Archive 1

Archive 2

User:Tajik was permabanned by Thatcher following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik. No and again Tajik surfaces with his sockpuppets that we have to block. Still all those sockpuppets appear to be productive users, who generate minimum disruptions. It appears that at least part of the abusive socks that caused Tajik to be permabanned were misattributed. User:E104421, tha main Tajik's opponent does not object to Tajik's return and even asked for this on Jimbo's talkpage. It is already more than 6 months since Tajik is permablocked and while he occasionally appeared onwiki using socks he seems to work as a productive and disciplined user. It seems to be a misuse of resources to block productive accounts only for being Tajik's socks. Is it possible to give him some sort of the last chance? Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• He should go through the normal means of petitioning. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we completely wiping the remedies from the first as well as the second case (meaning that the article probations are lifted)? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article probations are subsumed into this remedy; anything authorized by them is also authorized by this broader one. The individual editor sanctions of the first case remain, though, as do any already imposed under the second case. Kirill 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, having a quick look at the enforcement block logs in this case, I think the proposed remedy as worded in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions_2 would be better than what is proposed in this case, as it seems to strike the right balance. Martintg (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where has the case been archived to? DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See the first two entries of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

John, I'm concerned about this proposal of yours that Aitias is indefinitely prohibited from standing for RfA. Leaving the particular case of Aitias aside, does the ArbCom have the right to tell the community whom it may elect? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is routine for desysop motions to dictate whether the ex-admin is required to seek resysop via the committee or the community.

I have worded the motion so that the committee is not able to resysop him; their responsibility will be to decide whether this restriction can be lifted, which I expect would happen a long time before the community is ready to entrust the tools to Aitias again.

If you think about it for a minute, my motion is reducing the powers of the Arbcom as opposed to "increasing its powers" as appears to be your concern.

Also, if you try and pull this motion out of the context of this specific case, all sorts of lovely questions can be asked, unnecessarily.

Aitias was at RFAR just recently, and we were rather lenient in the hope that he would change his method and focus. As this has not happened, the community has asked this committee to desysop him. If enacted, motion 2 ensures that the community decision is not evaded by Aitias creating a new identity.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that it does try to expand the power of ArbCom, though I accept that's not your intention. It says, "Aitias (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from seeking adminship via Requests for adminship ..." That means you are saying no user may choose to nominate him and, if they do, the community is not allowed to elect him and, if they do, no bureaucrat will give him the tools and, if they do, the ArbCom will ... will do what? So you see it leads to all kinds of complicated scenarios.

Would it not make more sense to say that he must seek adminship via the normal route under his current user name? Given that an RfC has asked that he be desysopped, the chances of re-election are very slim. Also, no motion can stop someone from starting a new account and standing for RfA if they're determined to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not try to expand the power of Arbcom. There are many instances of Arbcom preventing a desysoped person from reapplying. Here are four that I found quickly.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco,_MarkSweep,_et_al#Guanaco_desysopped (April 2006)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-12/NSLE desysopped (June 2006)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar#Alkivar_desysopped (November 2007)
• And another case in early 2008 involving a vanished username

As I expect you already know this SlimVirgin, I am quite keen to understand what you are driving at here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know this had been done before, so thank you for finding those examples, and my apologies for the error. I still don't think it's a good idea, for the reason I outlined above, namely that it seems to remove from the community the power to decide whom it wants to elect, but you're entirely correct that you're not setting a precedent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I was really surprised that you did not know of at least one of those cases.

It is also quite common that if an party does not participate in arbitration then their access is removed and they are not able to regain it until they explain themselves to the arbitration committee. i.e. they are desysoped and/or banned. This is because the most common method of avoiding arbitration is the "claytons vanishing". See for example this old mess, and Eyrian desysopped (November 2007), and more. I can understand if a party wants a week or two away from the keyboard before arbitration starts, and we waited for Aitias the first time. However this is the second time.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I havent done as much research into previous Arbcom decisions that restrict how many accounts a person may have. I briefly looked while preparing the date delinking decision, and found Freestylefrappe restricted to one account (September 2006) due to socking. A few "one account" remedies made it into the final decision of the date delinking case. I hope we see more of them in the future.

Your suggestion that "he must seek adminship via the normal route under his current user name" would also be acceptable to me in other circumstances, but it doesnt seem to be the most appropriate in this case.

Your suggestion is essentially a Arbcom ruling that he says he is not allowed to vanish and then become an admin. It is still a ruling which dictates whether the community is allowed allowed to elect him as a sysop. i.e. almost identical to mine, except that your version entwines his ability to vanish into the ruling.

Also, please realise that he was making signs of vanishing before I put forward my motion. If he wants to vanish "Aitias" this time, that is fine, as my motion allows him to walk away now and come back later to be a sysop.

I hope that Arbcom will lift this restriction after two or three years, but it is indefinite as we dont yet know how it will play out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I do have to ask, as I'm somewhat involved with this: what brought on the motion of Aitias being indefinitely banned from requesting adminship? I am hardly his greatest fan, but some explanation of why this is the case would be nice. I'd like to know why the usual "may apply through the usual method" wouldn't be acceptable. Majorly talk 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the shortest answer to this is that when you start something, you don't know where it will end up. And for the record, I've supported the "by usual means" bit. The history to this, is that there have been a fair few cases recently of reincarnations causing renewed trouble. Two examples spring to mind - Lightmouse / Bobblewik and Sam Blacketer / Fys. What we are probably seeing here is ArbCom trying to crack down on this, or at least having a big stick to wave if more cases are uncovered. Both those examples predate the motion that explicitly made clear that users under restrictions shouldn't just vanish and "try again" (which is not, as far as I know, being applied retrospectively). We may not be able to fully prevent abuse of the right to vanish, but where it is discovered (and further abuse or disruption has taken place), we can make clear that it will lead to severe sanctions, up to and including banning. People requesting, and being granted, the right to have a new account is another matter, and should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Carcharoth has said above, and I also don't mind the typical "via usual means" approach in motion 3(i); that would work for me. As NYB has said over on the motion, there is no private evidence here that demands a different approach be taken. However, due to reviewing the history of Aitias, I think it would be beneficial to try a different approach here.

I tossed up Motion 2 because MZMcBride asked which methods Aitias was permitted to use in order to obtain sysop again, and I believe it is important that the committee should be evaluating various options.

The right to vanish is a privilege of users in good standing, to be taken advantage of when necessary, and in my opinion Aitias has abused this right. As a result, I think it is appropriate that Arbcom tries to ensure it isnt abused again by the same person.

My motion is the extreme view that repeatedly "vanishing" is not congruent with the level of trust required for sysops, and that, having been abused, it strongly suggests that the community will be looking at an RFA without realising who it is. These "new" admin have a history that they need to hide from, and they usually bring their old grudges with them, with the benefit that their "enemies" don't understand why the "new" admin is causing them grief.

