Revision as of 03:13, 6 October 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

• WP:A/R/M

With respect to User:Law and User:The undertow

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools. At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee ban.

General motion

(For the purpose of this motion, there are 13 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so the majority is 6)

The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow (talk · contribs). He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.

Support

1. Risker (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg 05:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
3. With the caveat that this is not a complete response to the situation. Vassyana (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support  Roger Davies 05:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren  10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
7. FayssalF - 11:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
8. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Cool Hand Luke 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. on account of friendship with editor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Arbitration Committee members

Clerk notes

Recuse due to my involvement in the investigation that led to this. Daniel (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from others

• See also related discussion at WP:ANI#Community ban discussion regarding The undertow. I would like to thank the Committee for their straightforward resolution of this matter.  Sandstein  07:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The undertow banned 6 months

1 The undertow (talk · contribs) (AKA Law) is banned from wikipedia for six months.

Support

1. This is the amount of time remaining on his block when the Law (talk · contribs) account was created. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. A block evasion and a block reset. The_undertow was blocked for 9 months and socked after 3 months. -- FayssalF - 02:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Fayssal. If we are to have any hope of discouraging people from socking, then when discovered, the bans and blocks need to be reset. 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). However, if this motion passes, and the_undertow appeals his ban to the ban appeals subcommittee, and points to the good work done with the Law account, both as editor and admin, then I am sure an appeal (with conditions) would be looked upon favourably. The point here is that the_undertow needs to do what several other blocked and banned editors have been doing this year - appealing in the proper fashion and having their blocks or bans lifted. See also the comments by Jack Merridew at the request. This may seem harsh, but in the long run getting unblocked the right way will pay dividends later. There should also be a point in the appeal process for the community to comment on whether the_undertow should be unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Per my support of 3 months. -- FayssalF - 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

The undertow banned 3 months

1.1 The undertow (talk · contribs) (AKA Law) is banned from wikipedia for three months.

Support

1. As an alternative. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A block evasion and a block reset. The_undertow was blocked for 9 months and socked after 6 months. -- FayssalF - 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

The undertow restricted

2 The undertow (talk · contribs) (AKA Law) is indefinitely restricted from applying for or gaining additional user rights without the permission of the Arbitration Committee. He may apply for such permission or appeal of this restriction at any time.

Support

1. That seems well tailored. — Coren  22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The_undertow is free to apply for adminship after his block reset. -- FayssalF - 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments from Arbitration Committee members

Clerk notes

Disclosure of known alternate accounts

Seeking a position of trust with an undisclosed alternate account — especially when knowledge of other accounts held by the editor might materially affect the discussion — is an act of deception incompatible with the sought position. The committee notes that, at the time of Law (talk · contribs)'s request for adminship, there was no policy requirement for any editor to disclose, unprompted, what they may have known about a banned editor returning to editing under an alternate account. However, nominating or promoting such a candidate while aware of the alternate account is an act of commission, not of omission, and displays — at best — lack of judgment.

For there are 8 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

GlassCobra

1. GlassCobra (talk · contribs) nominated Law (talk · contribs) for adminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously 9-month blocked and desysopped editor The undertow (talk · contribs), and GlassCobra made his nomination while aware of that fact and without disclosing it. GlassCobra has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position of an ArbCom clerk and has resigned from that post at the Committee's request. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged not to repeat such an error, and is willing to accept a sanction.

Support

1. Noting for the record. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support with addition. Vassyana (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Changed "banned" to "9-month blocked", as statements made at the time about this said this was a block, not a ban. Also noting that at least one other editor had also asked GlassCobra to resign as a Arbitration Committee clerk, and this was before any arbitrator officially contacted GlassCobra, so the resignation may have been in response to both. Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
6. FayssalF - 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Incomplete without mention of GlassCobra's apology and pledge to not repeat such an error, which preceded his resignation as a clerk. Also, GC further emphasized his apology when resigning by stating that he was open to and would accept a sanction for his part in this. Vassyana (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added this. If any sitting arb objects, revert. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GlassCobra admonished

2. GlassCobra (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

Support

1. First choice. In my opinion, this was very poor judgment that skirts — but not quite crosses — the fuzzy gray line between a stern "don't do that ever again" and a desysop. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference to desysop. Lack of good judgment by concealing the information from the Community. But since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Share Vassyana's concerns about the wording, but I am supporting both the admonishment and desysopping. Will explain further in my support in the desysopping proposal. Providing an admonishment accompanies the desysopping proposal, this option (admonishment only) is my second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
5. This is about right.  Roger Davies 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong admonishment. -- FayssalF - 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the closing phrasing choice. I am concerned it may be used to foster a culture of forced disclosure or at the least may be misinterpreted as ArbCom encouraging such. The problem is the active deception, not a passive failure to disclose. Abstaining because this is a matter of wording, rather than substance. Vassyana (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GlassCobra desysopped

