Revision as of 22:33, 11 October 2009

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Discussion of agenda

Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

Apology from Casliber

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original announcement

Ok, to get consensus from the community, comment below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, shall we archive the next two bits given Ive resigned? Start to move forward? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted (i.e. stick around)

1. You admitted your mistake and are a great arb. MBisanz 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Nonsense. We all make mistakes. –Juliancolton |  23:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
3. If we didn't fuck up, how would we learn anything? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
4. If I understand what I believe you are referring to then I say this: I believe that you were put in a tremendously difficult situation. You appeared to handle all that you could with discretion and tact. I've never seen any actions by you that were not directed at protecting and/or improving the project. This is a volunteer project, and you've extended great time and effort to aid this site. I see no reason to accept an apology from you, because I don't believe that one is required; however, I greatly admire your integrity, and strongly hope that you will continue to serve the community as you have in the past. Please continue as you have. — Ched :  ?  23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Speaking as someone who knows EXACTLY what you went through, I can't even say I'm disappointed. SirFozzie (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
6. I'd rather have Arbitrators who learn from their mistakes. I hope this is the last "open secret" we'll have to deal with.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Understand your situation. I thought that this was common knowledge...apparently not. Either way, you do good work, and I'd hate for this one incident to cause you to resign. Steven Zhang 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
8. A mistake for sure, but I have enough confidence in Cas to believe that things like this won't happen again. Far more worrisome is the continuing trend of admins / established editors controversially using undisclosed alternate accounts. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Don't be ridiculous, Cas. You're a fine Arb, and you should not go anywhere. GlassCobra 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
10. I'm with Will. J.delanoy_adds 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Cas, you're a great arb. No one is faultless. I appreciate your current honesty and full-disclosure. hmwith☮ 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Yes, please stick around for now, but also be more careful about this sort of thing. My reading of this situation is that it's pretty ambiguous and perhaps to an extent understandable that you'd do what you did, but always remember that the community can't afford to have arbs who are even perceived as having something to hide. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Please stay, everyone makes mistakes and this in no way erodes my trust in you as an arb. I'm sure that now you'd handle it differently were the scenario to occur again. ThemFromSpace 01:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Don't act like an idiot again, because I won't be coming out of retirement again to support you. I agree with everything Wikidemon said below and MBisanz said above oh, how difficult it is to say that -- Noroton (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
15. I am in particular agreement with Nathan's comment in the discussion section below, sans the portion about other banned users and all that. UnitAnode 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
16. It is indeed that what Law did betrayed the community's trust on him by gaming the system and violating many others. However, the resignation is purely up to your decision and you at least admitted your fault. On the other hand, I would like first to see apologies from User:Daniel, and User:Ironholds because they exposed the truth, just because of their retaliation even though they've known or assumed Law's previous account for weeks. Truly disrespectful behaviors on their part.--Caspian blue 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Please continue as an arb: your bona fides has never been in contention in my mind. This is yet another reason the project desperately needs to tighten up on the use of alt accounts. I see no reason why the standard RfA questions should not include a requirement to disclose. Alt accounts just seem to get us into trouble. It's ridiculous.

    Postscript: disclosing that I've met Cas twice in person and spoken on the phone a few times. Cas, are you prepared to suggest how the ArbCom code of conduct, presently a proposal in preparation, might forestall such a situation in the future? Tony (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Tony (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

18. The fact that you are willing to submit to the community consensus here says a lot. This was a clear error (Law's RfA should have been the crossing the Rubicon moment), but Law put you in a rather difficult position and I can sympathize with that. My "stick around" support is very much conditional on one thing though: the Arbs need to privately poll themselves on their e-mail list and determine if other committee members are aware of any similar situations where a banned user (or the like) has returned as an administrator, thus gaming RfA in order to do so. The results of that mini-survey then need to be announced to the community. Really this is something that should be asked of all admins, but the ArbCom is good for starters, as we need to be clear that there are not other "open secrets" (apparently you have to be on IRC or something to know these kind of things—but I better not start down that path) of which some committee members are aware. I would suggest that Casliber initiate that process himself right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Meh. Full disclosure. I also knew that Law = The undertow for quite some time. To tar and feather everyone involved in this case because of some superficial similarities to other alternative accounts that became admins is not called for here. There is a HUGE difference between a good user who made a single error in judgement some time ago (which led to Undertow's desysop) and users who have shown a long-term pattern of abuse at Misplaced Pages. Law/Undertow has basically been one of our best editors and admins here, he got caught up in some political shit that messed up his day, and that others were willing to let him come back "semi-incognito" is not about how untrustworthy we have been, but upon how short-sighted and poorly handled his first desysopping was. Casliber has nothing to apologize about here. --Jayron32 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
20. You're an asset, Cas. It'd be a shame to see you leave the committee. Your confession evinces your moral fibre and interest in the good of the project. —Anonymous Dissident 06:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
21. ...I don't know that I would characterize this as an honest mistake. But it isn't something that would undercut trust the community might have in you. We balance real or perceived personal loyalties against real or perceived loyalties to community or authority. Sometimes we mess that balance up. Part of my wants to get out the tar and feathers and send a message to anyone else with a little secret in their pocket, but it wouldn't work and it would remove a person from the committee for a matter unrelated to their actions as an arb. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
22. To err is human, and this particular error isn't, in my eyes, worthy of any chastising. You did your best under the circumstances given what you knew; it's something that should be commended, not punished. -Jeremy 06:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Comment I'm inclined to support Cas Liber's presence on the committee because he's one of the few Committee members with both life experience and respectable scholarly interests (as opposed to pop singers, role playing games, porn sites and the like.) It's a shame that he chose to put himself on the line for such a mediocrity, who would never have been invited to manage any element of a serious academic project.24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Despite this blip, Cas does a good job as an arbitrator, like NYB. It is completely appropriate to keep an arbitrator with a good grip on reality. That is why he rightly received so many votes. That was also probably part of the reason for his dilemma, brought to a head by Sandstein's RfAr. We need more arbitrators like him, not less. Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
25. per above (and below -- and elsewhere) DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
26. per what MBisanz has been saying in this debate. I don't see why Casliber is being singled out and I certainly didn't support his candidacy to see him bow this easily to pressure. This isn't an isolated incident, people are allowed back silently on a regular basis. I'll refrain from expanding on this as I'm well aware from experience what the consequences of arguing against the popular opinion here are. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
27. With the same disclosure as Jayron32. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
28. As with Will BeBack. AGK 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Those prepared to fall on their sword should always be shown mercy. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
30. You are not required to rat on your friend. So long as you did not affirmatively do anything to facilitate their deception (such as support their RFA), I think you are in the clear. It would have been better for you to stop them, but I think you understand that and would be much more careful, and I'm not convinced that any replacement we could find for you would do a better job. Therefore, you must stay. Please note that I have been highly critical of a particular admin who supported Law's RFA while knowing about the sock puppetry. Rather than burning Casliber, I think we need to make clear that users in positions of trust may not support sock puppetry or rules violations through their sysop actions, votes or comments. Recusing or remaining silent are allowed. Nobody likes a rat, and Misplaced Pages does not require its volunteers to act. Jehochman 13:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
31. Get back to work ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Strongly, and hoping it's not too late. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
33. It's rare enough that I concur with Jack, but I have before, and I'm doing again here. :) BOZ (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
34. This incident is overblown, in my opinion. The skyes have not fallen. This is just a wiki, not real life. So, I see no need in resignation. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
35. This was unnecessary. I understand why you did it, but you'll be missed. Cool Hand Luke 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
36. I dont see any necessity either. This is an unfortunate turn. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
37. There was no active naughtiness, & in general the turn some people are taking towards making not denouncing other users a wikicrime is bad news. If what was being kept quite had real-world consequences, that would be a different matter - but this was in-house, not that much of a problem, we're all volunteers etc.--Misarxist (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
38. We're supposed to be here to improve the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation accepted (i.e. time to go)

1. As a friend of Casliber's, I think he should resign. We elected Casliber to ArbCom because we believed he could make the hard decisions and because we believed he could be trusted with sensitive information and how to deal with it. However, I don't think he has shown that in this case. Others may believe that this single incident does not require such a step, but I believe that Casliber will show himself to be a more ethical editor by resigning. To me, this would indicate that he both realized that he made a mistake and accepted its consequences. Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Awadewit has essentially made the argument that I was going to. –blurpeace  00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Arbitrators who learn from their mistakes are good; arbitrators who are not unwise enough to make them are better. Cas either knew that what was happening was inappropriate, and let his friendship cloud his judgment as an arbitrator, or he did not believe it was inappropriate; I find both cases unacceptable. We have not such a dearth of arbitrators that we need to keep those who make poor decisions. ÷seresin 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
4. I dont really see the point of this segregation, but I echo Awadewit's sentiments. We really can't do anything when an admin misuses the tools or an arb screws up, 99% of the time; it's up to the offending party. Resigning sends a message and I think preserves integrity all around. I'm not expecting Cas to cave due to pressure here, though, that defeats the purpose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
5. I'm extremely torn on this one. On the one hand, Casliber, I have the utmost respect for your content contributions and have, until now, had an equal amount of respect for your leadership capabilities and ability to make wise decisions. I believe it well within reason that, as a friend and an Arbcom member, you would first seek to resolve this situation privately; however, once Law ran for RfA that should have been the point where enough was enough. By keeping silent, you assisted a banned editor in evading a sanction that your predecessors imposed. If you disagreed with the sanction, it would have been perfectly appropriate to bring that to the attention of the other members of the committee for reconsideration, but you did not. If I ran the world (or at least the wiki), all administrators who knew about this blatant breach of Arbcom sanctions and did nothing would be immediately desysopped, and, according to the penalties set out in WP:SOCK, the nine-month ban for Law/the_undertow would be restarted, with periodic checks for other socks. And that means that I must also call for your resignation, although it pains me to do so. I'm very sorry that you were torn between the needs of a friend and the duties of your position here; that must have been an awful position for you. Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Casliber, I'm disappointed that you have to ask, and that you're putting people in the position of requesting your resignation. You're a member of a committee that routinely desysops and bans people for violating previous bans. You can't be a member of that committee if you're going desysop some of them, but actively cover up for others. It was you who deleted The undertow's user and talk pages on May 26, 2009—eight months after Law started editing, and one month after he became an admin—thereby making it harder for non-admins to follow the trail. I don't know whether you deleted these before you knew he had returned with another account, but what is clear is that you didn't undelete them when you knew he was back, or ask someone else to. This edges closer to active collusion than passive knowledge. If you don't resign, the rest of the commmittee, and more importantly the idea of the commmittee, will be undermined. SlimVirgin 03:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
7. I couldn't care less about what you knew or didn't know in this instance, but I still think you should resign because I don't approve of your general conduct as an arbitrator. Everyking (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
8. This at odds with my earlier statement, but after reading more about the situation than just your apology I am suddenly a lot less willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. And asking for feedback is cop-out.--BirgitteSB 05:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) And your apology probably qualifies a white wash as well. You should have written towards people who were coming in cold not spinning your part in the best light. I know I feel misled by it.--BirgitteSB 05:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
9. I think this pretty ordinary. The only reason Casliber is apologising is because Law/The Undertow has been busted. As a person entrusted by the project with Checkuser and Oversight, it is not just unacceptable that s/he had this information but failed to disclose it, rather it is disgraceful and points to a serious character flaw. S/he should resign all positions of responsibility or be deprived of them. Following that Casliber should be banned without the possibility of return. The only other question Casliber has to answer is what else has s/he been concealing from the Community? Crafty (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
10. I'm reminded of the speeches we hear from all those politicians who get busted doing something they shouldn't have. Now, I'm terribly sorry after it all happened. You apparently had a very long time to notify someone of this and didn't. I might have understood had you slept on it and then notified someone. But all the time that has passed? No. Had this not have happened would you have come clean? No you wouldn't. You sat there silently as an editor socked his way into adminship. Would you have said something if he ran for arbcom? How about if someone nominated him a a crat? This incident paints us a rather clear picture of exactly what is wrong with wikipedia. People with friends in high places get all the breaks until those friends just can't make excuses anymore--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Echo SV: I'm disappointed that you have to ask, and that you're putting people in the position of requesting your resignation. You're a member of a committee that routinely desysops and bans people for violating previous bans. You can't be a member of that committee if you're going desysop some of them, but actively cover up for others. Also: once you're here, asking, you know what the answer should be. But you're just hoping that enough people will try to persuade you to do the wrong thing. William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Mostly per Karanacs and David Fuchs. If you stay on as an arbitrator, you will do so with my continued trust and confidence; I don't think this error is indicative of your overall judgment/moral fortitude, and I would really love to be able to lay down my tildes in the section above. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages does accountability badly. This was a big screwup, and I think that in the interests of accountability, you should resign over it, in the same way as perfectly competent ministers of the crown will resign to take accountability for scandals in their departments. Steve Smith (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
13. I know that you, and the other arbitrators are doing a difficult job. But lately there have been some cases where I disagree with how the cases have been handled, with their outcome, and with the collateral damage resulting from outcomes (or maybe lack thereof). Here is, in a similar way, the follow up on cases added to that. I feel that A) arbitrators are working separate, not together; B) arbitrators are not interacting with community (which sometimes is a choice to protect the community, but in combination with A may be fatal); C) there is a lack of transparency (which may also sometimes be necessary, but should not result in questions about propriety of decisions) and D) arbitrators are not controlling situations during cases and apparently also not after cases (I know, especially D is a lot of extra work, but it can't go on like this). Some of these situations can be handled by the community, but other situations are only known to ArbCom, or can only be handled by ArbCom members (as members of the community can't handle them adequately without being implicated in the situation), or are 'invisible' to (the majority of) the community. This is again a situation which IMHO results from a general lack of (internal and external) communication, interaction, transparency and control. And adds to a feeling of disappointment in the ArbCom which is already there in some members of the community (at least in me). I am sorry, Casliber, that this comes to one specific member first, but I think it is really time that you, the other members of ArbCom, as well as the ArbCom as a whole should reflect on that. --Dirk Beetstra 08:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
14. I'm sorry but anyone who condoned this should be ashamed of themselves and should really consider whether they have the trust of the community to hold any advanced user permissions. In any event I regretfully no longer have confidence in an arbitor that condones a blocked user obtaining advanced user permissions with a sockpuppet. Spartaz 09:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