Motion 3(ii) was added afterward Motion 2, and covers similar territory. However 3(i) and 3(ii) combined do not give any indication of how the committee will make use of the knowledge that an RFA-candidate was previously Aitias. A possible problem for another day. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No opinion about Aitias that I wish to reveal, but this kind of procedure does expand the power of ArbCom by creep, by adding another precedent that transforms ArbCom from being a reactive resolver of disputes to an interventionist oligarchy. I complained about the use of motions last year,[1] when the practice was still relatively uncommon. The recent opening of this page suggests that members do not intend it to be as uncommon in future as in the past. This page is power creep. Like it or loath it, that's what it is and people should know it. Maybe this can be styled "sensationalist", but if drawing attention to it means being "sensationalist" then that's what wikipedians should do. The Community wants ArbCom or any similar body to have its default powers (desyssoping, banning and so on), I want it to have those powers. But does the community want ArbCom to have a platform facilitating unlimited opportunity to exercise its powers whenever it chooses, or do they wish to force ArbCom to use its power only in certain cases where the community has brought a dispute and where the evidence has been considered? I don't think the community wish for the former; I don't. In this case, Arbcom is rushing into another consequential decision without spending due time on the matter. Not good, independent of whether this decision happens to be correct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If this had been filed as a request to amend the previous Aitias case, as I suggested, would that have met your concerns? Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It would meet my concerns if it was filed as Aitias 2 by a non-arb, voted on as accept or reject, and then analysed in the usual manner with time for all members to think over it. The time and process involved in an "Aitias 2" is a good safeguard against bad decisions and unfair process (Newyorkbrad's presence alone is not sufficient!). Amendments are also a kind of creep, as eventually more or less everything can be tied to one case or another, but they are better than motions initiated proactively by individual arbs. There are many good reasons judges in non-wiki land don't initiate/prosecute cases themselves, and why arbs in wiki land shouldn't. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm perpetually confused by attempts (in good faith) to construe remedies less than sitebans as an expansion of authority (a similar fear seems to be at work in the admin topic ban discussions). Seems to me that arbcom as the power to ban Aitias, does this not include a less severe remedy? Also I will suggest this is nearly totally moot. Aitias will never get the bit again, even if the committee lets him go to RfA...unless of course he starts a new account and avoids the remedy that way. But that's really just to depressing to contemplate. Protonk (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we please get a clarification of the circumstances surrounding User:Law being an apparent WP:SOCK of User:The undertow? What was undertow banned for (both accounts' talk page has been courtesy deleted, not a good thing for an active behavior case). Why need this be subject to a motion and why is the proposal not an indefinite ban? Establishing an admin account as a sockpuppet of a banned user is pernicious stuff, not an innocent violation. I'm concerned about the nexus between this and the apparent gamesmanship by Law that is the subject of Law's current Arbcom case. Keep in mind that most of the long-term disruptive editors on the Obama articles have turned out to be sockpuppets (I can provide diffs but the probation enforcement log for a start). There are likely more socks. Wikidemon (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have anymore socks and he's not a long-term disruptive editor on the Obama articles. You should retract that baseless claim. Lara 06:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what basis do you have for making those assertions and that odd demand? As an admin you should be more careful about lashing out against people asking questions. I make no claim above so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I am only commenting based on the information available and seeking information that is opaque to nonadmin editors. The comment about "more socks" refers to more socks on the Obama pages, not Undertow / Law (though on the face of it, once caught creating an admin sock, there would normally be no presumption of good faith here). If anyone would care to actually answer the question rather than attacking me for asking it, I would welcome the info. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Simmer down. I'll answer the question you asked of me if you point out where I attacked you. Lara 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just have answered his question from the start? And couldn't he have responded better to your remark anyway? Is there any chance of us having a conversation like grown-ups on this encyclopaedia? Just for once? --192.193.245.15 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They are. "Grown-ups" are generally more immature then kids.--Tznkai (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That was helpful how, fellow functionary? ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to head off a particular line of counterproductive conversation.--Tznkai (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I'd prefer not to be at the receiving end of that - some decorum might also keep us on track. There are facts visible only to Arbcom members and involved parties to The undertow's old case, regarding a newer Arbcom case to which I am a party, so my inquiry is entirely reasonable. Something does not add up and, indeed, there was and still is much to the story that is being withheld. From what I now gather from AN/I the Undertow received a lengthy block (apparently not a ban) from Arbcom last year and voluntarily gave up adminship over events occurring offwiki, via a case handled mostly on the Arbcom mailing list. The circumstances were considered personal and private. The Undertow created a block-evading sock account, Law, and subsequently promoted Law to adminship with the knowledge and support of a number of admins. The connection was just revealed to Arbcom by means unknown, resulting in Law's indefinite block, the current motion that that The undertow not do it again, and a now closed[2] community ban proposal at AN/I for The undertow. Meanwhile, the Obama articles have been subject to long-term, systematic socking, something Arbcom members may not be aware of because that specific issue has not come before Arbcom. It's only reasonable to inquire, and were one able to investigate, whether the new socking incident that touches the Obama articles (wheel warring in support of one party to an Obama-related dispute where the admin seems to have some familiarity with the editor he is unblocking, and himself turns out to be socking) is connected to older socking incidents that disrupted those articles. Looking at AN/I as it exists at the moment, Law engaged in other questionable actions as well - declaring flatly that he does not honor civility or NPA-related blocks. Risker was kind enough to explain at AN/I[3] that there does not seem to be a connection between that and the substance of the Obama arbitration. That's good enough for me for now, so I'll step aside and let others deal with this whole Law / The undertow mess. Just keep in mind that when you hide administrative process from nonadmin users you lose the trust and confidence that comes with transparency. Maybe that's inevitable given the needs for privacy, and to quell drama. But when we nonadmins see smoke pouring into a room we're in at the moment, it's only reasonable to ask what is burning back there. Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that, on the Internet, when there is smoke there is usually someone blowing smoke out of their ass. Most of the time an arbitrator (or the Committee) acts, people are likely to read layers of meaning where things are fairly straightforward (even if not always out in the open). Cigars usually are just cigars. — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. As it turns out there is far more to this than was visible at the surface. Looks like a systemic fail. But not Obama-related as such. Obama socks have not been straightforward either. Just not much of a nexus in this case, apparently. Wikidemon (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the reason User:The undertow is/was banned is a secret? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Found it here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"ID cabal" drama. --NE2 05:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"ID Cabal"? The link given above is for an earlier incident; here's the ArbCom announcement of his ban a month later. Woonpton (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A mere admonishment of Jennavicia and GlassCobra all parties as a group would be too lenient. That would send the message do what you want and if you get caught you'll just get a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, de-adminship is effectively a permanent remedy. Could somebody please propose something in the middle, perhaps an X month de-adminship with automatic return of rights if there are no further problems mandatory reconfirmation RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I confess I don't understand your reasoning at all. We are talking about Law and The undertow, aren't we?

Assuming we are: The undertow was indef blocked; the same user created a second account, Law, while the block was in place, thus evading the block; as Law, the user succeeded in becoming an admin. So Law (the account) had no business existing, let alone becoming an admin.

Undertow was neither indeffed nor banned in point of fact.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He was banned for nine months, a ban that was enforced technically via a block. See this section of the banning policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"We hope he will read into this block, that we have not used the normal arbcom ban period of 12 months, nor banned him, and understand we mean it." . At the very least there is some definite confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that statement. Not clear what it means. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The meaning may not have been clear to anyone who had not read the extensive correspondence which passed between individual arbitrators and The undertow, which were discussed on the list at the time, but it would have been clear to The undertow what it meant. In this case the fact that there had been extensive offwiki communication at the time of the block led arbitrators to the certain expectation that The undertow would communicate privately with Arbcom if he felt that he ought to be able to resume editing before the nine months expired. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Which he did in September 2008 (right?) and there was general agreement to accept his request before being forgotten, and it ended up that he was completely ignored, no? Lara 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't understand "de-adminship is effectively a permanent remedy". AFAIK a de-sysopped admin can re-apply at RfA. If the you means the equivalent of "They never come back", I hope it would be difficult for a a de-sysopped admin to become an admin agani - the sysop would have been done because the person behaved ni a way that showed they could not be trusted. --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How many have bounced back from an ArbCom desysop? A mandatory reconfirmation RFA leaves the decision in the community's hands. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Jehochman) I never made any secret of the fact that I very much dislike temporary desysops, though any of my colleagues are free to propose one. But I think you underestimate the importance of an admonishment, it may be a "slap on the wrist" in the short term but when you look at how often the committee has cited such when deciding the severity of sanctions later, it's closer to a yellow card. — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If the users make clear they understand the problem, an admonishment is appropriate. Jennavecia made a non-apology apology, provided lots of rationalizations, and attacked the messenger (me). That's not an indication of somebody who's going to back off due to a warning. I think you should also clarify the position of Jayron32. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 being omitted was an oversight on my part, I've added them to the motions. — Coren ^(talk) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please be sure to treat the three as individuals. Each made their own statement, and each deserves to be judged individually. Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is now the case. Manning (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that desysopping is too harsh. In my view it is the minimum appropriate response. Promoting the candidacy of a friend by deceit shows utter contempt of the community and consensus. The Wikipedia model of decision making by consensus is flawed in various ways. Though what those ways are is rather contentious. But circumventing it by deception is a fundamental breach of trust, completely unacceptable in an administrator. People lacking critical information cannot reach an informed decision, the basis of consensus decision making. Thus, the deliberate suppression of relevant facts strikes at the heart of Wikipedia process. It is, presumptively, true that no direct harm came to the encyclopedia itself as a result of this deception, but by undermining the basis for community decisions the perpetrators have directly weakened the ability of the community to work together to build the encyclopedia. The community has real value, though it is not the end of the project in itself, and attacks against it should not be tolerated. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would find it disheartening should Arbcom act before the scope of the problem is known, deal only with two administrators who knowingly promoted an administrative sockpuppet when others are involved, restrict its attention to the single known case of administrative sockpuppetry when a people have said there are more, and by merely admonishing without affording the community any recourse, avoid dealing meaningfully with the reasonable belief many in the community have based on their own defiant statements that these administrators cannot be trusted to reliably adhere to policies and procedures in the future. Sysop tools are what the community entrusts with some editors so they can help the community maintain the encyclopedia. They are not anything that belongs to an admin, and revoking the tools is not a severe punishment. The focus should be on the community and its trust, and what best helps the community create the encyclopedia, not the entitlement admins may have to a privilege. Requiring admins who lose trust to confirm it through a new RfA is the very least that can reasonably be done. Some at Arbcom also seem to repeat accusations, without any evidence presented, that the strong negative reactions some in the community have to the sockpuppetry are products of vendettas or drama-mongering. Arbitrators should be weighing evidence, not advocating like that. Failing to take meaningful steps would tell me that Arbcom cannot as a group keep house. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to have a whole new page fill up with the same arguments? I think most who want to have made their opinion clear already, on one of the other forums lately dedicated to this topic. The mere fact that something is happening on this project page shouldn't turn this talk page into round three of statement-making. Nathan ^T 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We are commenting here on the new proposed motion. To the extent the policies at stake, facts of the case, and wider implications for Wikipedia come to bear on that, they're fair to discuss. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking generally, this is a case of first impression on an issue that has genuinely divided the community - while I have heard no one outright approving of what Glass Cobra et al. have done, more than a few have made noises of either understanding or acceptance. The committee is free to act, as they always have been, in assessing good judgment or lack thereof in admins. They are less free, in my opinion, in making a statement about the implicit values and ethics in Requests for Administration. Without commenting on the motion's conclusion itself, the frame seems appropriate. I think in general, admins should be held to increasing standards of good judgment across the board.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've split the motions in three to make sure that every one can be voted on separately; I've also copied votes over as appropriate, but may have erred in so doing. Don't hesitate to point it out if I did. — Coren ^(talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think GlassCobra's response was good, as pointed out. The nature of the responses should be noted for each editor as these may justify differing sanctions. See dave souza's comment on the requests page. Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Tznkai is pretty much on target here. I'll go a bit further: the 'community encouraged' bit is exactly the sort of moralizing that steps outside the Committee's remit and which becomes particularly ill-advised under the current circumstances: the Committee itself does not have a high ground; the concept of contributory negligence comes to mind. This episode probably could have been prevented if review requests didn't slip through the cracks for lengthy periods. More via private emails to the Committee than publicly, I've been sounding this note for nearly a year. Durova³²¹ 23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not moralizing, just encouragement. If we had such policies this might now have happened, or if it did, perhaps not to this degree. I'm sure you don't want us to write it ourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not buying into the concept of contributory negligence. If The undertow wanted to be unblocked, they knew how to get attention. In addition to emailing ArbCom, they could have emailed the clerks, emailed the unblock list, or possibly emailed a friendly editor to post a public request. If The undertow had emailed me, I'd have put them in touch with User:Sarah who does great work helping blocked users. At the moment several people are suffering for their bad decisions, but hopefully everyone will recover from their disappointments. The undertow's friends appear to be very disappointed, but they might have prevented some of this pain had they intervened when they discovered that there was sock puppetry going on. Enabling bad behavior is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I certainly agree that more steps could and should have been taken on the part of the petitioner and his supporters. That does not relieve the Committee of its implicit obligation to acknowledge and respond to requests in a timely manner. This instance was not an isolated problem in that regard. Durova³²¹ 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • You're right that the Committee could do better. I've experienced that sort of broken communications channel myself. More than once. Jehochman ^Talk 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