2.1 GlassCobra (talk · contribs) is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Support

1. Second choice, per above. This is just too severe in my opinion, but acceptable if regrettable. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference to admonishment. Since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. But I do understand that this misrepresentation of facts has called their judgment into question, so a desysop until a RFA happens to reconfirm their trust is not unreasonable. I'm not going to stand in the way if other arbs feel that it is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice. This is a clear breach of the judgment expected of administrators. Nominating someone for adminship when you know this history exists, is not acceptable. GlassCobra's apology and willingness to accept sanctions is commendable, but does not yet go far enough. I would support alternatives of GlassCobra starting a recall/reconfirmation process (and would urge GlassCobra to do this even if this part of the motion fails), as well as the option of GlassCobra standing for adminship if he is desysopped and wants to gauge community opinion on the matter. I would also support the option of an admin/conduct RfC. I may propose these alternatives if the desysop motion looks like it is not passing. In GlassCobra's case, an admonishment alone is not enough. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

This needs to be split. There are differing levels of involvement and different responses to the community and ArbCom regarding the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged to avoid such conduct in the future, resigned as a clerk, and indicated an openness to correction and sanctions. If an admin was taken to RfC with that as the result and someone still pushed for arbitration to desysop the admin, such a request would almost certainly be rejected in the face of a successful admin/conduct RfC. Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. As I stated while commenting on the request, I can't sanction for something without a precedent unless it is a serious violation or a blatant trend. -- FayssalF - 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Jayron32 admonished

3. Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

Support

1. First choice. In my opinion, this was very poor judgment that skirts — but not quite crosses — the fuzzy gray line between a stern "don't do that ever again" and a desysop. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. First choice. In my view, Jayron32's culpability here does not rise to that of GlassCobra (the RFA nominator). Jayron32's statement at the request that he knew that Law was the_undertow is commendable and honest, but I have been unable to locate any apology on this matter. Finally, on the tall page of the_undertow, I found this exchange welcoming him back after his 9-month block expired. The Law account had been operating for several months by that point. The wordplay by Jayron32, the_undertow, and GlassCobra around the word "law" is painfully obvious in retrospect. Jayron32 even said "You could reapply for adminship. I'd support ya!". In light of all this, I support a strong admonishment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Strong admonishment. -- FayssalF - 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the closing phrasing choice. I am concerned it may be used to foster a culture of forced disclosure or at the least may be misinterpreted as ArbCom encouraging such. The problem is the active deception, not a passive failure to disclose. Abstaining because this is a matter of wording, rather than substance. Vassyana (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 desysopped

3.1 Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Support

1. Second choice, per above. This is just too severe in my opinion, but acceptable if regrettable. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This needs to be split. There are differing levels of involvement and different responses to the community and ArbCom regarding the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. As explained in my support of the strong admonishment, I don't think Jayron32's culpability rises to the level of that of GlassCobra. Jayron32 did support the RFA of Law, and did suggest to the_undertow that he should reapply for adminship, so there is a level of culpability there over and above that of someone who knew who merely supported, but for now, largely due to the commendable honesty in admitting at the arbitration request that he knew who Law was, I am opposing desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3. As I stated while commenting on the request, I can't sanction for something without a precedent unless it is a serious violation or a blatant trend. -- FayssalF - 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Jennavecia admonished

4. Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with her support.

Support

1. First choice. In my opinion, this was very poor judgment that skirts — but not quite crosses — the fuzzy gray line between a stern "don't do that ever again" and a desysop. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference to desysop. Lack of good judgment by concealing the information from the Community. But since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
3. My view here is that Jennavecia's level of culpability, similarly to that of Jayron32, is less than that of GlassCobra. She supported the RFA of Law and commented in it, but did not nominate. Her statement on the public request does not go as far as GlassCobra did in apologising, but it did go further than Jayron32 did. Jennavecia's statement did, however, continue to show that her judgment may not be objective when her friends are involved. I would urge her to take a step back in future when "looking out for her friends". Similar misjudgments would show a pattern that would end in desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong admonishment. While I appreciate Jennavecia's stance toward friendship I cannot accept it as a principle for Misplaced Pages. -- FayssalF - 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the closing phrasing choice. I am concerned it may be used to foster a culture of forced disclosure or at the least may be misinterpreted as ArbCom encouraging such. The problem is the active deception, not a passive failure to disclose. Abstaining because this is a matter of wording, rather than substance. Vassyana (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia desysopped