    No confidence. Hipocrite (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Not substantially less confidence than my confidence in the vast majority of the comittee, and more confidence than some. As such, I support resignation (of Casliber), but no more so than I support resignation of most of the current panel. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

15. A clear failure. ArbCom members should be held to a high standard, and if that standard isn't met they should resign. By his own admission this went on for several months, so is a continuing failure - while the concerned editor was the locus of dispute. Whether Casliber has learned his lesson or not is immaterial to whether he should resign. He should stand for re-election and demonstrate this, if he feels that is appropriate. Nothing personal. (added later) Oh, but here is something else: delegating to "the community" in this instance (and on this page) is a cop out. You should decide on the correct course of action yourself, and how it reflects on your ArbCom and your own reputation. 10:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs)
16. Resign now, and if you want to be an ArbCom member again, stand in the next election. If you think that a nine-month block for a friend of yours is too long and threee months or so is more than sufficient, appeal it through the normal channels, just like everybody else should need to do. The way you handled it now is so fundamentally wrong that a simple apology is not sufficient to restore confidence. The RfA was the last time that you could have come forward and acted somewhat like an ArbCom member is supposed to do. You blew that chance. Cases like this one only reinforce the impression that the important thing on Misplaced Pages is to have the right friends. By the way, people in similar positions who have acted like you or worse (like nominating said user for adminship) should voluntarily resign or be made to as well. Fram (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
17. SV's arguments are logical and persuasive. At the same time, I strongly believe arbcom should take a very, very close look at the positions of the administrators who actively colluded in the fraudulent RFA nomination (that is, desysop them). To let this slide otherwise just makes WP:SOCK a selectively-enforced, bitter joke. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Unfortunately I agree with Awadewit and many others above. I find this extremely disappointing in so many ways. I supported Cas at the elections because I really believed he could make difficult decisions without being compromised and had the personal integrity and ethical framework to perform the role fairly without "fear or favour", and to step back and leave the decisions to his colleagues when he felt unable to do that. I feel very sad to say that I no longer trust you in this role, Cas, and for the sake of the project and the integrity of the committee, I feel you need to resign. I also feel that to remain on the committee at this point places the rest of the committee in an untenable and compromised position of being tarnished by having had a sitting arbitrator giving "mates rates" and actively protecting a friend from his own committee. I also agree with others who say that putting us in the position of having to be "the bad guys" by asking us to do this is unfair. You really should know in yourself the correct course of action for an arbitrator who has sat on his hands for many months knowingly allowing someone who gave up adminship "under a cloud" and was banned by the ArbCom to sock around the ban and regain the tools with a sockpuppet without taking any action or at least alerting the other members of the committee. Cas, you also owe apologies to the people who unnecessarily had their valuable time wasted investigating the account and in dealing with the dispute which led to the recent arbitration request when you knew all along what was going on. I also have to say that I agree with Moreschi's comment above me and if there are admins who knowingly colluded in a fraudulent RFA nomination the committee needs to examine their positions as "trusted users" in the community. Sarah 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Many above hit on the key points. I might have been inclined to accept your reasoning up until the RFA. That's where it all changed. At that point you and any other admin who knew had a responsibility to the community. Any arbcom member or admin who knowingly lets situations like this occur have violated community trust too far to pass it off as a "learn from your mistake" situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
20. My main problem with all of this is Law's position as an admin. Once that happened the time to step forward came and then slowly went by the boards. I am adding that I admire you for being willing to accept the consequences of your actions, and no one can really fault you for anything that has transpired. However others by their duplicity and silence are far more culpable for what has arisen, and not surprisingly far less willing to bear responsibility for their actions...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
21. While I can understand the natural wish to protect your friends, selectively applying the rules is something I can't accept from an arb. I'm afraid that your failure to even inform the community of this long-term blocked user even when they ran for adminship means that I no longer trust you to fairly arbitrate. I do want to thank you for doing this stupidly difficult job for the time you did, however. – Toon 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Unfortunately feel a need to accept the resignation. There might have been a valid argument before Law became an admin. Once that occurred there's simply no excuse. Given that also well after his return you deleted the Undertow's old userpages, that looks very close to a deliberate attempt to coverup. This year's ArbCom has emphasized the high standard to which admins and checkusers should be held. It would be the height of hypocrisy not to hold ArbCom members to that same standard. Simply put, after this, we can't reasonably trust you to make the difficult, sometimes unpleasant decisions that we elected you to do. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
23. The difficult position you were in makes your actions aiming to resolve the situation understandable and evn praiseworthy, the inaction after Law gained admin status is all too human and I'm sure most of us would have found it difficult to do better, but it was the wrong thing to do. Your resignation does you credit, and while I feel with great regret that it should stand, my hope is that you will be able to return wiser and with my full support in future if you choose to stand again. Thanks for your work on Arbcom, dave souza, talk 22:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Those who comply or resort to deception to achieve their ends cannot, by their very nature, be trusted with transparency in a position like this. Spellcast (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
25. You were put in a difficult situation through no fault of your own, but your choices under pressure are not compatible with a seat on the ArbCom. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
26. After I heard about this mess, I went and looked at Law's RfA: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Law, and I encourage others to read the statements by Law as well. Look at it with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, applying what we know now, to what was said then. When I read that RfA today, it made me physically nauseous. What I saw was not a case of tact or subtle, "We just won't mention that this is a reincarnation of a banned user." Instead, what I saw was blatant, bald-faced, unapologetic lying, such as the part where he says that he wants to be "completely transparent" but omits the part about already having been an administrator. That this was done, was wrong. That it was done with the support of other admins who should have known better, was appalling. That it was done with the complicity of a sitting arbitrator, says horrifying things about that arbitrator's judgment. Resignation is absolutely the right thing to do in this case. --Elonka 02:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding us Elonka it's the smoking gun indeed, perhaps you should comment here as well: ...Modernist (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Prefer not to jump straight to numbered comments in segregated sections

• Stick around. Resignation/defenestration should be for a pattern of poor behavior, not for one mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I just structured this for ease of navigation and getting numbers. I am not up to reading reams of text today, believe me :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't be making a quick decision today anyway; if nothing else, this forces you to wait to make a decision until you are up to reading reams of text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • True, I wasn't planning on closing this in 6 hours though, and it's a bit out of my hands really and up to the community. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is a really substantial difference between knowing about a problem while trying to resolve it quietly and being actively deceptive; this issue has editors in both categories, and I think its clear that Casliber is in the first. I'm a little conflicted about the question of resignation, though, because I am truly surprised to find that an arbitrator knew about this and did not find a way to resolve it. It's less than I expect from arbitrators, frankly. On the other hand, I think Casliber has been an eminently reasonable and trustworthy arbitrator in every other respect and he's a quite likable guy - and I've been told that there are other administrators who ArbCom knows are returned banned or desysopped users, and no action has been taken. So on balance, I won't call for Casliber's resignation but I can't argue against it either. Nathan 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You've been told there are other administrators who ArbCom knows are returned banned or desysopped users? Could you please tell whoever told you this to contact ArbCom at the mailing list address, so that we can sort this out and not have this accusation hanging over us that we know more than we actually know. Individuals (as in Casliber's case) may be aware of some things, or have some suspicions, or may discuss things with other functionaries and checkusers, but that is a far cry from the committee as a whole being aware of things like this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I understood Nathan's statement to refer to individuals. Are the other members of arb com prepared to state whether or not they know of other admins in this situation and who they are? DGG ( talk )