One of the primary sources of drama on this project has been vaguely worded statements from the Arbitration Committee. I'm highlighting this particular example above as it contains a number of vague points. (1) "userights" isn't a word; (2) even if it is "user rights," I imagine you're actually talking about user groups, as user rights are routinely added to the user and (all) groups (see Special:ListGroupRights), and no Committee finding can dictate MediaWiki development; (3) it would probably be helpful to clarify if this truly means any and all user groups (and if so, what the justification is); specifically autoreviewer and rollback have never been within the remit of the Arbitration Committee.

Other motions, esp. the de-sysop motions as noted by Thatcher on the project-space page, do not detail whether users are free to use RFA (and if so, at what point) or if appeal to the Committee is also an option.

Please tighten up the language; as I said, ambiguous or vague statements from the Arbitration Committee have traditionally caused a lot of issues in the past. And there's simply no reason for that to be the case. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The user rights currently include: bot, administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, steward, importer, transwiki importer, oversight, founder, account creator, IP block exempt, rollbacker, confirmed user, autoreviewer, edit filter manager. Are you sure that is what you (the committee) meant?--Tznkai (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really too much more to say than that. Quite a few administrators knew about Law being the_undertow; singling out one out of many is blatant selective enforcement and should not be tolerated. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the line between Jennavecia Jayron32?--Tznkai (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Knowing is not the issue. The problem is knowing and then putting the sock up for adminship. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 put Law up for adminship? Lara did? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears Jayron32 actively supported the nomination on the RfA page knowing it was their banned/blocked friend's secret alternate account. That's a sin of commission, not a sin of omission. Agreed that we should not single one person out as a scapegoat. If quite a few administrators did that, quite a few administrators may have exercised poor judgment. The test is to read their specific comments at the Law RfA (and perhaps statements and actions elsewhere) to assess, in light of what they knew but did not reveal they knew, whether those statements were deliberately misleading. Also, palling around with an editor who they know to be sockpuppeting, though not as serious, also shows questionable judgment. If it were just one or two that's reasonably understandable - as others have said, not every admin is required in every instance to police every single thing they see. However, the fact that a lot of people knew and nobody did anything is a failure of those administrators as a group. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, GlassCobra did the nomination, and Jayron32 and Jennavecia are both being digned for supporting. Why is Jayron being singled out and not Jennavecia?--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride, did they know that Undertow had reappeared without knowledge or permission of the ArbCom? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I said this my section on the main page, but concerned it's getting lost in the shuffle.

In an RFA (or in a FA process, for that matter) the authority assesses the community consensus, and simply implements it. In this case, the main concern is clearly the trust that the community has in these admins as a result of the situation.

How, then, can ArbCom making its own determination of the appropriate actions address the problem? I think ArbCom is off on the wrong track with the current set of motions. -Pete (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. Gauging the "trust of the community" is a difficult prospect for ArbCom at the far end of their competency but adjudicating if someone's judgment and behavior its outside of acceptable norms is exactly what they are around for.--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, what you say makes sense, but some of the votes of the ArbCom members don't look so good in light of your interpretation. They seem to be discussing whether mere admonishment is sufficient. In considering admonishment vs. de-sysopping, they are taking on a role that is inappropriate to a position (adminship) that is understood to serve at the pleasure/trust of the entire Wikipedia community. If they were to say something like "clearly there is a question of trust, revoking admin tools with recommendation that subjects stand for new RFA in x months," that might be appropriate. But if trust has been shaken, it's not ArbCom doesn't have the authority to say "but an admonishment is good enough to repair the trust." They can't speak to what is good enough to repair the trust, and attempting to do so will undercut their credibility. -Pete (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't the community trust issue implicit in the votes or motions I guess.--Tznkai (talk)

Unless explicitly stated, anyone desysopped by the arbitration committee is free to ask for the admin tools back, either from the committee after an appropriate period and suitable appeal, or through a request for adminship (either immediately, or later). Adminship is not a big deal, and both desysopping and resysopping should be more routine. The community trust point comes when someone returns to the community and asks for the tools back. If they have the trust of the community, or have worked to regain it, then they will get the tools back. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Something that would make all this work much better would be for the community to instruct bureaucrats that the criteria for passing RFA should be a bit lower for long-established users. The longer one hangs around, and the more one participates in contentious matters, as admins often volunteer to do, the harder it is to pass RFA. Administrators frequently comment that they feel they would not pass RFA if they had to go back. This can lead to a bunker mentality if one is accused of wrongdoing; any potential loss of sysop access is feared to be permanent rather than temporary. So people fight all the way to the end, and lobby friends to fight on their behalf. By making return easier, we make exiting easier, and thereby lower the drama levels. Jehochman ^Talk 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, there were significant problems with that very issue last year. There's no other way to express it other than by saying the Committee itself has taken inconsistent actions in that regard, and various well-meaning editors were very frustrated in their efforts to follow instructions (or the absence thereof). This issue went through at least three different requests for clarification regarding two different situations. Durova³²¹ 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pete,

• Actions subject to this request are bad. Admonishments prove that;
• I could have supported desysops but we have no precedent here;
• There's no community consensus per se here. There are allegations against the filer of the request for having covered an admin sockpuppetry himself;
• Your suggestions have been noted and introduced implicitly through motions 5.1 and 6;
• There are probably users who would not object to ArbCom writing policy but at the absence of a mandate ArbCom just can not.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF, I appreciate your response, but there are some problems here. First, my edits to Fozzie's motion don't reflect my preferred course of action -- I hid those in a collapsible section some time ago, when I updated my recommendation to support Jehochman's motion. (However, I'd like to distance myself from Jehochman's more recent claim, that there is "corruption" involved. I don't personally think the admins' actions under dispute were all that big a deal, but that's immaterial to my position.)

My point is that there's a major structural problem. Admins gain their tools by an expression of trust by the community; but if the community is never permitted to reevaluate its trust, in the long run, you end up with a class of users with increased privileges that has no accountability whatsoever to the community that empowered them to begin with. That is a major problem of accountability, and ArbCom is missing a rare and ideal opportunity to question that problematic structure. -Pete (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure thats actually true. RfA is a diagnostic procedure, to see if a candidate should be trusted with the tools - not a manifestation of community will. Imagine in a business if the boss asked a group of employees "should person Y be transferred to Q department" that doesn't make Y's transfer dependent.--Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your distinction. At the conclusion of an RFA, there is a determination of the consensus expressed in the process. But where is there a process for the community to express mistrust, in the (fortunately rare) event that new information shakes the basis of that consensus? In the absence of such a process, there will always be legitimate concern that administrators are not accountable to the body that empowered them. -Pete (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a process for the community to express themselves: RfC/U. Reverse RfA/Recall is something substantially different, because it suggests that a particular expression of community consensus that should inevitably lead to a desysop. If anyone wants to complain about the failures of RfC/U, let me suggest that Recall will likely inherit them all.--Tznkai (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not usually much for posting in these pages, but I'm trying to understand some of the reasoning here. I see that there are some motions to ban or block (or whatever, I've never been terribly entertained by the use of the difference between those as a shibboleth to judge who can wikilawyer the best) the_undertow for 3 months or 6 months. My question is: How does that help the project? I understand that you don't want to encourage banned users to simply create a new account and start over, but I also see signs that, as a community, we try to recognize that the important thing is whether people are willing to contribute positive and constructively to the encyclopedia. That's the underlying sentiment in a bunch of BIG BOLD WORDS that people use to quote policy, like AGF and such. If the_undertow seeks to appeal such a ban, and promises that he'll contribute positively, would he be unblocked? What would be the argument against removing such a ban? That he had previously evaded a ban?