4.1 Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with her support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Support

1. Second choice, per above. This is just too severe in my opinion, but acceptable if regrettable. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference to admonishment. Since there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools, removing the tools is not necessary to resolve the problem at hand. For that reason, I support the admonishment as adequate. But I do understand that this misrepresentation of facts has called their judgment into question, so a desysop until a RFA happens to reconfirm their trust is not unreasonable. I'm not going to stand in the way if other arbs feel that it is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This needs to be split. There are differing levels of involvement and different responses to the community and ArbCom regarding the matter. Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. As explained in my comments on the admonishment proposal, I don't think Jennavecia's level of culpability rises to the level of desysopping. As I said, though, any repeat of similar behaviour, and I would likely support desysopping in the future. For now, though, an admonishment is enough, so opposing this desysop proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3. As I stated while commenting on the request, I can't sanction for something without a precedent unless it is a serious violation or a blatant trend. -- FayssalF - 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Mandatory reporting

5. The community is encouraged to develop guidelines on mandatory reporting of users seeking positions of trust when issues affecting that trust are not known to the community at large.

Support

1. Sitting arbs feel free to tweak wording. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I am not feeling at ease with the use of mandatory. I prefer the general 'Friendship and Misplaced Pages' motion. The rest os covered by motion 6. -- FayssalF - 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. The community are capable of doing this without encouragement from us. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Friendship and Misplaced Pages

5.1 While friendship is a noble trait and attitude engraved into the human nature, it should not be used as a motive behind Misplaced Pages actions such as administrative duties or to win a debate with. Due to its subjectivity, personal friendship should not affect Misplaced Pages rules. The community is encouraged to develop guidelines to avoid any misconception of impartiality.

Support

1. I believe this addresses the main debated point. It should be taken as a guidance. Please feel free to tweak. -- FayssalF - 02:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Needs to be discussed and rewritten - or more likely, left to the community. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators reminded and encouraged

6. Administrators are reminded that while they have no obligation to enforce any particular rule, they do have an obligation to refrain from violating or assisting in the violation of community or ArbCom imposed sanctions, as with any other editor. Administrators are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it. It is in the best interests of the project and the user(s) involved to address these situations early.

Support

1. FayssalF - 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Reminding of administrators is something that is within our remit, especially as relates to enforcement of sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recusals

1. Recuse based on prior issues and interaction with The_undertow. For the record, I did not know that Law was the same individual until within the past couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Recuse per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Apology from John Vandenberg --John Vandenberg 10:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
3. This case involves a Misplaced Pages Review regular, therefore I recuse, Cool Hand Luke 23:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

   A more complete statement is: "I have significant involvement with one of the parties, who is a regular on Misplaced Pages Review, such that my participation could lead to the perception of prejudice." Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Arbitration Committee members

• Some of my colleagues may want to suggest more than those three motions, but I think that 1 and one of the 2 should allow us to close this matter. — Coren  15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the admonishment and desysops, I prefer something along the lines of "his/her support breached the community's trust by actively sustaining the deception". I believe distinguishing between active and passive conduct is important here. Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  Which was sort of my point, not disclosing while supporting is active conduct. — Coren  22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Should the desysop proposal include a comment about when the editors are eligible to submit a new RFA and/or request resysopping from Arbcom? Thatcher 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If a desyssop passes and there is nothing in that motion or related motions that affects a new RFA or bit restoral from arbcom, then the user may file a new request at any time after the motions are closed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, the motions have stated this clearly. Taking care of it now may save us some clarification drama later. Hersfold 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Stating here my overall views on this. My voting and comments have been largely based on what I view as the levels of culpability involved here (I've borrowed this approach from Thatcher - , ). I view the main culpability arising from the_undertow/Law for evading the block in the first place. It appears he was evading the block while appealing the block at the same time (this will explain my forthcoming voting in the motions relating to the_undertow account). As regards the levels of disclosure and failures to disclose, and the active nature of the deception, I see GlassCobra's culpability as highest, hence my vote to desysop him, with Jayron32 and Jennavecia having lesser but similar levels of culpability, hence my support of their admonishments, but not the proposals to desysop them. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)