My comment describes what informed my decision not to come down either way; if I had actionable information, I'd have posted it. The folks who do have it can post it or not, whether to do so is not my call. Nathan 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Cas, something stands out at me in your apology. You say you told the committee you knew yesterday, but Sandstein posted the RFAR 10 days ago. Why the delay? Thatcher 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I procrastinated. I am quite busy IRL and there was other arb stuff needed doing. I sat and looked that the Sandstein RFAR and realised I couldn't honestly post anything without some misrepresentation so began seriously thinking about it, but distracted by higher priorities elsewhere. Once the identities came to the attention of the committee, I thought I just better do some explaining. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The committee was alerted to the fact that Law=The undertow via another source, about 36 hours ago. While it was being discussed within the committee, Cas indicated that he was aware of this. John Vandenberg 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• If Law's representations are accurate, his ban was technically flawed and the Committee explicitly gave him a right of appeal at the time when it enacted the original remedy. Yet although (apparently) arbitrators agreed that decision was flawed they refused to reinstate his editing privileges when he submitted his request. I currently know of five different requests and appeals, submitted privately, which the Committee has failed to act upon for weeks or (in most cases) months. These haven't been rejected; they're stuck in limbo. People sometimes resort to bad judgment calls when profoundly frustrated by months inaction. One of them is a banned editor (I won't give away the userame) who hasn't socked but is near the end of his tether. Privately he's declared a deadline after which he will give up on formal process and resume editing anyway. I've been entreating him to reconsider, but when the process and its custodians themselves make so little endeavor at fairness my words ring hollow. Apologies aren't necessary but corrective action would help. What are you doing, as an arbitrator, to fix these problems? Durova 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't really the place to discuss this (this section is really about Casliber's actions or inactions). What I would suggest here is that appeals should be publicly listed (just by appeal number if the appellants wish to remain anonymous) and the arbitrator(s) tasked with dealing with those appeals should be listed there as well. That way the delays in the process can be identified and acted upon. But as I am currently responsible for a long delay in a case being heard (an actual arbitration case, not an appeal), I should go and deal with that now. I suggest discussions of arbitrator workload and time management (and questions of how the community can help track this) be moved elsewhere. Maybe WT:ARBCOM? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Where else would be the place? Only one of those five instances is a ban appeal. I'm not even at liberty to discuss some of the others with the Committee via email because the petitioners confided privately. Suffice it to say that in less than half a year two different arbitrators have admitted to looking the other way at admin socking and a third arbitrator had to step down because he himself was an undisclosed sock of a desysopped user. It is very disheartening to see this unfold yet again, and to watch politically connected individuals receive expedited attention while others vanish into a black hole. Hardly anyone has the courage to call that spade a spade, but it does get noticed. It has a terrible effect on morale. Durova 01:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I said WT:ARBCOM, didn't I? This section is about Casliber's apology, not the backlog in ban appeals. What I would suggest is that you get the five people concerned to e-mail ArbCom asking for an update on their appeals. I will personally look out for those e-mails and give them an update on what is happening. I can't promise a date for when their appeals will be heard, because I'm not dealing with appeals at the moment (BASC duty is rotated for a reason), but I will chase things up for those people and anyone else who is reading this and e-mails for an update. But please don't let this subthread overwhelm this section. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, right. Corrective action means more than apology. It comes as a surprise that you consider it off topic. Durova 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I would generally just echo what Nathan says above (except for the "I've been told..." bit, 'cos I haven't :) I like Casliber and think he's a great content editor and great arbitrator but I'm greatly disturbed that an arb would sit by while a returning and not uncontroversial editor would say "I came from another wiki" in their RFA. I don't understand these supposed "friends" of TU, friends are the ones who sit you down and give you the straight goods, not the ones who sit in the car while you're driving drunk. I'd like to see Cas stay on but this saddens me. I also makes me wonder exactly how many dancing skeletons are still in the Arb closet. Franamax (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sigh. This is not quite resignable, IMHO, but it comes close. Letting someone with the obvious emotional instability of the undertow get through RFA again was a really bad decision that was inevitably going to create drama, because this guy is just not stable. I've been around long enough to remember that he yoyos all over the place. We can't have people like this with sysop buttons. He should have been stopped at the RFA stage, if not well before: Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and all that. Nobody expects arbitrators to be flawless, heaven knows, but not again, please? Moreschi (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Although it was a lapse, the lapse was shared by a number of administrators who took a more active role in promoting Law to adminship despite knowing it was a sock account. There isn't even a consensus, or admission by those who did it, that this was wrong. Without knowing what it is that got The undertow banned in the first place it's hard to assess the gravity of their collective poor judgment: were they favoring a friend? Shielding rulebreaking by an inner circle of privileged editors? Acting out ofor opposition to the Arbcom remedies? Advancing one faction over another? On the face of it, blocks and bans are one of the most serious duties of administrators, block/ban-evading socks are one of the greatest sources of disruption, and fake admin accounts are a significant threat to the project. Looking the other way, or worse, facilitating breaking the most important rules when one feels like it, is fundamentally inconsistent with the duties of an administrator. That sends a bad message to nonadmins too regarding the importance of rules and the fairness of admins. I think we need to look at the larger issue and get a consensus first that facilitating others is a violation of a policy violation, socking in particular, is itself a policy violation. That's probably worth an Arbcom case, rooting out those responsible. That's not what Casliber did, though; Casliber merely looked the other way, and waited a little longer than necessary to disclose the conflict of interest in being asked to rule on the behavior of an editor who was secretly known by Casliber to be a sock. That's not ideal, but I don't see it as getting to the heart of an Arbcom member's duties. Arbcom is already overworked and needs all the help it can get. Too many are resigning or going inactive. The next Arbcom election is the best time to decide: Casliber can decide whether to run again, and the community can say whether it remains confident. Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This guy is making a lot of sense. In particular, I think that GlassCobra (talk · contribs) making what was essentially a nomination that lied by omission was really going way beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. Moreschi (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there evidence that GlassCobra knew he was nominating the sock of a blocked user? That's a serious charge.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • For full disclosure: Yes, I was aware that The_undertow and Law are the same person. I have fairly frequent contact with him and am aware of his personal situation. After he created the Law account, we had a long discussion about his approach to Misplaced Pages and what he thought his place was. He stated his desire to leave behind his clouded past and get a fresh start, with Law as his only account, and I determined that I felt sufficiently comfortable to place my trust in him once again by nominating him. I did purposefully leave out any mention of The_undertow in his RfA nomination; I wanted editors to judge him solely by his actions and edits as Law. I would also like to reaffirm my trust in this editor and call attention to his overwhelmingly positive track record as Law; he has written quality articles, collaborated peacefully with other editors, and used the tools in a manner that is a net positive to this project. It is unfortunate that his identity was revealed this way, and I take this opportunity to note my extreme displeasure with the actions and behavior of the other editors involved in leaking the information. As Georgewilliamherbert has noted, the ArbCom has been aware of other blocked editors contributing under new names in the past. We have precedent of blocked users under new names having friends mentor them and supervise their edits, and some have come full circle to gain the tools themselves. It is quite a mystery to me why this particular instance seems to be generating such a dramastorm. GlassCobra 05:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I do appreciate your honesty in coming clean here. But do you not see how misguided your nomination was, and antithetical to the notion of governing Misplaced Pages through policies and consensus rather than personalities, connections, and aggression? Do Arbcom members and popular admins have a special privilege to ignore blocks and policies to "mentor" their online and real-life buddies? What you "want" is not the issue. We all want things. The whole "net positive" stuff is unconvincing, the last defense of an editor's indefensible conduct. What about us regular editors who muck in the article trenches month after month dealing with socks, trolls, vandals, and other disruptive editors without the benefit of patrons to rescue us when we get ourselves in trouble? I've created 120+ articles and there are plenty of things I want too. I want not to have to deal with long-term sockpuppeteers in some weid spooky mental war dragging me through procedure after procedure in a game to add fringe nonsense content to the encyclopedia. I want not to be viewed as some drama queen content warrior and scolded everytime I sincerely bring a editing problem to the attention of administrators. I really want an assumption of good faith. We normal editors get rather short treatment, and we have to deal with the aftermath of the stuff that goes on here. Why do you get what you want, and I don't? It's not giving away much to say that I am a mature adult with some measure of respect and success in real life. Why should I try my best to respect teenagers playing cop, policies even when they're an obstacle, or administrators even when they're wrong, Arbcom sanctions even when Arbcom was out to lunch when they decided them, if others in privileged positions do not share those compunctions? You enabled a sock admin, who just wheel warred to countermand Arbcom sanctions in a case that took many months to resolve (if it is indeed resolved). This generated drama because the sock you helped create just improperly unblocked an editor under Arbcom restrictions for his fourth or fifth violation those restrictions, and wasted perhaps several full days of time collectively of some of Misplaced Pages's most senior editors, pretty much guaranteeing that we will go through this whole thing again in another week or two. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I generally agree w/ wikidemon here. You fucked up big time on that one GC. Nothing that can't be looked past or accepted, but it was a big mistake. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I appreciate that GlassCobra is now being honest, but I am very disappointed that a WP admin would actively help a blocked editor circumvent his block and nominate him for admin. That activity shows no respect for the community and its policies. I don't understand how Casliber, GlassCobra, Jennavecia, et al. can feel comfortable blocking some editors for block evasion while aiding another editor in evading his block. Any of these editors could have initiated an appeal or a request for the block to be lifted. Instead they all engaged in subterfuge. That isn't what we should expect from people in positions of trust.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with you that we need to reach some kind of community consensus on whether or not it is acceptable for administrators especially to ignore disruptive socking (and per WP:SOCK, this case was disruptive). I'm frankly appalled that so many of those who knew about this case think there was nothing wrong with either their socking or their silence. At least Cas was trying to resolve the situation in the background. Karanacs (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, I find that amazing too. A stack of administrators knew about this the whole time - some supported his RfA as if he were entirely new to them, one nominated him, others either remained silent or participated as though he were new... That many people find this to be completely acceptable... I just find that hard to understand. Nathan 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is up to Casliber to decide based solely on the dictates of his own conscience. The decision should not be based on views of the small cross-section of editors who will respond here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, hopefully it is larger than a smidgen of the community. My conscience feels bad but I still feel I have a lot to offer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• First we must demand integrity of ourselves then we must demand from our friends and then we can demand from the community. That is demand not ask. Casliber if the primary reason behind this tardy revelation is because you were unable bite the bullet and place the demands of integrity over those of friendship, then you should resign. If you had real reason to believe the issue was being taken care of and were blind-sided when those plans fell through, then stick around but calibrate your judgment accordingly. Only you can honestly judge yourself in this, we don't have good enough information to decide for you.--BirgitteSB 02:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Fff! Gah! Alt accounts should be piled in the Marianna Trench and nuked. Even the joke ones. Wasted time not spent improving content. Name changes too unless in cases of stalking or some such. This stupid online skulduggery that is employed just because it can be has repercussions. It is inherently dishonest and allows users to manipulate the good faith of users while promoting confusion to perennially clueless editors like me. This site can't go a week without someone being de-masked as a sock of someone else. Christ. Do what you want to do Casliber. You'll catch shit either way. Either learn how to edit without being an ArbCom member or suck up the guilt and own your mistake and say "Yeah, I did that. Won't do it again. So what?" You'll be Misplaced Pages Review's punching bag for a while til the next sock is uncovered and they move on to something else tawdry. --Moni3 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  I share Moni3's concern about socks and user renames in general. We've recently socks playing WP:BADHAND and others artificially inflating an apparent consensus on various dicsussions. I suggest all alternate accounts of all editors should be banned, except that ArbCom should be able to authorise specific alternates for specific reason, with reviews of these cases at intervals of a year or less. Changes of name are can sometimes be an attempt to walk away from consequences of previous behaviour, and I suggest we discuss possible situations to see if we can work out some principles - possibly at WP:VPP. --Philcha (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is this behavior to be chastised, or commended? We have a long history of problem users reforming and returning (not the rule, but there are plenty of exceptions who were indef'ed or banned for a year who are now productive cooperative editors). We have tended to look the other way if the returned user self-identified. In this case they were outed by someone else, and not given the chance to come to that decision on their own. Casliber has admitted to working with them to convince them to make the admission. I don't know what the right answers are here - but resignation is premature. I think I would have done something different, but I think I want an arbcom whose members balance protecting the community and in the rare case where it's actually possible, rehabilitating those who were abusers in the past. I don't know that this was entirely the right thing to do, but it clearly wasn't wrong (morally, corrupt, failure of judgement) either. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• To SV, the deletion was by request for a RL concern voiced by The Undertow (actually) unrelated to Misplaced Pages. I had not thought of it in relation to this until yesterday, when yeah it didn't look good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you know when you deleted those pages that he was back as Law? SlimVirgin 04:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Yes. As I have said, I was hoping he'd resign the Law account or come clean himself at some point. I was not thinking about the trail WRT onwiki investigations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that, as a member of the ArbCom, you deleted the user and talk page of an editor under an ArbCom ban, who you knew was not only back editing, but who had gained another admin account? Cas, please resign and save everyone a lot of trouble. This can't be justified. SlimVirgin 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that user talk pages were not normally deleted. The user in this case certainly didn't vanish. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be undeleted?   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not supposed to delete talk pages, as I understand it, so it should be undeleted. I see that Lara has also deleted Law's pages. SlimVirgin 05:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