I guess my question really is, especially for the arbitrators, (though I'm sure there are plenty of other people who will be more than willing to give their opinion here as is the custom,) this: When this is all done, will this have helped the encyclopedia? I ask not to dissuade from or encourage any particular course of action, but in search of an understanding of underlying motivations.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I want to know too, especially considering the discussions that took place the day before this broke, the ones that led to the original motion that said he could continue to edit as the_undertow. It has already been revealed that his September 2008 appeal was looking as though it was going to be approved. Yet he never received a response. He created Law that same month and proved that the nine month ban was excessive and unnecessary. ArbCom dropped the ball and now they want to hand out a punitive ban. And don't call it a block, nor the original nine month ban. Just because it wasn't a year-long doesn't mean it wasn't a ban. If it were a block, he wouldn't have had to appeal to the committee. If this motion were for a block, any admin could undo it. It's a ban. Lara 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And even bans can be appealed by the nature of the fact that a ban is also defined as a block that no administrator will undo. @harej 21:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kmccoy - obviously I'm not an arb, but even if I were, I couldn't answer your question ... simply because I'm wondering myself. It seems that an awfully lot of time and text is being expended to point fingers, find "someone" to blame for "some damage" that just doesn't exist. Not that I think that there wasn't some poor judgment displayed and all ... but it (poor judgment) seems to be escalating exponentially lately. I have to wonder where we would be if all these megabytes of: "finding fault", "pointing fingers", "digging up old feuds", and trying to "settle old scores" were directed at improving the 'pedia (articles, BLP issues, copyvios, etc.), then where would we be right now. But I haven't been here long enough I guess to understand all this fuss. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Law account was created 11 days before the appeal was filed and he stated in his RFA "I also want to make it completely transparent that I took over this username. I was XF Law before I was just Law.", which is simply untrue. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So the ban/block/whatever would be for lying, and to prevent lying by this user in the future? kmccoy (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading socks are often reblocked for the remainder of their block (AKA "reset") and even have the block extended. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To protect the encyclopedia from them? I'm just trying to understand how it protects the encyclopedia. kmccoy (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit, that's a piece of the puzzle that I wasn't aware of. — Ched :  ?  22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not untrue the Law was XF Law first. That happens to be verifiable fact. Furthermore, you won't get an answer to your question, Kmccoy, because the fact of the matter is that ArbCom received his appeal, they discussed his appeal, they were coming upon an agreement to grant him his appeal, and then they dropped the ball and never responded. According to the various pieces of information released by the Arbs over the past couple of days, if ArbCom had not failed to do their appointed jobs, the_undertow would have come back to editing within days of the creation of the XF Law account, which is something he and I discussed at the time. As noted in my statement, he and I both wanted him back as the_undertow. He didn't want to start over, but as most people realize, it's unrealistic to expect people to just walk away. He wanted to continue to contribute to the project, so he did. This action (re-banning) is not preventative. It's purely punitive. Evidence of this is in Law's edits: he proved that the Arbs would have been right to grant him his appeal in August/September (whichever it was). He proved them wrong wrt nine months being necessary. He returned to constructive editing. This action only serves to embitter more constructive users. And it's not even the same ArbCom, but you still only see two or three admitting that the committee failed then. Does that failure absolve those of us who knowingly allowed Chip to continue to evade his ban (it wasn't a block)? Not at all. Which is why it's all the more disappointing that some Arbs refuse to acknowledge it. Lara 07:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Without any real knowledge about the undertow or any attempt to go into the detail of these sequences, my impression is that while he is too unstable and untrustworthy to be an admin, he is capable of being a constructive editor and I'd welcome him continuing in that capacity without the need for an extended block or ban. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This exchange: [4] where I stated that the_undertow would have my support if he re-applied for adminship has been cited in the motion page. To clarify my remark; I had assumed at the time that given that the block had expired on the_undertow account, that the Law account would be abandoned. I did not realize that the person running these accounts would be maintaining the sock account instead of his original account. I made comments before Law was ever nominated, and my intent was to indicate that I would support adminship reinstatement for the_undertow account. It was not my intent to suggest that the Law account should have been nominated for adminship. Of course, this may be moot since I did end up voting support for that account anyways, but it was done in good faith under the belief that the person running that account would make a good administrator. I just wanted to clarify that I did not suggest or intend to suggest that the Law account would be nominated for adminship, only that I felt that the person in question was, and would again be, a good administrator. I am not stating this to avoid any consequences that may be coming my way, and I accept the full weight of the Committee's decision, whatever that may be. However, I did feel it appropriate to at least explain what those comments were intended to say, since it appears they may have been misinterpreted on the motion page. As an aside, I use the phrase "the person running these accounts" in respect to WP:OUTING. I know his name, and I consider him a personal friend, but to avoid using his personal name, I had to use this rather unfortunately cumbersome identifier. --Jayron32 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you got sent away for breaking the law... Good to see you are now out of jail. You were certainly missed! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

zomg its teh undertoes. Law shall be restored now, eh? GlassCobra 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Law - the RFA page drafted on March 29 and accepted on April 2 by Law

Did you know... that this is getting out of hand. But srsly, Law has been a net positive to the project, and I think we can only benefit from having another set of hands here as an admin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your explanation sounds very convincing.--Caspian blue 03:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I knew he was Law the whole time. I have admitted to that already, that is old news. My clarification was only to state that, when I made the comment that I would support a re-application for adminship for the undertow, it was made at the time under the belief that the Law account would be abandoned. As I stated, I have not denied my knowledge of the matter, nor am I attempting to ammeliorate any consequences coming my way. However, it has been implied on the motion page that when I stated that I would support the_undertow for adminship, it somehow made me culpable in GlassCobra's nomination of Law for adminship. That was not the case. At the time I made the statement that I would support the_undertow for adminship, it meant exactly that. Of course, in the end I did support Law anyways, so it is all rather moot, but I thought that the committee should know my intention on that one statement, since it had come up and appeared to have been misinterpreted. --Jayron32 03:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why arbitrators differentiate GlassCobra from you and the other for blaming the deceptive RFA. I'm very disappointed at you, Jayron32. Your reply to Jehochman is just appalling.[5] You basically said that "gaming the system" for obtaining the admin bits is allowed and justified.--Caspian blue 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your feelings are yours, and I am not here to deny them to you. I understand and accept your disappointment. You have every right to be disappointed. You should be appalled. This is a giant mess, and for my part in it, there is really nothing I can say that will undo my past actions. I will abide and stand by any decision that arbcom has on this, and I fully accept your admonishment, Caspian Blue. You are justified in feeling the way that you do. --Jayron32 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been helped out several times by you from block-evading sockpuppeters' persistent harassment, so my shock is because your high standard on morality and your perception on sock policy could be simply blind for your friend.--Caspian blue 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion at your talk page. --Jayron32 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm done talking about your statement.--Caspian blue 03:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given evidence of corrupt administrators arranging undeserved privileges for their friend, all you can do is issue warnings? Several editors told me I underestimated the amount of corruption at Wikipedia, that this kind of stuff is tolerated as business as usual. I guess so. Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is accurate. As I've said a couple of times, I can't sanction someone without a precedent unless it is a very serious violation. It is still a serious violation for me but it is not something clear to many people in the community. I am also bound by the "don't write policy mr arbitrator". What I am doing is to guide the community to fix that hole in the policy because the actions in question are bad.

