception. Never mind. That is what tends to happen here, as far as I can tell
As you say, Sam was a very reasonable arb - if you have a problem with anyone of this lot, please say so plainly what it is.
Hypocrisy? Where is an example of an arbitrator acting in the same manner as what you have been sanctioned for??
Double standards? - the irony is that Sam was forced to resign for a lack of transparency - a transparency that is not required of anyone else. So yes, there is a double standard - Arbitrators (and Functionaries) are held to a much higher standard, and when problems are brought to the attention of the arbitration committee, they are quickly assessed and dealt with appropriately.
John Vandenberg (chat) 00:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I am actually still a little confused as to what I was sanctioned for, btw. And the "hypocrisy" point is a very general one, relating to the committee as whole - they make judgements, often quite severe judgements, which restrict what other editors can do and which put a black mark against them, for which they are collectively accountable, surely. And one of them has been deceitful about who they are. Nor is it simply about what one member may or may not have done, it is about perception and the appearance of fairness. Retired, yes, but the system still stands. And as I have said, I have no second account, and never have - if I create one, can I avoid the recent ArbCom judgement on my current one? --Nickhh (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I can only second what Nickhh is saying here. Like Nickhh, I do not know why I am topic-banned. It was done by an ArbCom member who is on the other side of a content dispute on that very topic. A lot of work needs to be done before any kind of trust in the ArbCom is restored, and it's not just about Sam. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Who are you talking about? You were given a topic ban for your edit warring in that area, as I've said several times. Cool Hand Luke 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are very eager to repeat the accusation, but you have not provided evidence. The facts remain that I only made good-faith constructive contributions, always based on reliable sources and elaborately explained on the talk page, and that you have tried to enter false citations into the topic's main article from which the very nature of the topic appeared different, and subsequently refused to explain your edits in a polite and constructive manner. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit warriors are often operating in good faith; I've never denied that you're a good faith contributor—that's the whole reason I supported unblocking you. I honestly didn't realize that I edited CFS exactly twice in 16 months ago. I'll certainly be recused from further actions in your case, but it's an understatement to say that you were not adversely affected by my participation. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit warriors do not operate in good faith. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to try to win a content dispute. That I have never done. One expects arbitrators not to topic-ban good-faith editors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
So, I probably shouldn't ask, but why do you think you were blocked? And why do you think the ArbCom approved the ban twice? And, lastly, why do yo think you were unblocked with certain restrictions? Verbal chat 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right, you should not ask this (it's called 'baiting'). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was, but I do think it's a bit off topic. If you don't want to answer or can't that's fine, but please be civil and remember to assume good faith. Cheers! Verbal chat 20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, this brings up something I've been thinking about for a while on this case: following John's question ("Where is an example of an arbitrator acting in the same manner as what you have been sanctioned for??") is it the arbs' contention that no arbitrator has edit-warred to the extent that Nickhh or Nocal100 has since, say, a year before being elected? IronDuke 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well. Have we? I cant speak for everyone else, but I don't think I have. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the quick reply. What I'm getting at is, for now, a hypothetical. What would it mean if I did find something like that? I ask because I do not want to have to go look and find something, only to be told the equivalenbt of, "Oh, well: we arbs are exceptions to the rule we laid out for others." I don't think I need to reiterate that the evidence on which you convicted a good many editors was thin, but I'd just like to be sure it applies to all who voted aye as well as those who can no longer edit where they have expertise. IronDuke 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that a rhetorical question? Of course (at least some of) you have edit warred, certainly at levels comparable to those that got myself or Nickhh topic banned. I'm quite ready to back this up with diffs, showing edit warring and gaming of 3RR but like IronDuke, I'd like to see some assurance that going to that trouble will result in some meaningful actions, if such evidence is produced. At a minimum, I'd expect that per FoF 6 and remedy 10.1, such Arbs who have engaged in edit warring would immediately resign their position, as such behavior is inconsistent with holding a position of high trust. NoCal100 (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, FWIW, my one and only real edit war was with the now-banned deletionist Eyrian in August 07 in Stegosaurus in popular culture - [37] - this made it into Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars. However, I have written a few Featured Articles since then, so by the criteria of the arbcom case I probably would have been un-sanctioned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that how it works? So, since FoF 8 relates to JayJg's actions in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and he's written a few Featured Articles since then, you're going to re-instate his CU and oversight now? NoCal100 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Postdating the index incident. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of his featured articles were promoted in 2009, while the "index incident" is from Nov 2008. Are you going to re-instate his CU and oversight now? And there are edit-warring members of this ArbCom w/o a single FA, will they be resigning their position? NoCal100 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point. I realised I had meant to write 'finding/arbitration case' above, but interesting nonetheless. It is late here and I need to sleep, so will rejoin this tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb, the scandal is not lack of transparency (that's just a soon to be fixed flaw in ArbCom rules), but that he had previously been a user in disrepute, who re-invented himself because his previous behaviour got in the way of his ambitions. That this is a scandal is proved by Sam himself, who resigned as soon as some guy on wikipedia review was ready to out his previous identities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to contrast John's view that "Sam Blacketer was an acceptable form of sockpuppet for a normal account (questionable in regards to the second RFA; unacceptable for an arbitrator to keep hidden)" with Vassyana's (qua arbitrator) recent comment which seems to clearly indicate that concealment of a block log (by switching accounts) is relevant to applying an arbcom sanction. Obviously there were other factors in that case as well but it's surprising that no other arbitrators responded to point out that concealing a de-admining is "acceptable" (or at worst "questionable" in the context of an RFA!), never mind a concealing a mere block log. 87.254.70.250 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, keep in mind that both Sam Blacketer and Lightmouse are coping a hiding for their concealment - both are being taken down a couple of notches.
"Sam Blacketer" would be acceptable if he had not approached RFA, as it seems that he had put old disputes aside and not continued the same user conduct that resulted in his former block log. If he had continued as a civil editor, persuasive but not abrasive like Fys/Dbiv, nobody would have cared if it was later revealed. The "Sam Blacketer" RFA was questionable because of the long overlap of the two accounts; the fresh start was not as fresh and clean as it should be for a person approaching an RFA. Fys/Dbiv was acting up two months before the Sam Blacketer RFA.[38][39]
OTOH, Lightmouse has resumed the same MO - look at the Lightmouse findings of fact - Lightmouse has not learnt from the mistakes of Bobblewik.
I dont know of any disclosure requirements for adminship or bot approval - there probably should be some. I hope the community learns from both situations and improves the guidelines and policies so that new candidates dont follow in the foot steps of either. However while there isn't any guideline about this, the litmus test for me is whether the person could reveal their prior accounts further down the track (twelve months?) without anybody feeling cheated. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Once we found out about Sam, there was alot of discussion, and may I remind everyone that he has stated he will be running in a reconfirmation RfA on June 15th. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A solution?

In the same spirit with which everyone who comes to ArbCom is topic-banned, regardless of what sins they may or may not have committed, I propose the a similar remedy for all ArbCom members in the light of the above problems. Collective guilt is, after all, what we should be assuming. Apologies if I have not looked at the evidence in any detail. --Nickhh (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh I think this is your stop, you have a grievance about your recent topic banning and bringing that into this discussion is only clouding things. Take your protestations about that elsewhere. ViridaeTalk 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well no, it's about the principle of an institution of enforcement that has been exposed as being so utterly flawed and open to abuse having the authority - generally speaking - to impose draconian punishment on other editors on the basis of such flimsy evidence as they have in several cases now, mine included. If WP doesn't actually want occasional editors, who happen to have their feet mostly planted in the real world, and who generally do not edit war or engage in abusive behaviour, please let us know before we sign up; and please explain to me and others where "elsewhere" exactly you recommend I should take my protestations? And in what way the collective judgement employed so casually in most ArbCom decisions would lead to so different a conclusion as that suggested above, were it applied to that august body itself?--Nickhh (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_3&oldid=1190129944"