@SV I wouldn't say it is entirely unjustifiable. I know of at least five incidents in the past when arbcom members knew of improper alt account usage and did nothing. All five cases are long since resolved, but I can't exactly hold Casliber to a higher standard than the community has held members in the past, at least without saying "we are raising the standard for future actions". MBisanz 04:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If we let this one go too, then standards have fallen even further. Rather than defend Cas because it has happened with other cases, please tell us what the other cases were instead. SlimVirgin 05:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure the first case I name will scream outing, the second will scream revenge, and the third will scream drama mongering; you will forgive me for not being motivated to flop my head down on the chopping block I hope. MBisanz 05:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. Lots of people are worried about speaking up, which is one of the things we elect ArbCom members for. Then we find they're also involved, and to make matters worse won't automatically resign when caught. That we're even having to discuss this is astonishing. SlimVirgin 05:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Those of us who work or have worked in management positions know that if you give people over whom you exercise some authority leeway with regards to the rules, sooner or later it will come back to bite you. The lesson here is, if you're in a management position, and en.Misplaced Pages arbitrators are in "management", then it's probably safer to abide by the letter of the law in all cases. That's not a very pleasant position to have to be in, but it is safer. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) yeah, big time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• For several months, you were aware that an editor was directly violating an ArbCom-imposed ban. You did not report the issue to the community as a whole, nor to your fellow Arbitrators, on the assumption that you might be able to encourage the editor to reform. You remained silent – for months – even after you found that the account had been granted adminship on the basis of an RfA containing a number of barefaced lies. You only came clean to your fellow Arbitrators after the matter had been reported to them by someone else. In the Abd/WMC case, you (along with your fellow Arbs) endorsed a principle about the importance of administrators "avoiding apparent impropriety" in their actions. Can you reconcile your own conduct with that principle? How does it reflect on the role and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee if one of its members unilaterally and secretly opts to disregard the Committee's own remedies? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to work something out with minimum drama, which unfortunately wasn't successful. I was trying to be pragmatic. I was also aware of the circumstances behind the sanctions (and some of the factors at the time) and was satisfied then they wouldn't recur. Juggling pragmatism and principles can be tricky. Nonetheless, I have made the statement indicating my apology for the slip-up and noting the feedback. (hence the options above) We're all human and we've all made mistakes, expecting anyone to be perfect is an unattainable ideal. I have taken this view in cases and ban appeals as well. As I said, if the consensus is I should go, I will go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it speaks volumes that you either didn't think to, or felt you were unable to, trust your fellow Arbitrators to assist you with this situation. It's not entirely clear to me why a minimum-drama, pragmatic solution could not be arrived at through consultation with the Committee, nor why you chose to go it alone and ignore the Committee's remedy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It may speak to something, but it certainly doesn't speak to Casilber alone. Perhaps is we assumed (for a moment) that a minimum drama pragmatic solution would not have been forthcoming from the committee or the community, would that make Cas's actions more understandable? Protonk (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that this doesn't reflect solely on Casliber's judgement. The community should find it very worrying that a sitting Arbitrator didn't feel comfortable raising the issue of an editor who gained a position of trust and responsibility on Misplaced Pages through deception, largely on the basis of activities carried out in direct violation of a clear-cut Arbitration-imposed remedy. If the Committee couldn't be relied upon to treat the testimony of one of its own with restraint and discretion, what message does that send? If this situation is representative of an overall lack of mutual trust and respect among Arbitrators, the Committee is seriously dysfunctional.

On the other side of that, though, is the lack of judgement (or at least foresight) that Casliber showed over a long period of time. The ArbCom has regularly handed out penalties (from simple cautions and admonishments ranging up to desysopping) to editors who have attempted to resolve messy situations but not known when they were in over their heads. At the point where Casliber's months of entreaties failed to result in any openness on the part of the banned editor and that editor assumed a position of trust within the community, Casliber should have been able to see where this was all headed. Once Casliber was aware of Law's adminship, the matter needed to be addressed – discreetly, in camera, as necessary – by the Committee. It was only a matter of time before everything exploded. (As the old saying goes — three can keep a secret...if two of them are dead.) While I sincerely doubt that Casliber ever sat down and said to himself, Today I will arrogate the authority of the Committee, and instead modify and suspend their sanctions without discussion or consultation, that is nevertheless the effect of his actions. It is not the role of individual Arbitrators to rewrite the decisions of the Committee.

One final thought — Casliber was running for (and elected to) ArbCom while this ban evasion started taking place. While I do not and cannot know at exactly what time Casliber first made contact with Law and knew about the alternate account, does he think that his candidacy for ArbCom would have been successful if the community had known at the time about his ongoing activities with respect to this banned user? If he were to run for reelection this year, would he be successful? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is pragmatic to take care of things immediately before they blow out of all proportion rather and than stalling for a easier option. Stop digging.--BirgitteSB 05:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Casliber, could you share what lessons you've learned from this, and how you'd handle the same situation if it came up again in the future, both in your own editing and in cases that might come to the ArbCom?   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Birgitte writes a good summary on the other page - it did snowball (eventually) and didn't go away. I would have ensured it didn't remain secret like it did, and should have taken steps before the RfA especially. Rootology's readminning has been a good example to others that editors can come back from sanctions and win the community's trust. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Rootology did not come back and win the community's trust by creating a sock account. We've now learned that there was an entire group of people who knew about this block evasion and helped it along. This calls into question whether rules are applied consistently, and is not behavior that Misplaced Pages should expect from its volunteers in trusted positions. If that's all you have to say then I'm not sure that you've learned from this episode after all. If you'd like to think about it more and respond more fuilly that would be helpful. I'd like to know your opinion of admins who aid their frineds in block evasion. Should that be condoned?   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean...is there anyone else you guys want to tell us about? I notice GC copped to nominating law and ommitting his prior account...which just leaves me gobsmacked. People protesting the sock policy talk a big game about how you can't technically enforce it...but that doesn't seem to matter if we can't socially enforce it. I said above that I don't think cas should resign, but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Protonk, comment is to Casliber) You made mistakes, but as I suggested above one thing you can do now, at the very least, is clean house on the committee. That is, if there are any other committee members who are aware of similar situations, they should come forward about it and do so right now (in a semi-discrete fashion if necessary). The point being made above by MBisanz, GlassCobra, and others that these kind of things happen with some frequency is ridiculously problematic—not all of us are party to whatever open secrets certain editors seem to have access to. Either banned editors are actually banned until the community or the ArbCom decides otherwise on Misplaced Pages, or else we just admit that certain segments of the community have decided it's okay for certain users to come back when they are friendly with them and for these kind of decisions to be made off-wiki wherever it is y'alls make these decisions (and, if you happen to learn about this kind of thing, well just relish that knowledge but don't say anything about it). I'd say let's go with the former option, but some confidence restoring exercises are needed here, and I suggest you start with ArbCom coming clean about any other situations like this one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I suspect this is actually more difficult than may appear. If Casliber aided in all of this, then most likely he should resign. If he only was aware of the situation, however, then in fact I am not sure that it was his obligation to report such information. To pose the question: are arbitrators obligated to report all perceived misconduct of which they are aware (to the rest of the committee, or to the community), even if known only due to personal confidences? It may be tempting to say yes, but I think the obligations are more specific, and require additional context. Perhaps, if you are aware of a specific type of misconduct by friends, then you should be able to account for this with regard to your actions toward others. E.g., if Casliber is aware of this then one would hope his actions and his public statements were consistent with such knowledge. Moreover, I can certainly see problems if Casliber was being used for cover, or if Casliber disregarded routine enforcement for a friend. But all of these require additional information. If he only knew about this because a friend told him, then the idea that arbitrators actually have to report individual malfeasance as they personally see it (but their friends may not, for whatever reasons), in all instances, may go beyond what is good policy. This doesn't answer the question as to Casliber, of course, but suggests only that the initial revelation may not be enough to go by. Mackan79 (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Casliber acted extremely foolishly, but perhaps understandably and not necessarily dishonestly. I do largely agree with SV's comments above, but the one I feel contempt for is GlassCobra, for nominating a known sock at RfA. It makes a mockey of an already discredited process, and I find that unforgivable. I don't demand Casliber's resignation, after all to err is human, but I do demand that the entire ArbCom now come clean about all their other dirty little secrets. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• You'd have better luck demanding that Coke divulge their recipe for Coca-Cola. Badger Drink (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to demand anyone's head, nothing good will come of that, but I would like to express my extreme disappointment with everyone who allowed this RfA to run its course without disclosing what they knew. GlassCobra, I find it particularly disheartening that you are unwilling to acknowledge the iniquitousness of your actions. Your deceit only serves to strengthen the notion that contributors are treated far from equally, and the only thing that matters is who your friends are. decltype (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• is it really the place of an arb to act as a therapist and try to persuade an offender to do the right thing through personal argument for "many months" while keeping the sock secret from arcom even ? —mattisse (Talk) 12:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm really on the fence about this one. On one hand, we have someone who I see as an excellent arb in general. On the other, we have a user who, knowing the policies on the matter, did not disclose the evasion of an ArbCom-imposed ban, and further, allowed the user to become a sysop again without disclosing his past. The correct procedure would have been for The undertow to appeal his ban to arbcom and have it lifted, and then abandon the account. Even then, he probably should have been required to disclose the account before standing for adminship. I think we can all agree that this inaction was a betrayal of the community's trust. Whether it warrants resignation, though, is a trickier question, especially given that we can't see the off-wiki communication that took place to prove that Casliber actually did repeatedly urge Law to come clean. I think that if we had that evidence, we could better examine what really took place. I request that Law and Casliber agree to post the content of the emails for the community's benefit.

If anyone clearly and unambiguously needs to resign, it is Glasscobra, for knowingly and willfully nominating an undisclosed sockpuppet of a desysopped/banned user at RFA. Whether he had the trust of GC is entirely irrelevant, as he should have appealed his ban or disclosed the account. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)} 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

An appeal to the ArbCom

This committee was elected because people were tired of what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as the inconsistent ethical standards of the previous one. The December 2008 election was a vote for change. Each and every committee member who is protecting friends while desysopping others for the same offences; or who has himself been banned or desysopped in the past; or who is hiding anything else they know the community would regard as substantive, is making a mockery of that election and of everyone's faith in you.