Bear in mind that if any sanction called for would also apply to you if found guilty after verifying the FT2 allegations "Observation out of disgust by uninvolved FT2". Would it be fair to treat the same thing differently? I really haven't seen you providing a serious answer to FT2's statement. So, instead of sanctioning a dozen of people I prefer fixing holes. And, no I am not condoning any bad actions and I am sure that any new occurrence by anyone would result in a natural desysop because at that time we'll be having a basis and precedent for it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Arbcom follows rules of precedent, but for the policy rationale you don't have to go father than WP:SOCK. I don't see the difference between being an accomplice to a policy violation and being the one linked to the account. The person sitting in the getaway car is just as guilty of robbery as the one in the jewelry shop. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the evidence FT2 posted about you? I don't understand where you get off trying to take any moral high ground here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the moral high ground is that I don't promote admin socks, and I don't make excuses for people who do. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? What's this about: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CygnetSaIad? Please, Jehochman, stop digging a deeper hole for yourself. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently User:Alison invited that page to be deleted to protect the user's privacy, so I did. Other than that, I don't even remember the matter. I have run lots of checkusers and don't remember them all. Are you suggesting something? If so, spell it out. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom, if you would like to promote integrity why don't you ask these folks to submit for reconfirmation RfAs after the ruckus dies down? That's been proposed several times, but we've heard nothing back from you except dead air. If you think that's a bad idea, you could explain why rather than just ignoring all of us who keep making the request. If these admins were still trustworthy, they would pass, right? Why do you feel the need to protect them from community judgment? Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If only the admonishment motions pass, that does not exclude editors like yourself continuing to request reconfirmation RFAs. But you will need to balance the merits of continuing to ask for that, versus moving on to other things. As Franamax noted elsewhere, even if not desysopped, the reputation and community trust of the admins concerned has taken a severe hit. They will need to work to restore that reputation and trust, but that is a matter for them and the community. ArbCom has noted the severe lapse in judgment, and it is almost certain that if there are any further lapses of judgment, then the admins concerned will be desysopped. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Jennavecia, GlassCobra, Jayron32: I'd really like to let people off the hook. Everybody makes mistakes, and making a mistake in a misguided attempt to help your friend isn't the worst thing you could do. The problem I have is that I had to go through a lot of [irrelevant criticism] to get this case looked at, and there are a lot of editors who feel outraged at the corruption that you seem not to have recognized. Some of the people who've been rude to me include Tznkai, MZMcBride, Jennavecia, and FT2. That sort of hardens my position. If you had just come out and said, yeah we got carried away and screwed up, what were we thinking, we won't do it again, I wouldn't have even filed the request for arbitration. Now that we're here, and people are still digging in, refusing to accept full responsibility, and either throwing [irrelevant criticism] at me or watching their friends throw [it], that doesn't make me feel like dropping the matter. If you happen to get off with mere warnings, do you think you're going to be well respected in the community, or do you think a substantial number of people are going to distrust you? Is that the future you want for yourselves at Wikipedia? If you want to come clean, really come clean, go do a reconfirmation RFA. I'll respect you more and so will everybody else, no matter what the result. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, what you say makes sense but it should be applied consistently. Sending everyone to reconfirm their RfA is not a bad idea at all; the problem is that how many people would we send? Also, would you accept reconfirming your RfA in the light of FT2 allegations? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if there is actual evidence that the community has lost faith in an administrator, send send them for a reconfirmation RFA. This should not be something that happens every day, or else it will encourage gaming and disruption. FT2's allegations are inscrutable. You should not send administrators back to RFA just because one editor trumps up bogus accusations based on assumptions of bad faith. I don't even understand what wrongdoing he has accused me of. He seems to have a theory that I helped cover up Geogre == Utgard Loki. I did not know that at all until it was publicly revealed by ArbCom. There has to be a threshhold of credibility and evidence before you order a reconfirmation RFA. As Coren puts it, these three were right on the border of being desysopped, and he even supported desysop, as did FloNight. When it's that close a judgment call, why not let the community decide? Jehochman ^Talk 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Below you say that people have to set some standards and come to an agreement and here you are asking ArbCom to desysop. ArbCom is stating that the actions in question are bad and rejects the notion of friendship. I personally say that I can't desysop without a precedent. You are asking ArbCom something that you can do while still not giving it a mandate to create policy. Don't ask me to sanction without precedents. Give me explicit policy to act upon or give me a mandate. So of course I've been asking you to decide. Does this makes some sense? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you deny the allegations FT2 made against you? Lara 04:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see my talk page history. There were also other discussions on his talk page and KillerChihuahua's. Jehochman ^Talk 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall being rude to you Jehochman, although I will admit to arguing you have (along with other admins) shown poor judgment in the Law/The undertow et al. dispute. While not as sexy as the supposed subversion of democracy, I think the the conduct I pointed out was every bit as questionable, especially the meanspirited comments and looks like grave dancing (to be clear, I am not talking about Jehochman here). I however said my piece and even though my particular complaints on substandard admin behavior was not discussed or brought up in motion, I have not gotten worked up about it. If however, we are going to demand that heads roll and rally to the banner of purging the admin corps of questionable candidates, let the start with all of us who participated in this dispute.--Tznkai (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You shut down an ANI discussion where I raised my concerns. It's rude to dismiss a fellow administrator when they raise a concern. There's no need for a purge, but we have to set some standards and come to an agreement. If the people I'm concerned about would focus on repairing problems instead of attacking me, that would really help. Jehochman ^Talk 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

E/c - I reworded what I said after Jehochman made this reply.--Tznkai (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to dance. I'd hurt myself. Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My point in general, is that if anyone is going to demand that ArbCom act more decisively than they are against any one party, they should remember there is a lot of recent and topical admin misbehavior to go around, and I'm not talking about the lot of us yapping at eachother.--Tznkai (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So we come back to the start of this thread. We have a high hill to climb to improve standards of administrator behavior. Things must be worse in general than I perceived them to be. Okay, so the point I am getting is that this incident here is medium average, and that we shouldn't throw the book at these admins because others have (and continue to do) substantially worse. The goal now is to strengthen policy and process. Very well. It looks like we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Efforts to encourage reform of the block and ban review system for editors wanting to contribute in good faith. It's easy and often unilateral to take away privileges, so there's no excuse for making it so difficult to have them restored. It's outrageous that editors trying to take the high road and who are willing to be open about their histories are being pushed into a difficult choices with crappy options that make pacts of secrecy the most logical choice. That the Arbs are complicit in creating this environment where telling the truth and trying to come clean is a treated as a high crime is particularly unfortunate. They've compounded this stupidity by encouraging disruptive witch hunts and enranged mobs holding pitchforks and torches with shrill and deranged calls for blood and heads to roll. Many of the pack leaders are those looking to settle old scores, which is especially sordid. Some day (hopefully sooner rather than later) we will establish a more enlightened and civil approach that treats those who have made mistakes with dignity and respect and gives them reasonable opportunities to return openly and to contribute constructively in the best interests of our project (you know, the one that involves working up an encyclopedia?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  The UnderLaw was open about his history at the Law RfA? I missed that, and so did everyone else. He cheated, gamed the system, skipped the step of developing as an editor, and seems intent on his course. You posted soon after my statement, so I expect you saw it. I've developed as an editor. I came in the front door. Several times in the last few weeks I've been told 'well said' and I was pleased to see my statement mentioned by an arb in the vote on the motions. So, there are ways of returning openly with dignity and respect. This, however, was not an example of that. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, but he was open about it in his repeated e-mails requesting Arb assistance. And he was open about it with numerous admins and editors. If the standard expected is perfection and people aren't allowed to make mistakes then it's no wonder we have so many problems. What worked for you may not work for everyone else. We need sensible reforms not televangelists. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  That's not openness and it sure didn't work well for him and others. If 'televangelists' was a reference to me, well, you don't seem to know me ;) nb: you may have missed my follow-up^diff to an earlier comment of yours. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  An interesting sermon, but not very scientific. If Law wasn't here to edit construcively how do you explain his edit history and successful RfA? I stand by my previous response: "So we make it tough on known accounts to come back to editing after agreeing to mentoring and reform. But if they come back surreptitiously, avoid disrupting (at least enough not to get caught) they have our blessing? Surreal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)" Am I healed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  So per your use of 'sermon' I'm the televangelist? And 'scientific' has nothing to do with any of this. I've not much looked at his edit history. See Vassyana's comment:

  Gaining the tools deceptively cements this for me. With all due respect to those insisting that he passed RfA on good contributions, I instead see him passing RfA with a paint-by-numbers approach to building an account for an easy RfA pass. Those characteristics were pointed out by some editors during the RfA and it's something we've known for some time that people do to collect the flags and/or push sock accounts through.^diff

  re your 'previous response' — bunk; it's a false conclusion. Not having been caught is not receipt of blessing, it's just successful evasion. *That's* what can't be tolerated and can't be given blessing. By coming back as a sock, he showed disdain and judging by his statement, he's made little progress. You're lucky they're not talking of restoring your month-long block he lifted. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

*watches the flies circle around a bit of a dent in the lawn.* I suspect a horse was once here? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC) — that's LOTF ;) Jack Merridew

Your rejection of science, facts, and the need for knowledge strikes me as being dangerous. Wikipedia is not a church. If you can't be bothered to look into someone's contributions it would be best not to comment on them. Since Sandstein's block violated policy, was punitive rather than preventative, was disruptive, involved no discussion or warning, was made despite his past involvements and disagreements with me, included misrepresentations about my past editing history, was completely out of process in terms of length, and was followed by an even greater disruption by a further abuse of his tools against Giano, I would say Sandstein is lucky that he hasn't been blocked for a month for his abuse. But of course luck doesn't have much do with it. Having power and membership in the right cabals is what counts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wut? WP:DENY. Your next block will likely stick better and Giano's next will not ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can scarcely believe this. Desysopping is not the end of the world. Whatever happened to adminship is no big deal? There is ample cause to believe that these admins have lost the confidence of a substantial proportion of the community. In that circumstance, surely the sensible thing to do, since they have refused to follow Casliber's example by simply resigning, is to desysop them so that they can re-test the community's trust, or lack of it, with a new RFA. Then, whatever the outcome, there will no longer be a shadow upon their continued participation here, in whatever capacity. Letting them off with an "admonishment", on the other hand, is a sure method of perpetuating lingering feelings of doubt and mistrust, not to mention increasing the sense of cynicism with which many Wikipedians already regard our governance. Gatoclass (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

One other thing, per Fayssal's comments. Since when did arbcom require a "precedent" to desysop someone? The grounds for desysopping in this case are quite clearly already extant in WP:ADMIN, I quote: egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status, followed in the "Accountability" section which states:

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:

... 4. "Bad faith" adminship (sock puppetry, gross breach of trust,[6] etc)

In fact, one could utilize almost any of the statements in the "Administrator conduct" section to justify desysopping in this case. Indeed as the section itself says, people have already been desysopped for gross breach of trust so you already have a "precedent" if that's what you want. I mean, are you seriously trying to argue that administrators need a precedent before they can be expected to understand that it's not okay to deceive the community into promoting their sock-buddies to admin status? I think we are really losing our way if we start trying to kid ourselves that this sort of thing is excusable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not excusable. I agree in large part with what you say, and have voted to desysop GlassCobra. While I don't personally view Jayron and Jennavecia's conduct in the same light, my view is that if they (or GlassCobra, if the desysop motion fails for him) do anything questionable over the next year, that, in combination with this, will be grounds for desysopping (i.e. they are on notice). In my view, all three admins, if they want to demonstrate they have the trust of the community, should run reconfirmation RFAs (or resign and stand again at RFA). My main reason for not voting to desysop in the case of Jayron and Jennavecia is because there appear to be other admins and editors who were aware of this and also supported or kept silent. That may have been due to some misapprehension that Law was an editor returning after a right-to-vanish (he was not), so I think this is as far as the motions can usefully go. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care a great deal about those who kept quiet. From my POV, I am prepared to WP:AGF that those who remained quiet - assuming there are such people - have tacitly acknowledged the gravity of their error by not coming forward. We don't have to conduct a witchhunt over this.