Please ask Casliber to resign as an Arb and functionary, and ask anyone else on the committee with similar secrets to step down. The community wants and needs an honest ArbCom. No one should be allowed to compromise its integrity in this way. SlimVirgin 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is the not remote possibility that we will cease to have a committee if that happens. Also, in our infinite wisdom, the Misplaced Pages community decided that the problem with arbcom was that there was too little secrecy, so when we go to vote for a new set of arbs, we will do so with secret ballots. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose if the Committee wanted to get started, it could act on my emails of 08/31/2009, 07/04/2009, and 04/26/2009 and the current members of AUSC could act on the email I sent to them individually on 12/22/2008 and of course there are the one or two other admin abuse matters I've privately communicated to certain arbs that haven't seen the light of day in months and years as well. MBisanz 07:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Aren't we about to have another election? Why don't we simply ask all candidates to agree to a pledge of conduct and agree to resign should they violate it? Things like -- Arbcom decisions apply to all editors, there are no free passes for friends; no acting in COI situations, etc. If they won't agree to reasonable restrictions then people can make their own conclusions when they vote. At the same time we should acknowledge that being an Arbcom member is a thankless task that does not result in any real power, riches, or respect in life, it's service more than honor, so let's not make it less attractive to be a committee member, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• A code of conduct would be great. Please, write one. I doubt the committee will have the time to do so. John Vandenberg 08:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt the committee will even have the time to enforce it, or even uphold it in the first place. Badger Drink (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• MBisanz, I can't see an email from you on Dec 22, 2008. If I have found the right email from April 26 and July 4, they are problems of various degrees of wrongness, many of which have been dealt with in arbitration cases; the rest have not been brought to arbitration publicly, and they are not the type of issue that the committee privately deals with. The email from September 1 was a matter that would normally be dealt with privately, but is a long way from conclusive - we did drop the ball on that one by not replying to you or investigating it further. John Vandenberg 09:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• A code of conduct is a good idea, but it's a little sad that we'd have to include, "Do not cover up for your friends if they gain adminship while under an ArbCom ban." SlimVirgin 08:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A secret ballot will at least prevent people from being elected just because editors are reluctant to vote against whichever clique they belong to. It's a step in the right direction. SlimVirgin 07:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the features. It will also prevent auditing of the results by anyone distant from the committee. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Addendum) I should probably stop pressing the point, it is a little off topic. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Following the suggestion above, I've created a tentative proposal for a code of conduct. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct. All input is welcome. SlimVirgin 09:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• John Vandenberg: you say "I doubt the committee will have the time to do so." I say the Committee would have more time for such if it streamlined some of the time-wasting parts of its hearings process (like restating policy and pillars and expecting arbs to pace through with the scroller ticking yes to them, time and time again). And kept to a decent timetable in its hearings. Tony (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, the basic principles at the top of each case are not a time sink; trying to eradicate them to save time is a massive red herring. But that isn't to say that there are a lot of areas where stream-lining our processes will result in time and effort savings. The biggest time saver for this committee has been appointing more checkusers and oversighters.

Back on topic, I am stunned and pleased that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee code of conduct has existed for years; I've only just seen it now. The committee has talked about a code of conduct on and off for a while now, but we have unseen backlogs across the board to work on, and we are expected to participate in the community as well. The committee doesn't need to write arbitration related policies; the community can, and should, do it. (Thanks SlimVirgin) Also the Arbitration policy improvements havent been rolled into policy yet. If necessary, the committee can ratify them once the community is done updating it.

John Vandenberg 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Something is seriously wrong if an arbitrator (which John V. is, I believe) is stunned to learn that there exists an Arbitration Committee code of conduct! Has ArbCom no institutional memory? There needs to be, apparently, a standard message sent 2 or 3 times a year to all arbitrators which says that the following pages (several, including the code of conduct) are required reading. - Hordaland (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The code of conduct is not policy, it's a long-dormant proposal (well, at least it was dormant until yesterday). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What he said↑ See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_code_of_conduct&oldid=287519830 What part of "failed to gain consensus" do you not understand? The page was only revived today . *mumbles something about people who make accusations without doing any research whatsoever* J.delanoy_adds 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Humbly beg your pardon. Although Boris' info was sufficient and not judgemental. Thank you, Boris.

(I did do some looking, tho clearly not enuff.) --Hordaland (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Going forward: WP:SOCK clarification

I'm not yet sure what I think of this incident, but I appreciate Casliber's candor and thank him for it. In view of the discussion above, I've proposed to write up what I believe the community's expectations are in such cases at WP:SOCK#Disclosure of inappropriate alternative accounts by trusted editors:

Editors who hold advanced permissions (administrator, bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser) and members or clerks of the Arbitration Committee hold positions of particular community trust. When applying for and at any time while holding such a position, they are required:

• to disclose any own alternative account that could reasonably be considered inappropriate;
• to make public, in an appropriate venue, any knowledge they have about such accounts of other active editors, except if the alternative account is already disclosed on the editor's user page.

Failure to do so in a timely manner is grounds for removal from their position of trust by decision of the Arbitration Committee.

Discussion of this should probably take place at WT:SOCK.  Sandstein  09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm thinking of above, and I'll say that I tentatively disagree with such a policy. To state one issue among many, there is a fair amount of gray area in socking, as evident in the double standards that many perceive. Arbitrators also weren't always arbitrators, and come with knowledge that preceded their positions on the Committee. If someone indicates to an arbitrator as a friend that they are using another account, and besides that there is no indication of disruption, should the arbitrator automatically involve himself and disclose it to the rest of the Committee? Even if this disclosure to the arbitrator preceded his or her election? A competing principle would be that of recusal, that an arbitrator who is not impartial with regard to an editor should avoid decision making with regard to that editor. Similarly there is the principle of avoiding rules which can in almost all cases be enforced only through honest personal disclosure, and the principle of avoiding rules that would isolate arbitrators from the realities of the community. Just a few thoughts on this for here. Mackan79 (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, are you saying, that if anyone wishes to run for RFA, they must disclose if they have any socks, or tell the community if they know of anyone else who has socks (like Law for example). This would be both unenforcable and gameable. Steven Zhang 09:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any inappropriate socks. I don't see how this is unenforceable or gameable. It just tells our officials that we expect them to behave ethically, and that they ought not to have any undisclosed affiliations that might impede their ability to act neutrally. Knowing of an inappropriate sock and not doing anything about it is such an impediment.  Sandstein  09:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite easily could be used for disruptive purposes, at least in theory. I could run for RFA, and "disclose" that Joe Bloggs has sock John Citizen (which could be a serious allegation), and it could be investigated to no avail, but it'd still cause disruption. This might be faulty logic but I still see a potential issue. Steven Zhang 09:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When, oh when, is en.WP going to get tough on alt accounts. I huffed and puffed at WT:SOCKPUPPET a few months ago to have the policy significantly strengthened, without much success. I'm sick of seeing ArbCom and other parts of en.WP's structure weakened by the little sock scandals that dribble out regularly. How many resignations? How much distrust? Just make it exceptional for a user to be allowed to operate more than one account, and give the information to the CUs. Tony (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would see no problem with requiring those running for such positions to disclose their own socks. But we should make no requirement that they disclose the socks of others. There is no gain to be made in turning everyone into informants on other Wikipedians. --Jayron32 05:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Then let's get rid of all the noticeboards, because that's what everyone who posts at a noticeboard is. Let's get rid of WP:SPI also. "Turning informants on other Wikipedians" is the first step to enforcement, if people are reluctant to "tattle-tale" on other editors then we have chaos. -- Atama頭 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Casliber

Q1: You state the following in your statement "...confessed to the committee a day ago, after the committee became alerted to the identities by another incident." Could you please release a copy of your "confession?" Were you aware that you had been accused of knowing the identities early in the public disclosure? Do you know if covering up your knowledge of the identities was the counter-factual statement to which CHL refers here? Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) I cut and pasted much of my statement to the committee onto that which is on the flip side of this page. Other bits pertain to material it is not up to me to release. (b) Yes, I saw my name come up. I had already disclosed to the committee by that point and was considering posting something openly (c) Yes. He was trying to protect me, however I had told the committee before this (which he didn't know). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have modified my opinion above based on these answers, specifically b. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Update - I'm out

The kicker is looking now at moving on sock discussions. I have always edited under my real name and have hated the idea of socking. I'd like to participate in this but realise my credibility on the topic is busted, so I am resigning. I'll leave it to y'all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: the other reason is really that upon thinking about it, I have been a passenger for much of the year, and I think the current team have done a great job really, and I think it will be fine without me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh fuck. Please don't. I told half of the project because I was tired of lying to people I knew. I regretted lying to the other half. Fuck me. This is all my fault, and not anyone else's. I just should have either kept my mouth shut or kept with my resignation. Fuck. I promised I wouldn't comment as the_undertow, but look what the fuck I've done. Admonish me. Ban me. CU me. Fuck this. This is all my fault. Fuck. If I just walked away quietly and let AC do what they do. Fuck. Fuck Fuck. Just ban me. I fucked up. You, (AC) promised me if I went along with our deal that nobody would be hurt. Fuck.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The undertow (talk • contribs)

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Yours were particularly idiotic, but others also acted inappropriately and must answer for that. At least Casliber has recognized his mistake and is trying to do the right thing now; I wish others would do the same. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed your fault, and it appears its your friends who will be punished because of your actions. Thats the risk of friendship i guess. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "deal?" What deal? Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

By "deal," I think he means the unbanning arrangement (rather than any back-room scheming). AGK 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• While I agree that we must all take responsibility for our own actions, I think it is also important that we approach matters in a mature, dignified, and civilized fashion. Part of that includes not kicking people when they are down. No offense Karanacs, but there are positive ways to bring about a desired outcome, and I don't consider calling anyone "idiotic" one of them. — Ched :  ?  15:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand your position. To clarify, I don't believe that the_undertow is an idiot, I believe he did idiotic things (there actually is a big difference there). His actions can't and shouldn't be justified. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. This recent bout of finger-pointing and fault-finding is sickening. –Juliancolton |  16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Julian, I don't understand. When policies are broken, is the community expected to stand by and pretend it didn't happen? When we don't enforce policies consistently we make mockeries of them and implicitely encourage everyone else to ignore them. If the problem is that the policy is unreasonable and unenforceable, then we need to fix the policy. If the policy is unclear enough that users can't tell whether or not they are in compliance, then we need to fix the policy. If the community thinks the policy is appropriate and users X, Y, and Z decide they don't feel like following it that day, then users X, Y, and Z need to be sanctioned, because they broke the rules. The community can't determine which path to take (amend the policy or sanction those who broke it) unless we at least talk about it. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • No, but we must deal with the issue responsibly and like adults, without having a petty argument about whose "fault" it was. The recent events regarding Law, Casliber, et al. are certainly serious; that I don't doubt. However, as a community we need to find the best possible solution and work together to that end to resolve the dispute without singling out anybody. –Juliancolton |  16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the lack of foresight on the_undertow's part is mind-boggling. How does someone not anticipate this would happen in a blame-happy finger-pointing drama-laden-causing-orgasm culture like this one? Reminds me of Mafia hit men characters who beg for their lives and cry when someone threatens to kill them. --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Julian, your position is not something I can comprehend. It's more important to fix the problem than to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt. Sometimes people do stupid things. They should be singled out for it, insofar as doing so is useful in solving the problem at hand. Friday (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts are basically identical to Ched's ↓ –Juliancolton |  16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• My own perception is this: We have a website backed by many policies and guidelines - and yet we also have the oft pointed to WP:IAR - to me that speaks volumes. We are here to build an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. We're not here to point to any individuals shortcomings, we're not here to find the faults in others, we're not here to play USENET flamewar games - we're here to build the best online collection of knowledge that we can. Those who are doing so should be applauded, those who aren't should be directed in a more positive direction. — Ched :  ?  16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's why we should be here, but in truth not the reason why many are here. Particularly those administrators who wouldn't even know where to find an article, much less write one, who are apparently motivated entirely by an obsession to punish those who do while bending over backwards to welcome an never-ending flood of IP vandals and pov warriors. I don't particularly blame either Casliber or Law, but I do think that GlassCobra has much to answer for. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • IAR is not some kind of shield against making mistakes. IAR is best applied when you don't invoke it. Invoking it in fact shows that you know something is wrong with the situation and now you want a get out of jail free card. People who have been here this long should know much better. IAR is best applied to newbies or people getting involved in things they're not familiar with and making mistakes. It means we're happy to let them edit in those situations without requiring them to spend hours and hours reading up on rules before hand. But Casliber is an arbcom member and there is no excuse for being ignorant of the way things work around here. IAR should be completely done away with and replaced with "Don't worry if you didn't read the fine print before you started editing, we won't hold honest mistakes against you". There was no honest mistake here. An honest mistake would have been a day or two, a weekend maybe. Heck I'd even extend it to a week if it took him that long to have a conversation with undertow. But beyond that honest is gone.--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Resignation not accepted by me at least. Anyone is free to walk away, and nobody can make anyone stay. But Casliber, please don't be hasty or get discouraged. Let's see where things go from here. We don't know how this is all going to shake out. I have a feeling this issue - admins and arbcom members socking - goes well beyond this current case. We already know there are several others. The real damage is not the occasional disruption we know about from the socks who, it turns out, should have been banned and stayed banned. It's loss of faith in Arcom and the administrative process, something that won't be cured by the resignations of individuals as they are uncovered and hounded out. If the issue is important enough for Arbcom members to resign, it's imortant enough for Arbcom members to stay and overcome. The past is done. If the community cares enough about the issue, it will demand that we deal with illegitimate accounts. I don't think punishment for past behavior is really helpful, but rather drawing the line going forward, if that's what people want. Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Reminder: December is only two months away.--Tznkai (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm in favour of the resignation (shame on those admins who also knew and did nothing, and now refuse to do the decent thing)- but I also agree with Wikidemon that there is a much wider problem of admins socking and condoning block and ban evasion by their friends. Every attempt to do something systematic against this problem is howled down by a collection of admins. Arbcom needs to set a good example - so do admins, but I doubt the ability or inclination of many of them to do so. Long ago the particularly idiotic decision to appoint admins for life, and to make it virtually impossible for the community to effectively scrutinize their actions was made - and now any attempt to do so is met by howls of indignation from many admins, who clearly do not regard honesty, openness, or integrity as being beneficial to the building of an encyclopædia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I wish you the best - and we get you back editing more articles :) Here's to your next FA. (Personally speaking I would have supported your continuance but I believe your resignation is a fair and noble resolution that avoids drama. I particularly appreciated your personal willingness to engage the community during the whole Advisory Council debacle and your votes and contributions on ArbCom decisions have in my view always been reasonable and well thought out.) Orderinchaos 09:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Crap, you shouldn't have resigned. Arbcom is turning into a wanker enablement squad and it will be worse without you. The WMC case was ridiculous and you were in the ever-shrinking group of arbs that had any sense in the matter. 67.119.3.190 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Deal"?