The problem I have with the rest of your comments is that the two users who have escaped serious sanction - Jennavecia and Jayron - have not acknowledged the same. As far as I am aware, Jayron has given no apology at all. He proudly nailed his colours to the mast of this deception and has not retracted his stance. Jennavecia, meanwhile, gave at best a "non-apology apology", the essence of which appeared to be a defiant brandishing of WP:IAR. (Would you !vote for someone who stood for adminship on that basis? I certainly wouldn't). So in effect, by letting them off with the proverbial slap on the wrist, you have managed, albeit unintentionally I'm sure, to tacitly endorse their defiant stance. And I'm afraid I do have a problem with that. Gatoclass (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would said guidelines apply to Jimbo? (I know the answer, but one can hope for change...) --NE2 05:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you know the answer then it would be great to share it with us. After all, this is a collaborative project and sharing information is good. Ironically, we are dealing with a case of a cover-up. So please be open ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I only ask because I'm Jimbo's sock, and if anyone blocks me for it heads will roll. --NE2 07:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am having trouble understanding what this actually means - surely "the community is encouraged to develop guidelines to avoid any apparent partiality" would be better? DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The severe telling off option (ie, a slap on wrist, carry on as you were) seems to be getting support as some arbs feel desysop for a long term abuse the communities trust and disregard of arbcom sanctions doesn't warrant and actual action. So here is a halfway-house proposal, which I feel would gain support for Lara and GC: Start a new RfA to asses whether the community still has faith in these admins continuing in their role. This opens it up to the community, who are best placed to decide where their trust lies. They can remain admins unless they fail the RfA. They can present arguments and refer to their record, and answer questions about their behaviour. As doing nothing is a failure (the "admonishment"), while you have desysoped people for much less than this you seem unable to commit in this case as you're not sure the community has lost faith. The best way to find out would be to ask the community, and we already have a procedure for this. Ask the community in the usual way, at RFA Verbal chat 12:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So, force the users to undergo RFA? Who closes it? An Arb, or a Bureaucrat? What is the threshold for "failure" of a RecFA of this nature?

Isn't a desysop with the option to seek RFA immediately essentially the same without forcing the RFA upon the user? –xeno^talk 13:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It would follow the usual process. It's different to a desysop by arbs with RFA allowed as being desysoped would be a huge negative, whereas it would be made clear this is to establish the view of the community without the black mark against them, and the having to wait for at least 3 months. Also, the RFA wouldn't be forced. They can choose to resign. It doesn't have to be immediate, just within a reasonable period (hopefully within 3 months, and they'd keep the tools - though obviously any actions they take would be scrutinised at the eventual RFA.) It is much better than a desysop, and much better than a do-nothing telling off (where one admin has ade clear they're not interested). There is no desysop unless they fail the RFA. Verbal chat 16:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Though I'm not sure what you mean about the "without ... having to wait for at least 3 months" - it's rare for ArbCom to give a set time before allowing someone to request the tools at RFA... –xeno^talk 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

<ri> I'm sympathetic to this sort of intermediate sanction: the current proposals give the impression of one transgressor being hammered despite at least showing belated appreciation of the gravity of the breach of trust, while others who remain more or less defiant about their decision to deceive the community appear to get off with it. A rap on the knuckles while retaining checkuser appears very inappropriate after such misjudgement. The good work done as admins is also a factor, and wider community assessment after an interval would be a good thing. . dave souza, talk 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dave. I'm also concerned by the fact that while GlassCobra's actions were clearly the most egregious of the three, of the three admins in question GlassCobra is the only who seems to actually understand what was wrong with the behavior and seems genuinely to understand the communities concerns. Jayron and Lara simply have not indicated that. Indeed, Lara users her non-apology to once again attack other editors although this time slightly less directly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

dave, who are you talking about "a rap on the knuckles while retaining checkuser" ? None of the three have checkuser privileges. –xeno^talk 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My error in misremembering this: is oversight much less of a concern in terms of trust? . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

She was not successful in her candidacy... –xeno^talk 22:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that information on the outcome, I'd quickly looked but not found confirmation of that. So, that aspect isn't a concern. The basic issue remains, that while GlassCobra has the most to answer for, he or she is the one showing remorse, which at least gives hope of reformed behaviour, while proclamations by the other two suggest that they may be a bit deterred by teh dramaz, but still think their deceit was justified. . dave souza, talk 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We all know that editors contribute on Wikipedia with undisclosed histories. We could have made disclosure part of the RfA process. We chose not to. A clarification that disclosure of actual wrongdoing is required and (perhaps) a clarification of when and how editors returning improperly can and should disclose their pasts is needed, not this torch and pitchfork fest of head hunting. Needless to say the editors that came clean are the ones being punished, not the ones who've remained silent about what they knew. What a complete travesty.

There was no disruption associated with the editors and admins involved in this controversy. Since returning Law was a model editor and admin. So all these punishments serve only to encourage sordid outing campaigns to go after editors personally when a dispute erupts. This is entirely disruptive, divisive and punitive (and was done after a dispute over an article about some Boner. No kidding!).

It's amazing that Arbcom doesn't encourage reform and promote the best interests of Wikipedia instead of backing those seeking mad vengeance.

If we want to make disclosing what we know about one another a policy then do it. But the crazed calls for severe punishment against editors exercising their discretion in good faith and to cage another editor who turned over a new leaf and returned to wikipedia with a new identity (with which he's made nothing but constructive contributions) is absurd. That we're trying to take down other good faith editors and admins for following IAR and keeping quiet to support an editor making nothing but helpful contributions to Wikipedia is totally insane.

With all the socking, abusive POV pushing, canvassing, stalking, harassment, cabalism and other nastiness going on here, that our highest body is choosing to go after this distinguished group of Wikipedians demonstrates shockingly poor judgment.

The protocols for blocked and banned editors to get reviews and reprieves is completely broken and unworkable. People are treated like dirt and ignored. Admin abuse is swept under the rug. Instead of fixing these problem we are doubling down on the stupidity and insisting that those with secrets keep them quiet, that was after all Law's failing here was it not??? If he hadn't told anyone who he was then there was no problem. But he made efforts to come clean so we have to wring his neck. Shameful.

That an editor evaded a block or ban (or whatever) to edit constructively after his appeals were ignored is such a non-problem that those seeking sanctions and calling for heads based on it should be ashamed of themselves and are the ones lacking judgment and common sense. Those editors leading the charge are, of course, those with their own problematic histories. And the false accsuations and smears made by WMC, Jehochman, and other editors involved in this witch hunt are far more disturbing and damaging than the good faith efforts of those trying to do good work on Wikipedia despite all the obstacles we've set up to make it difficult for them. The leaders of the mob are the ones that need sanctioning. Give them all wikibreaks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Friendship and Wikipedia":

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

And in particular Coren's comment:

ArbCom offers guidance when it sees risky situations, and this is most certainly one case where the community needs a little shove in the right direction to avoid increasing drama. — Coren (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[6]

Step off the high horse, please. Arbitrators used to suggest guideline improvements as editors and their input was far more influential when they did. Policymaking is outside ArbCom's mandate. The Committee is not an advisory body; Wikipedians did not elect it to provide "guidance" and resent attempts to "shove" them around. Assumption of false authority is distasteful. Durova³²¹ 14:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. I think more guidance, direction and mediation, and less enforcement would be fabulous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The committee *is* an advisory body. They're editors of pretty high standing, and they do work with the tricky stuff. The agreement we eventually have come to in the process of arbcom reform was that the ArbCom could not dictate policy, but they could make strong recommendations to the community about it. I am more than happy with that as an on-going power balance. --Barberio (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to take my time here hoping to get the message through. In fact, the question which should be asked is whether this motion satisfies the needs of the community or not. According to the request's statements there have been serious concerns and voices against the friendship notion and its influence in decision making one way or another within the encyclopaedia. On the other hand, there have been other views that consider friendship an important factor in building the encyclopedia -although there weren't many adopting this view. The above motion tries to find a common ground to solve this dilemma. It is more a principle and guideline than a policy. The intention of the Committee is not to write policy.

It used to be part of the job of the Mediation Committee to give advices and guidances but many people believe -for one reason or another- that the mediation process does not satisfy their needs. There are difficult cases where mediation cannot be the ideal tool (i.e. the nature of the debate, the circumstances surrounding this request, etc). There's a need to review the mediation strategy; at the absence of such strategy the community has little choice to arrive to a decision by itself or to ask a third party for an opinion or a guidance.

In this particular case, we could desysop people and send the same message across but for me -in the absence of a precedent- guidance is more productive in the long term. It is a message for collaboration instead of confrontation and feud. It is also an encouragement to reviewing and revising policies. It is like providing a platform. But if people want to limit the ArbCom to a sanctioning body then the community should make sure to revise plenty of guidelines, practices and policies and totally review the dispute resolution process. Then they would need to come up with a different system. For now, we sanction, we receive appeals of unban, we unban, we sanction, etc... But we also guide (i.e. Ireland naming dispute, Macedonia, etc...) Guidance is already part of the ArbCom job. Sanctioning alone for the sake of applying policy and technicalities is very shortsighted. We don't have to look at ArbCom as the body that sends law violators to the prison; instead we must look at it as a body that guides people in difficult times.