Could an ArbCom member (or ex-Arbcom member) please shed some light on the_undertow's statement above? Specifically, ". . . You, (AC) promised me if I went along with our deal that nobody would be hurt" (bolding mine). I think it goes without saying that remaining silent with regards to some sort of "backroom buddy deal" and letting Casliber throw himself under the bus would be utterly slimey and reprehensibly cowardly - not exactly out of character for ArbCom, but still rather breathtakingly unabashed in its reprehensibility. Badger Drink (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that "deal" as the terms of his original arbcom sanction - 9 month block, followed by no shenanigans. He failed to abide by the deal when he edited during the block. Turn it around; had he complied with the "deal", everything would have worked out - he would have been editing for proper in mid-March, would not have been involved in the late unpleasantness, and wouldn't have given casliber cause to contemplate resignation. So, in context, that's my best guess. If there was some other arrangement, then yes I'd like to know about it as well, but I don't see evidence of one. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This question is for me to respond to, as I managed this "case". The Arbitration Committee received an IRC log where User:Law was having a dispute with another editor, and confirmed that he had previously edited as User:The undertow, early on Tuesday. (As an aside, someone had mentioned to me a "rumour" that the two accounts were the same editor shortly before I logged off in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, and I did not press or do any investigation at that time.) As a group, various members of the Committee investigated and collected information that supported the IRC log. There were more than sufficient votes to perform a Level I desysopping; however, it was agreed that an effort to communicate directly with User:Law should be made prior to desysopping, as there did not appear to be an emergency situation. (Neither account was currently editing, and any member of the Committee could immediately activate the temporary desysopping if required.) As I am one of the few members of the current Arbitration Committee who uses IRC to communicate, I agreed to make an attempt to "speak" with Law directly through that medium. Prior to this event, I had never had personal communications with either of the accounts, to my knowledge or recollection. Through intermediaries (whom I thank), Law was advised that I was seeking him, and he contacted me via personal message. I made it clear at the beginning of our discussion that the resolution would be that the User:Law account would be desysopped and that he would be restricted to one account, and that further sanctions may follow, initiated by another member of Arbcom; the discussion was focused on how to accomplish this, with various options considered. As a result of our discussion, User:Law requested desysopping from a steward, which I facilitated, as this account was not SUL and could not post to Meta; the editor elected to return to the User:The undertow account as his single account; the motion was posted; and I blocked the User:Law account. From the time of the receipt of the IRC logs by the Committee to the motion acknowledging Law's resignation of the administrator tools was less than 24 hours.

Subsequent to the posting of the motion, several other related activities have occurred. Former arbitrator Casliber acknowledged that he had prior information, discussed this with the community and elected to resign; that was not known or anticipated at the time of my discussion with The undertow. Some members of the community have initiated a request for arbitration that is related to the actions of other administrators who had knowledge of the two accounts. Other members of the community have initiated policy discussions on several pages. The Committee has also continued to review the information relating to this matter and to consider whether further sanction is appropriate under the circumstances.

I will note that, as part of the review of this situation, it became clear that User:The undertow did make a request to Arbcom to have his block lifted in August/September of 2008, and it does not appear that a formal decision on that request was ever made or communicated to The undertow, based on the records available to this year's Committee. As we are all well aware, last year's iteration of the Arbitration Committee found itself exceedingly short-staffed and in disarray by that time; this year's Committee has drawn lessons from their difficult experience and has established processes to try to prevent such matters from slipping through the cracks, as it appears happened in this case. Risker (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for ArbCom about "ignored" appeal

According to Lara's statement, the_undertow had already attempted to appeal his block to the ArbCom earlier, but the request was ignored. As Lara put it: "He attempted to appeal, and from what I'm told there was general agreement among the ArbCom of 2008 to accept his request, but the thread went silent and was apparently forgotten. I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too. AC was silent, though." This seems like a considerable piece of the puzzle. I'm not going to accuse ArbCom over this, but if the undertow first tried appealing in the proper method, only to be (perhaps unintentionally) ignored although never told "no", this seems like breeding grounds for him wanting to go ahead and create the Law account. Some clarification about this would be appreciated. JamieS93 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On the motions page Carcharoth said The other aspect of this is that the_undertow started using the Law account at least two weeks before he appealed the block to ArbCom (according to the records we have). Jehochman 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The registration date of the Law account: 4/9/2008 Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I suspected I was missing something, which was the fact that he created the account before appealing the block. I'm still curious to know why the AC (which were a different set of people, besides 3 members) didn't come to a conclusive result with the appeal, why it somehow got ignored. JamieS93 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, a lot of stuff just gets dropped by the ArbCom (I've had this experience repeatedly). This years ArbCom is a bit better than last years but it still occurs. I doubt there's any malice or such, simply a lack of organization. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Appoint CU & OS auditing subcommittee

According to the agenda and election mechanism was supposed to be in place by August 15th. Would someone be so go as to point me to it, and let me know when the elections will be held? --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The election will be taking place this month. We're just finalising the details so that accurate announcements can be made, probably in about seventy-two hours  Roger Davies 07:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. --Joopercoopers (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank God. Thatcher 14:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Update: just ironing out some wrinkles with the developers; we should be in a position to announce the schedule within 24 hours.  Roger Davies 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot damn.--Tznkai (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Okay, all. We have a timetable:

• Applications: 7 - 22 October
• Review period: 22 - 29 October
• Voting: 00:01 30 October - 23:59 8 November (using SecurePoll)
• Appointments by: 13 November

You heard it here first. I'll post the more detailed, formal announcements tomorrow.

 Roger Davies 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please ensure this process is better publicized than the last CU/OS election. –xeno 20:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you have suggestions on where or how to publicize the announcement, feel free to implement them, it;s a wiki after all... Thatcher 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. I've posted announcements at WP:AN, WT:CHECKUSER, WT:OVERSIGHT, WT:CRAT, WT:AUDSUB, WT:SPI and will give Kirill an exclusive for Signpost. Any other suggestions welcomed,  Roger Davies 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I added WP:VPM and WP:AN; it could even be reposted there on a weekly basis to refresh it as it scrolls off. How about the CU, OS, functionary and wiki-en mailing lists? Also important to post each step of the process (self-nom one week to go, self-nom closed, elections open, elections 7 days to go, elections 24 hours to go). I won't touch the various mediwiki sitenotices and other popups 'cause there is some territoriality there, but it could be considered. Any other ideas? Thatcher 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! WT:AC, done too.  Roger Davies 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review? :) Thatcher 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Roger Davies 21:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a watchlist notice would be a good idea. (Proposed) –xeno 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago, I wrote a page designed to be referred to when questions of where to publicise something arises. See Misplaced Pages:Publicising discussions. I would suggest WP:CENT is used a few days before the election starts, and that any discussions to put anything on sitenotices (also mentioned at the link I gave) are started early in the relevant places to allow consensus for or against adding to those sitenotices to become apparent. I would suggest a central place to announce elections might not be a bad idea. WP:ELECTIONS exists, so I would add it there as a forthcoming election. If there is a Misplaced Pages calendar anywhere, that might be an idea as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. I have installed archive protection on the AN thread . –xeno 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology from John Vandenberg

Original announcement

• Part of me wants to say "honest mistake, thanks for the apology", and part wants to say "for fuck's sake can none of you do your jobs?". DuncanHill (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• No resignation is required for a mere oversight, of course, and I also believe that recusal is not required either.  Sandstein  09:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about your own abuses or someone else's? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM, that was in no way helpful. Your case is being dealt with elsewhere; please confine your remarks here to the issue currently being discussed. Thank you. GJC 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right Gladys, but the double standards and hypocrisy can be a lot to witness without feeling a need to comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• We need to know that emails sent to the Committee or its members are reviewed and handled with the appropriate urgency and consideration. The current Committee has made strides in putting in place proper procedures for handling emails and time management. It looks like there is still work to be done in these areas, and until effective procedures are in place and are followed, mistakes like this are bound to occur. That said, arbitrators qualified, committed and able to function with integrity are far too rare to be dispensed with for such lapses of judgement. I have full confidence in John Vandenberg's explanation and continued service as a member of the Committee.  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• As you all know, I am not one to dance on graves and enjoy the misfortune of other; indeed no. However, I would like to point out that I am on hand, should the Arbcom want to fill any of the numerous vacancies. I will do my patriotic duty and guide the good ship Misplaced Pages back into safe and calm waters. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Both Duncan and Lady Catherine's Ghost (aka Giano) make good points. This error is an understandable as it is regrettable and there is nothing to do but move on. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with Sandstein; you surely receive a great many emails and if you missed one, or scanned it and missed the thrust of the content, then that is a regrettable oversight but hardly a damnable one. No recusal necessary so far as I can see. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 11:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I generally feel that this was a forgivable oversight. To be honest, given that John Vandenberg didn't have any particular previous involvement with the situation, I would have thought that the functionary in question probably would have been better served emailing the committee list as a whole rather than an individual uninvolved arbitrator... but either way I do not feel this warrants resignation in any way. ~ mazca 11:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Hardly even worth an apology, No doubt lessons will be learned and I personally think that its the kind of thing that should be emailed to the arbitration mailing list rather then left to one arb to deal with. Spartaz 12:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• No resignation necessary, as this was presumably a simple clerical error. I imagine that we've all missed a message in our inboxes once or twice. It was probably a bit sloppy on John's part, but the functionary involved might have chosen to send a followup message when there was no action or response to his original email. While I'm certainly not inclined to cry shenanigans here, recusal from the issue may be appropriate simply to avoid any appearance of bias or misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  this is why I am recusing. I felt like shit this morning, because before I had slept I had said, quite emphatically as is my style, I didnt know about this to the committee and functionaies, and between 07:00-08:00 (oz time, drinking coffee to wake up) I had been asked twice via gtalk by non-arbcom members whether I knew about this, and I said again that I didnt know, both times with the caveat that I had 100 odd emails to read (the joys of waking up). While reading those emails I find that I should have known. I have since apologised to those two people.
  But with such a heavy heart, I am emotional, and so I defer to others to tackle this. John Vandenberg 14:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the past I have asked the committee to install help desk software. Inbound requests should be logged, updated, and closed as they are processed. No correspondence to ArbCom should be subject to being lost because one person overlooks it. This is not John's fault. It is a systemic failure that can be improved through the use of readily available open source software. Jehochman 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Right now we have a runaway freight-train that no single individual person can stop. Folks throwing themselves in front of it aren't going to help matters. It's time to step up, learn, improve, grow, and move on. If there's a problem - we have a template: {{sofixit}}. If the Arbs have a problem with too much email - create a board (AC/C = Arbcom Communications) that folks can note a "You've got mail" thing like AIV or RFPP - when one of you gets to it - mark it  Done. I greatly appreciate all the folks stepping up and saying "I goofed" - OK - Thank you ... now let's move on to the matters at hand. Let's get to work fixing the things that are broke. — Ched :  ?  12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• DuncanHill is spot on. Durova 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Per DuncanHill and Ched. We got a problem here -- I've had my own emails "overlooked" by Arbcom and wonder how many more have fallen through the cracks. Instead of blame and apologies, we need to do something that will keep this from happening. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't the kind of error that erodes my confidence. A single person can't manage to fulfill the obligations of ArbCom. If confidence in the integrity of the Committee as a whole hadn't fallen so low, these kinds of issues likely wouldn't be ending up in personal mailboxes where there is no one else who around to correct one individual's oversight.--BirgitteSB 15:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think two things drive personal emails like these. First, it is my understanding that the arbs get about 200 list-based emails a day (arb-l, clerks-l, func-en, etc), so a personal email tends to stand out more. Second, there have been instances in the past of the arb-l list being leaked and of course there are over 30 people on clerks-l and more than 60 on func-en, so the sender may not trust at least one person among those large sets and prefer a personal email to avoid a direct confrontation with someone they do not trust. MBisanz 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Really? Really? On one hand, we have an arb who knew of the situation and chose to do nothing about it. On the other, we have an arb who should have known about it, but didn't, because he didn't see the email. Apology is sufficient, no resignation or recusal necessary. Suggest we all just move on. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)} 16:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• John: Thank you for your honesty and openness. I hope your immediate honesty here without delay or obfuscating sets an example for other arbitrators in future. I also don't think you need to recuse, resign or be recalled as it sounds like this was simply an honest oversight rather than anything deliberate or intentional or an attempt to cover-up or aid someone you like or have a personal friendship or to try to give them favourable treatment. I don't think you need to recuse but I know you are a man of integrity and will do whatever you think is the right thing to do. Sarah 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to have been a simple oversight. The situation would have been quite different if the functionary had have elevated to arbcom-l and nothing was done (note I am not suggesting the functionary at all erred - it sounds like the system is the problem rather than anyone's actions under it), but to the personal contact of an arbitrator known to be real-world-busy, yes, things do get missed sometimes, despite one's best efforts. The apology is both welcomed and sufficient in my view. Orderinchaos 08:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

DuncanHill hits the nail on the head here. Disappointing, but at this rate there's a serious risks of running out of Arbs and I do believe that John is one of the best. Seems unlikely to make this mistake twice... WJBscribe (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for John

Thanks for explaining this. I see no reason you should resign for a simple oversight. But I'd like to ask you why the functionary was telling you by email that Law was The undertow, and didn't simply block him, or take it to AE. This seems to me to go to the heart of the problem here. There's a feeling that The undertow was being treated differently from any other editor violating a ban, and it would be good to know why. SlimVirgin 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the functionary? This should not need to be confidential. Jehochman 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was MBisanz. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No it wasnt Matt, and I am not going to say who it was at this stage. The functionary elevated it appropriately to me, and it is my fault that it was not dealt with after that. The functionary would like to avoid being caught up in this, and I respect that as they did the right thing. There are other functionaries involved, and I hope they speak up. John Vandenberg 13:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a functionary and wasn't involved in the Law/Undertow matter. MBisanz 13:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I misconstrued some of his comments here and on your talk page. My apologies. Could you let us know what the other similar cases were that he referred t previously? DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

John, can you explain why the functionary didn't act himself? It's not clear that he elevated it appropriately, or that "elevated" is the right way to look at this. There had been an ArbCom ban, it was violated, and an illegitimate adminship had been gained. The person behind it needed to be blocked. I need we need to know why it was dealt with privately by email to one Arb, and then not followed up. SlimVirgin 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec3) Well, that's interesting. I count roughly sixty functionaries at WP:FUNC. Now that you've cast some generic suspicion over all of them, what's the next step? What possible use was there in making a useless announcement like that? Are you asking for a community witch hunt? Was Casliber correct in his behaviour inasmuch as the ArbCom couldn't be trusted to handle sensitive information without making premature, incomplete, drama-generating pronouncements? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

np DuncanHill. Matt has identified a few problems, of various severity. Some are very important and some (I think) are the run of mill admins overstepping appropriate boundaries. Admins do this regularly, often with the encyclopedia at heart. An occasional overstepping is "testing" the boundaries, and can be excused as admin discretion. I appreciate Matt (and others) highlighting these to the committee (or myself directly), as a pattern of overstepping the boundaries, even with the best of intentions, is an indication that an admin is on a mission which is at odds with the community at large. A pattern of that is an admin that is going to incite a counter-offensive from the community, and that admin needs to be alerted to the end game of their actions.

Some of the problems that Matt identified had not made it to my inbox until this morning, and some have and not been adequately actioned (yet?, again, my fault). I have long known that there are people like Matt who knew of problems but I have not gone seeking to learn of them. (my fault again, as this is what I had hoped to fix).

In part this is because we (the committee) haven't been short of problems to do deal with this year. We have been progressive in some areas, but still reactive in many areas. Sadly this morning Matt let me know about a few issues which shocked the crap out of me. A few other emails have also come in letting me know about issues that were not on my radar. There is more work to do; I hope the community feels I am still part of the solution. John Vandenberg 13:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the functionary who told me thought that they had offloaded it ... onto me. They did the right thing. It is my fault that I didnt action this email, and I think they did the right thing by staying silent afterwards. They could have poked me to see if I had understood the email, but I can understand that they wanted nothing further to do with this mess beyond letting me know. John Vandenberg 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Who was the functionary? Why is this information secret? If people have acted properly, they have nothing to hide. Jehochman 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered the exceptional chilling effect outing anonymous tipsters would have? We don't know why they wanted to remain anonymous, but can we respect their wishes? –xeno 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Xeno. Durova 13:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Xeno, the thing is that a functionary is an admin plus a CU or oversighter too. They're elected to deal with these issues, so the "anonymous tipster" analogy doesn't really hold. John, with respect, I don't think this is a good time for secrecy. Would you please ask the functionary to step forward and explain? We need to know why issues involving The undertow seemed so hard to sort out. SlimVirgin 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec2) Anonymous tipster? Just above I read that this was a functionary, not a tipster. If a checkuser was run, that checkuser should be prepared to explain their actions. It's a reasonable question. (Durova, would you please stop stalking me.) Jehochman 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, please keep it topical. Xeno raises a good point about chilling effects. When two active editors disagree it is probably because they have different wikiphilosophies. Maybe I should say no more but I will: the thing that sparked my interest in this particular situation is that Law happens to live in my geographic area. We've made several plans to go to the zoo together over the last few months, but each time the plans fell through. I didn't know he was The Undertow until it arose at ANI. He's very remorseful about how his mistakes are affecting other people and I'll probably go out of my way soon to meet him in person for the first time, just to take him to Starbucks. This is not all about you. Wikipedian decisions are based upon open discussion; administrators do not get to exclude experienced editors from even writing the words "per Xeno". If the stress is so bad that you've lost sight of those fundamentals, then consider a wikibreak. Have a breather; I'd support the removal of your name from both cases if they open. Durova —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

(re both) Perhaps they are friends with the user? People have been clamouring that duty should trump friendship, and perhaps it did in this case, but they did not want to act on it themselves. Asking the functionary to step forward is one thing, and I don't necessarily disagree, but announcing it against their will is not on. –xeno 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let the functionary step forward. We don't need any more cloak and dagger stuff around this matter. I suspect there is a simple explanation. Nobody is calling for heads on pikes here. Mistakes and snafus are allowed. We need to understand what happened so we can strengthen processes going forward. Jehochman 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nobody is calling for heads on pikes here." What? Did you forget "yet"? I'm sorry, Jehochman, but I simply don't trust that if someone steps forward, you're not going to file yet another Arbitration request. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Functionary A noticed in a log that functionary B had done something that was potentially unusual, and A emailed John. John failed to follow up until now. Either Arbcom or the Audit committee will be looking at B; the referral is at a very early stage. Obviously no good will come from identifying A against his/her wishes, as it might discourage future good faith reports of potential concerns. It is also much too early to identify B, as we don't even know if B did anything wrong. (There may be an innocent good faith explanation.) There is a very important question about different levels of culpability that has not been properly addressed. We have:

1. An arbitrator who knew Law was a ban evading sockpuppet, objected to his RFA but did not take effective corrective action, and endorsed Lara as an oversight candidate knowing that Lara was enabling a ban-evading sockpuppet.
2. An admin who nominated Law for RFA knowing he was a ban-evading sockpuppet.
3. Multiple admins who knew Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet and supported his RFA without saying anything.
4. Possibly additional admins who knew Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet and either were silent on the RFA, or who found out more recently, and remained silent.
5. An arbitrator who was informed of a functionary action that suggests the functionary knew Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet.

What are the appropriate responses for each of these levels of knowledge? Should A be held to the same standard of responsibility as Cas simply because A emailed one arbitrator instead of filing a public report? Should Jayron, who has admitted voting for Law knowing he was a ban-evading sock, be held to the same standard of responsibility as GlassCobra, who nominated him? What about the many many other incidents involving Admin friends who stick together, but which did not rise to the level of a misleading RFA? Friends stick together, apparently, and I don't know of any easy answers to these questions. Thatcher 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont want secrecy. Lessons will only be learnt if we can unravel this mess and have a frank discussion about it. However the functionary involved did the right thing, and wants to stay out of the limelight, and I don't see any benefit in denying them that for the time beaing. It is my fault that their action wasnt actioned.

fwiw, they functionary who informed me is asleep right now, and I am not going to mention names until I talked with them, and I am not going to ask them to put their name on the dotted line unless they are happy doing so, unless I see some reason to do so. I will probably be asleep before they are up, so the curiosity may have to wait quite a while. Enjoy the delicious wait ;-) I should mention that at the same time that I informed arbcom, I also informed all functionaries-en of who it is. (minor guess work involved..) bear in mind that there are still functionaries who have not stepped forward yet. John Vandenberg 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a related issue that's relevant to the admins who found very late game that Law was Undertow and didn't do anything. If I (and I suspect many other people) saw that a given person was a returned individual who had now passed RfA and that people who knew him in real life hadn't said anything I would very likely have assumed that the process had been quietly oked by ArbCom or others who were relevant. We shouldn't have a witch hunt for people who didn't have all the facts post the RfA. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am leaning towards agreeing with Joshua here. Knowing at the time of the Rfc is one thing; puzzling it out later might lead to the impression that undertow was given a discreet "fresh start" by ArbCom. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for John, in your apology you write: I can't be certain that I had even read the email until this morning. What exactly does that mean, couldn't you see whether you have opened the letter before this morning or not? Loosmark (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If his program is like mine, once you click there is no telling whether you'd previously viewed the email - there is no datestamp for "first clicked on". Also, there is the scan, scan, scan method of going through a long list of emails - he could have clicked, scanned, missed the import, and moved along. That could hardly be called reading the email. In short, I don't see how anyone could reasonably expect him to answer this. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well then you have a different program than me. In my program the subject of the letter is bold until you have opened it at least once and personaly whenever i open an email i always read it. But anyway I didn't mean to imply anything I was just curious that's all. Loosmark (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't determine whether I had read the email, and I can't recall whether I did either.