The debate over whether ArbCom is writing policy or guiding remains a constitutional debate -if not a bureaucratic one. That leads nowhere. The essential thing should be the benefit to the community. Wikipedia needs space to breathe; strategies should be revisited and updated. Barberio summarizes it quite well while ChildOfMidnight is correct in a sense except that enforcement is also important in a huge project such as this one.

So the question remains... does the debated motion reflect the community needs? Is it necessary? I, and the arbitrators would support it, believe so. Many other members of the community believe so. Some other arbitrator or contributor may see it as an appeal to authority. Here, I totally disagree because ArbCom is an elected body serving the whole community and is open to any member of the community. Nobody is elected forever and there's no power grab. We elect arbitrators -who are in theory trusted individuals- to take difficult decisions. If you believe that an elected arbitrator should not guide on difficult subjects then we really should review our concepts of trust, competence, delegation and empowerment.

There are calls from the community that it needs guidance from third neutral and trusted parties. Now, the ball is at your hands; you are free to discuss again the principle above if you don't agree with it. You've got the Village Pump and a few other appropriate venues to discuss serious stuff. The community -mainly people spending considerable time in arbitration pages- find themselves involved in different conflicts and disputes. It is real time for the community to start discussing serious stuff instead of engaging in infinite circular debates of "witch hunting" and other obscure debates. The community clearly needs guidance. ArbCom needs guidance itself. Every single entity needs it. At the absence of a clear strategy, the community needs guidance. Moving the boat is much more important and productive than debating argumentum ad infinitum. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All of these concerns would carry at least as much weight with none of the downsides if arbitrators returned to the old custom of advising the community as peers rather than endeavoring at edicts from on high. Probably quite a few editors would agree that our votes in last year's elections (and in previous years) would have been substantially different if we had been cognizant of this novel concept that we were electing a moral compass, as opposed to a body whose purpose was dispute resolution. Durova³²¹ 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For me advising that "friendship should not be used to circumvent policy" is dispute resolution itself and I am telling you to get that principle -which you won't arrive to it in a month of noisy debates- and work on it as a basis. I'd only understand you if you are against the principle itself. For now, I'd understand that your objection consists of "arbitrators riding their high horses." I find that weird as a reason to object since nobody has shown any intention to ride anything. You haven't shown how the above motion harms the project. Well, it's quite an interesting debate for the upcoming elections. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF, there is an underlying principle of equal participation which has created obstacles for half a year: at the content dispute resolution RfC, and at the advisory board announcement, and yet again here. When you have a good idea the idea is no less good on its own merits if you approach fellow Wikipedians as editors and equals. This is the third time the 2009 Committee has generated obstacles merely by the endeavor to generate additional false credibility by wrapping notions in a mantle of false authority outside your mandate. That habit has repeatedly turned potentially good ideas into non-starters--not because the critics are inherently obstructionist but because we intend to maintain the egalitarian principle. The resistance of Committee members to this concept has been mystifying; it is one reason why this time people are contacting me privately rather than posting openly. Is it possible, after all other possibilities have been exhausted, to suppose this explanation might be candid and consistent and true? Durova³²¹ 03:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I am well aware of your concern which stems from equality. I am your equal and you are my equal but I fail to see where giving guidance can be synonymous of inequality. I am not going to turn this into a philosophical debate but I believe you cannot claim and measure equality with a entity you created to decide on important things for you.

Now, we are all equal but suppose we have more than 60 statements (which is a fact indeed) for this request alone. It's quite apparent that there's no consensus whatsoever over what to do. Just above, Barberio and CoM disagree with you and you disagree with them. And yet, you are talking about the community as if it were a homogeneous body with a spokeswo/man. What I know is that ArbCom acts in total good faith. What I see is a total mistrust from a few users who frequent ArbCom pages too much sometimes offering reasonable suggestions and in some other times doing nothing except complicating disputes further. We need to see what is best for the whole project. Does this motion do the job? Does it help the community to move further? Does it need tuning and tweaking? Does it harm people? Is it partial?

The other question is what solution do you have on the table? Nothing! We are all equal but we need solutions. Bring us one basic solution based on consensus and we are done. And bear in mind that we are not writing policy; we are talking about a guidance, a kind of an advice. So when you are telling me that people contact you regarding this matter I understand that they respect and appreciate your help and guidance. Aren't you their equal?

P.S. Why do people message you in private rather than posting here? Do we have a monster here? :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a Monster at the End of this Arbitration. Joking aside, there's a lot of concern that if people state publicly certain opinions that will set them up from retaliation by other people or their friends. Historically, it has also often been the case that direct discussion by email with individual arbitrators does a better job convincing them of things then open discourse (there may be both good and bad reasons for this and good and bad consequences). I suspect that the combination of both those issues are out in force right now. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Advice is advice, by one measure. By another measure the way of conveying it makes all the difference in the world: in the simplest sense that's the distinction between one schoolchild on a playground telling another he ought to get up ten minutes earlier in the morning, versus a manager in the corner office telling an employee the same words. Look how Jennavecia is getting fingered in your motions although she was unlikely to have been the only non-nominating administrator who supported Law's RFA and knew his real history: it can't be very surprising that other editors who disapprove of these motions are afraid to draw attention to themselves. I used to be formal mentor to five individuals simultaneously in widely differing disputes. Consider how many more have turned to me informally. Check the traffic at user talk. I don't advertise; it just sort of happens. Durova³²¹ 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It was only a P.S. but your points are interesting. You say that people would fear retaliation by others and their "friends". The motion above responds to that. You also state that using direct communication with individual arbs can be helpful. But many in the community are not happy with that because of transparency concerns. Some others may even dislike it because it gives the impression of befriending arbitrators. And you are totally right that they are out in force now. The ideal would be no fearing and no retaliation. The other ideal would be impartiality of arbs. I, for instance, have plenty of Facebook friends who are wiki editors. Have I ever confused the two things? No, never. For this reason, I am supporting this motion. If people are not happy with it they can still discuss it and see if they can just ignore it if there's a community consensus for ignoring it. ArbCom guidance is not a country's constitution. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, if you thinks the ArbCom can stop favoritism simply by declaring that it shouldn't occur then I have at least two bridges to sell it (one in San Francisco and one in New York). There are many simple situations where retaliatory behavior simply cannot be stopped. Obvious examples include taking sides on controversial ANI threads for or against a position for one individual, or supporting or opposing relevant people in RfAs who are perceived of as friends/enemies of other individuals, and probably a lot more methods that I can't think up because I'm not nefarious enough. That sort of retaliation and even more blatant forms simply isn't going to be substantially lessoned by this sort of decision. I don't think such retaliatory behavior is very common, but it is apparently common enough that people are concerned. I incidentally agree with you regarding transparency and related issues. The statement I made was an explanation for, not a defense of the behavior. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren says: "ArbCom offers guidance when it sees risky situations, and this is most certainly one case where the community needs a little shove in the right direction to avoid increasing drama."

I think the most risky situation of all—and the one that involves the most drama—is the one involves the continued existence of the ArbCom in its present form, as the ArbCom itself is the drama engine that is undermining the community and ruining the culture of this project. Therefore I propose that the ArbCom vote to dissolve itself and desysop all of its own members.

Stephen Bain says: "An administrator who prefers their own judgment over that of the community cannot be trusted by the community to implement its policies."

I agree with him. The problem is that for years the ArbCom has encouraged admins to ignore and overrule the community and act according to their own discretion. I myself have been subjected to years of sanctions because I urged admins to refrain from excessive use of individual judgment, while admins who have used their powers to lord it over other contributors like petty kings have been consistently rewarded. Why would anyone even believe the ArbCom if it now said that it wanted admins to be responsible to the community? Everyking (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Inventing something useful is much better than playing the same tape. And when you say ArbCom has encouraged admins to ignore and overrule the community and act according to their own discretion you should expect some others saying that ArbCom has desysopped admins who ignored and overruled the community and acted according to their own discretion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the wording of the "ArbCom should be notified in cases of block evasion" motion. In actual practice, blocks are evaded frequently, and administrators routinely just block the sockpuppets as soon as they are identified. CheckUser isn't even required, when the block evasion is obvious. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Taking administrative action on open cases, and WP:SOCK#Blocking: "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely."

So perhaps better wording for the motion would be, instead of "Administrators are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it," change it to: "Administrators who choose not to address block evasion themselves by blocking the new account, are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it."