I use gmail. The email that I received yesterday morning from Keegan was a reply to the email that he sent on August 21. I had starred the original email, which means that when I clicked on the item in my Inbox yesterday morning, both emails were displayed. As far as I know, there is no way to find out when I opened it. If I had opened it when it arrived, it was promptly pushed onto the todo list, and then not done. John Vandenberg 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thatcher seems to be saying that functionary B appears to have used CU or oversight in the interests of The undertow/Law on or before August 21, though there may be an innocent explanation. Have I understood correctly? SlimVirgin 14:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, yes, although we don't yet know the circumstances, and Joshua raises a good point. Thatcher 14:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this concern the oversighted revisions made on 16 August 2009 at User:Law and User talk:Law ? Cenarium (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For a supposedly flat project governance system, and for a culture that generally aspires to openness, all this secrecy and anonymity sounds a pretty discordant note for me. So and so knows this, but can't say, and other people knew this, but we can't tell you who. Even I got caught up in it on this board, because someone relayed to me the comments of a checkuser that admin socking had been discussed and dismissed on mailing lists. I don't want to identify the people involved, and I understand the impulse of John and Thatcher and others to protect the identity of people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong but who would nonetheless be subject to some vilification if their name came up here. Yet the whole atmosphere of secrecy here, of withholding information when you've decided everyone else doesn't need it, leaves me cold. It also may contribute to why some administrators believed they could withhold obviously relevant information from the community based on their own personal evaluation of "need to know." Nathan 16:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that we have an obligation to determine whether there is actual wrongdoing before naming names, particularly in an atmosphere where head-hunting is a predominant theme. Thatcher 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a general principle I agree with, but I can't say I like the atmosphere we've got now where practically any information is withheld unless there is a strong, continuing demand for its release. Everyone is afraid of being hung out to dry for minor errors or nothing at all, so nothing gets said. Protonk's statement on the case request should be required reading for practically everyone, perhaps. Nathan 17:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Nathan makes a very good point - and let us not forget that it was in large part poor communication and secrecy that led last year's Arbcom to virtual implosion. DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Suppose I run a checkuser on a vandal and find he shares an IP with you. Should I publish that fact before or after I discuss it with you and you tell me it was a public library. Thatcher 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'd rather you published straight away than made nebulous "we know something, but can't tell anyone" or "An accusation has been made by someone who won't say who they are, against someone we won't tell you who it is, and anyway we don't quite know if this is covered by policy anyway" type statements. And again, it was poor communication and secrecy that nearly scuppered Arbcom, please don't let the same cock ups be made again. DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What you describe is nothing like the situation we're dealing with here, in which admins and arb(s) knew for certain what was going on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I find the head-hunting atmosphere here quite disturbing. You might want to address yourselves instead to my comments above about different levels of culpability. John V. received an email containing a suspicion and did not act on it. The sender suspected the accounts and sent a message to an arbitrator rather than blocking the account directly. Someone else took action that looked suspicious but which has not been investigated yet. Do you really want to hold those people to the same standard of responsibility as a person who submitted an RFA nomination that was fraudulent by omission? I don't think any further comments by me are likely to be helpful at the present time. Thatcher 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact we are not looking at criminal investigation standards but rather alleged misbehaviour on a website. I agree with Thatcher's comments on cautious disclosure - I was once at the wrong end of one such disclosure by a checkuser some years ago and it took several hours and a lot of drama to get it sorted out, and there is a permanent "mark" on my record as a result of it. If someone had have contacted me and asked me straight out, I could have told them. Had I clearly not been straight with them and the evidence was rather clear, well, the ball would have been in their court to reveal to arbcom or AN/I as they saw fit. Some lessons were learned from my case and I hold nothing against any of the individuals involved, some of whom I actually get on well with today. Orderinchaos 08:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I believe I fall into category 4 (out of the 5 categories listed by Thatcher above). I didn't reveal that Law was the_undertow when I knew and I'm not apologizing for not saying anything. There are a great deal of other secrets that I know as well that I won't be revealing. Focus on creating an encyclopedia. If the actions of others cause an issue doing that, I'll be first in line to speak up against the troublemakers. Otherwise, assume every user is a sock of another and stop caring. Good grief. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we have a problem. At the very least you should not have participated in defending Law here against a claim that he was acting like a cowboy administrator, if you knew he was The undertow, and that's why he was blocked in the first place. Further, the conversation also involved discussion that the editor Law blocked was a sockpuppet. In so doing you effectively played other participants in the conversation for suckers. The right response would have been to say that you endorsed the block, but the administrator doing it is himself a sockpuppet and should not be blocking anyone -- or else, if the community decides this is okay, simply recused yourself because of your familiarity with the parties. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really going to dignify your reply with a response other than to say that I think it's time you found a new hobby. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A while ago you defended Law on a notice board, knowing that Law was a ban-evading sockpuppet of The undertow. You announce above that you held that and many other undisclosed secrets but you will continue to hold them and have nothing to apologize for. I don't think it's okay to knowingly defend a ban-evading sock so I feel my question is reasonable. It's not a huge transgression under the circumstances but it's something that I don't think should happen. You seem to think it's okay. If you don't want to answer that's your choice. If you think my analysis is wrong you're free to set the record straight. But you seem to be accusing me of something for asking the question. Do you think the question's wrong? As others have noted, a number of administrators shielded or supported Law, or looked the other way, and there are probably other undiscovered socks as well. Either we're going to have a policy against sockpuppet administrators or not. If we are, we must ask administrators have to honor and enforce it - who else can enforce that policy? We're not going to de-sysop every admin who knew the truth about Law, but some amount of coming clean, rooting out any other known cases, and agreeing that this will not happen again, is necessary if we're going to bother with that policy. Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As an admin or long term user one comes to know a hell of a lot of stuff that one doesn't necessarily need or want to know. (Note I say "I" here but it could be written by just about anybody - and I knew nothing about this Law situation until after it broke.) I know a fair bit of secret information. Much of it is hearsay, a fair bit probably false, some of it is more than likely true but only on the basis of very esoteric circumstantial evidence or a gut hunch. If I was to reveal the information I know, those who told me would not feel comfortable telling me more information, the people it's about could rightly say it is hearsay, probably false and with only esoteric circumstantial evidence or a gut hunch, I would probably be hunted down by the AN/I lynch mob and have to face days of drama for making unsustainable accusations against people with lots of friends, and nothing would happen to the person at the centre of it all. There is a difference between "transparency" and "appropriate discretion". Nevertheless, I do take the point that *acting on such knowledge* (as in, aiding and abetting) and *simply knowing it* are two different things - the former has some level of involvement or investment whilst the latter is probably a wish to avoid Wikipolitics as a domain in favour of more productive uses of one's time. Orderinchaos 08:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond this case

The Committee is important to Misplaced Pages. We all need to have faith in it. While the Committee can't do much about e-mail sent to individual members, an idiot-proof system to avoid lost and ignored e-mail sent to the list should have top priority. Reduced faith in the Committee is one side-effect. (In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the functionary above mailed JV instead of the list, thinking that mail to an individual was less likely to get lost.)

More important than the Committee's reputation is the resulting time-wasting. In a totally unrelated case, something ArbCom should have done 6 weeks ago isn't done yet because an e-mail wasn't registered. One Committee member has spent hours trying to track down the e-mail, keeping people updated, trying to make good again. Those hours could have and should have been better used; nothing else will get done if arbitrators have to play catchup with many similar cases. This isn't rocket science; clerical routines are essential to avoid bad outcomes and serious time-wasting. Above, users Skomorokh, Jehochman, Ched Davis, and Boris (at least) have made similar points. The Committee needs to solve this problem! - Hordaland (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland, this problem has been solved, and was one of the first things we resolved this year. All mail being received at the official Arbcom-L mailing list is logged and tracked and responded to. There are sometimes delays, but they are taken care of. We recently identified that there were problems receiving mail from certain domains, and we have done some reconfiguration to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. We have usurped User:Arbitration Committee and User:Arbcom specifically to provide an easy way to send emails to the Committee itself; the accounts exist solely as a conduit for communication with the committee. Those who want to communicate with the Committee should find no difficulty in doing so.

Each of us, as individual arbitrators, receive upwards of 100 emails a day, between mailing lists and those addressed to us personally. If someone needs arbitrator action on something, their best bet is always to send it to the committee address, where there's a very good chance someone will read it and respond within a day or so. I won't speak for anyone else, but I know it can take me several days to respond to personal emails. Risker (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Because of the above-mentioned case, I'm not totally convinced. Hoping for continued improvement, yours, Hordaland (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hordaland, the email that John mentions was sent to him personally, not to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Risker (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Please note correction below. Risker (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The email I sent in August was to the clerks list. Has that problem "been solved" too? I don't know the relationship between the various lists and who's responsible for them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the date of the email, I can check the archives quicker. MBisanz 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I found one for Sun Aug 2 16:47:59 UTC 2009, but the issue is moot, no? MBisanz 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Moot in the sense that the specific email has now been acknowledged, yes. Moot in the larger sense of measures having been put into place to keep email to the clerks falling through the cracks, as well coordination/management the various mailing lists for arbcom, the clerks, etc. -- well, that's what I was asking about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, nope nothing official on that front, although now that arbom just brought in new clerks, we are discussing ways to better ways to manage emails, so hopefully the clerks-l will be a bit more responsive to requests. And well I have nothing to do with the other lists out there (unless you are counting dal). MBisanz 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

Apologies for the length of this, but I think the details are important here. In a section elsewhere on this page, Hordaland raised the question of 'lost and ignored e-mails'. My response there was this, stating that I would lay out in more detail what I think has happened here (Risker has already stated that the problem was likely to do with the spam filter - I'm going into more detail here and correcting a few mis-statements). The intention had been to prepare a formal notice, but this will have to do.

One point I do want to make here is that one of my aims this year has been to to help improve the communications of ArbCom, and I am angry that some of the impression of poor communications from last year and this year may have been due to poorly configured spam filters, possibly ones that were configured last year or even further back than that, and just never looked at or properly discussed by the list admins. One of the things I speculated about, when reporting on this to my colleagues, was whether this explains some of the feeling over the years that people were not getting replies from ArbCom? It wouldn't explain all such feelings obviously, but maybe some. If it is confirmed that some failure in the configuration of the spam filters has caused more than just the two failure points I described above - and I should note that not all my colleagues agree that this is the problem I am making it out to be - then I hope that this report helps explain what has happened here, and show that once discovered, steps were taken to identify and correct the problem. I will wait for comments here, and then move forward with further responses and an appropriate formal notice (including posting a list of the e-mail domain names that were affected) as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)