And actually, that's part of my problem with the behavior of some of the administrators in this situation. They knew that someone was evading a block (and not just your garden-variety disruption block, but a nine-month block instituted by unanimous agreement of the Arbitration Committee). Yet rather than simply blocking the new account, they actively encouraged the evasion, and even joked about it. Then some of these administrators further compounded this error by nominating (or strongly supporting) the user for adminship, while failing to mention their off-wiki relationship, the previous block evasion, or that the admin candidate had previously been de-sysopped. Any administrator who behaved with such dishonesty and blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies should no longer be an administrator. Their behavior eroded trust for the other ethical Wikipedia administrators, and brought the project into disrepute. --Elonka 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some one else somewhere mentioned the problem with the wording, and I agree. Telling ArbCom is not necessary for the routine stuff. While I agree that people should be honest when the make RFA noms and vet people for other positions of trust, I seriously doubt that there will be a long term problem from this incident that you allude to in your comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

From viewing the comments by Administrator Jennavecia in this matter, I am left with the strong impression that she has no regrets about her actions, and that given the opportunity to do it again, she would not hesitate to repeat the same behavior. It is not acceptable to have an administrator who has clearly indicated their willingness to break or ignore Wikipedia policies in the support of a friend. That Jennavecia is a loyal friend is commendable. But if her friendship is inducing her to violate Wikipedia policies, she should not have a position of Wikipedia administrator, or any other position that requires trust in her judgment. Frankly, anything that she states on-wiki from this point forward (or even in the past) is now suspect, as she obviously has no qualms in lying to support her friend. --Elonka 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should disagree at least partially. To know that another user is either ban evading, or running an alternate account in ways that contravene Wikipedia policy (votestacking, consensus skewing etcetera) and to sit on your virtual hands is aiding and abetting. I'm not saying bother ArbCom with everything, but again, if you know of such things and don't say something, then you're aiding them in it. That's what this is about, really with Lara, right? She aided The Undertow evade his sanctions. There's no difference, unless we really want to split hairs about the administrator club. SirFozzie (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who and what are you disagreeing with? Paul August ☎ 00:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, there seems to be some confusion here. The point that you seem to be making is that admins can't stand by when people are socking or engaging in other bad behavior. There's no disagreement there. Flo's point is that in the vast majority of situations these situations can be dealt with by admins issuing blocks and other steps without having to alert the ArbCom for every single little thing. From a literal reading of the proposal that is being voted on, admins would have to alert the ArbCom to every single such situation even if it could be easily dealt with without rising back to the ArbCom. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Our work is heavy already. We don't need to involve the Committee in every case where someone violates an arbcom or community sanction. This work is routinely done by Checkusers and admins. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One should not entrust information to a body like the ArbCom, which is neither competent nor impartial; in any case, there could be no practical need for it. It should be sufficient to rely on administrators, checkusers, and community deliberation to handle all such cases. That the ArbCom uses cases to create more powers and responsibilities for itself just serves to demonstrate that it is completely unworthy of the community's trust. Instead of encouraging people to inform on their friends (which cannot possibly improve an editorial environment that is already deeply hostile) and enforce questionable bans from years past, we should be encouraging people to report real and meaningful disruption in such a way that it can be transparently reviewed by the community. Everyking (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be candid: there's a need to rebuild trust in this instance. ArbCom did receive the banned editor's petition and failed to act upon it. An arbitrator subsequently received a report about the socking, failed to act upon it, and has resigned. A second arbitrator later received another communication and claims to have failed to read it. The Committee has not lacked information: the Committee has lacked initiative. This is not the only instance of its type--only the most public one. The community need not be embarrassed by the result, but the Committee ought to be. Your collective lack of candor about admitting a problem exists on your own side does not inspire renewed trust among observant community members: Doctor, heal thyself. Although I won't go as far as Everyking, the Committee's own unacknowledged mistakes here go a long way toward mitigating the disapproval I have for Jennavecia's (and others') choices. It is possible to make serious errors and still get scapegoated. That route is no shortcut to resolution: it impedes real resolution. Durova³²¹ 04:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the appeal that started after the block evasion was already underway? — Coren ^(talk) 11:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that so? (Even if it were so, unless ArbCom knew about the block evasion, it wouldn't mitigate that ArbCom screwed up.) --NE2 11:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

as she obviously has no qualms in lying to support her friend. Omitting information and outright lying are two different things. They may be closely related, but when I was asked by an Arb if I knew that Law was the_undertow, I immediately admitted that I did. When asked on-wiki, I immediately responded that I did. At no point during these proceedings have I lied, though there's been quite a few told about me. Lara 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When teaching and babysitting little kids one of the worst things one gets is sentences starting with "technically". "Technically I wasn't touching my sister, I was just throwing little balls of paper." "Technically, I wasn't stealing from the cookie jar. I got the cookie out of the package on the shelf." Let me rephrase the above statement. "Technically, I wasn't lying. I just omitted information that was highly relevant and would have almost certainly altered the community decision." JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with JoshuaZ. What Lara/Jennavecia appears to be saying is just another form of dishonesty. She's saying that after she was caught and confronted by authority figures, she was truthful when pinned down and directly questioned. But this does not release her from the responsibility of the earlier multiple deceptions. Let me try and frame the situation in another way. Instead of saying "The undertow" and "Lara/Jennavecia", let's use other names. Let's say that an editor, JohnDoe, was an administrator, was disruptive, lost his admin access, and was then so disruptive that he was blocked for a year by the unanimous decision of the Arbitration Committee. JohnDoe then evades his block with a John2 account, and his buddy admins (let's call them Paul and Fred) know about the evasion. What Paul and Fred should do, is block JohnDoe as soon as he starts socking, and tell him that if he wants to resume editing, he needs to do so through the proper channels. Instead, Paul and Fred not only close their eyes to the block evasion, but even encourage John2 to run for admin, and when they support him for adminship, completely fail to say anything about the fact that John2 is a block-evading de-sysopped sockpuppet account. And then further, when the whole thing blows up (because sure enough, within a few months John2 starts abusing admin tools again), Paul and Fred are unapologetic, and claim they were acting for the good of the project. The whole thing is just absurdity on top of absurdity. What it tells me is that JohnDoe was disruptive, was blocked for damn good reason, and though he may have kept his nose clean for a few months, he was just another disaster waiting to happen. Lara's defense that Law's temporarily peaceful and constructive editing "proved that the original block was unnecessary" is completely wrong-headed. When ArbCom issues a block or a ban, it needs to be respected, not circumvented. And supporting a fraudulent RfA is not good for the project. Instead, as is being shown here by the community uproar on multiple pages, such an RfA was incredibly disruptive to the project. What all the involved parties should be doing at this point is admitting their mistakes and apologizing to the community. Contrition is what's needed here, not defensiveness. --Elonka 17:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, though I personally don't care whether there is an apology or not. In such a situation I'd like to see reconfirmation RfAs. If you think what you did was for the good of the project, Paul and Fred, stand before the community and let's see whether they agree or not. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The notion that a "reconfirmation RFA" would do any good during a dispute like this, and with the turn RFA has taken over the past months, isn't that accurate. This, if I remember correctly, is what the whole "recall" thing was created for. Which leads to another question, why didn't you just put GlassCobra and Lara up for recall? The community really needs to stop relying on the arbitrators to solve problems that would be handled much easier just by using methods already provided for, that the community can use. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The existing recall process is unenforceable and unacceptably easy to game. I will not use it. If RfA is broken, we should fix it. Please suggest changes at the relevant talk page and leave me a note if you'd like my input. Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretending the system doesn't exist isn't exactly how you fix something either. RFA wasn't originally made for "reconfirmation" RFAs, so it wouldn't even be halfway smart as to make that the direction you would want to go. If it's fixing things you're interested in, maybe you should think of the current recall process, which I wasn't aware ever was broken. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on recall. It was discussed, however if you read User:GlassCobra/Recall and User:Jennavecia/Recall both set out their standards for recall, and both require multiple examples of missuse of Admin privileges. Unfortunately this situation did not fit in to their personal guidelines.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We can of course tweak the motion and I agree with Elonka. What I want to point out here is that there's an 'open secret' (that's not cool) that some admins know other people using alternate accounts believing that everyone knows about it. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is when people turn a blind eye to alternate accounts being used to violate policies. This motion basically doesn't encourage people to come straight to the ArbCom disclosing their friends' questionable accounts. Admins can still advise their "friends" to not use those accounts to circumvent policy; adminship is basically using the tools to protect the encyclopedia from abuses and block evasion is a policy violation. If their friends can't listen then the users can approach ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the two sections currently on this page regarding the_undertow, GlassCobra, and company, I feel compelled to question the fact that these proceedings are being done in motion format. It appears that not only has the committee failed to ask for community input in this matter in the form of an RfC, but that it wants none at all - there is no place, save this talk page, for the community to comment on what is happening. While I understand that ArbCom may wish to allay the drama that would certainly ensue, it is far more important that the community have a say in this than that drama be avoided that arguably does little harm. This is an issue so without precedent that ArbCom is effectively making policy without seeking community input. I find this very troubling, and strongly urge that these proceedings be refactored into a case. — Jake Wartenberg 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the underlying facts are in dispute. The main point of cases are 1) to resolve the relevant facts and 2) present arguments about underlying issues. In this situation, the facts aren't in dispute and most of the major issues have been discussed substantially by the community at the RfAr main page, ANI and other locals. The general unhappiness with much of the community with what has occurred is clear. An RfC while potentially useful is likely to generate more heat than light and not generate any substantially new ideas or consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect extended toward JoshuaZ, Jake's misgivings hold a lot of weight. Summary motions are a relatively new development for ArbCom; I've always had misgivings about them. It would be preferable in this instance to either defer to the community or to open a full case. This may belabor the obvious, but the community (rather than ArbCom) decides what the community's standards are. Durova³²¹ 02:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. The purpose of arbitration is to resolve disputes that the community has been unable to resolve, not to make decisions for the community. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If the community is unhappy with these results as I understand there is nothing that prevents the community from following up with further action, such as an RfC or actually passing a coherent procedure to desysop people. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have provided above an existing route by which arbcom can involve the community rather than issuing diktats; RfA without prior desysop. Verbal chat 08:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I cannot imagine a situation in which I would vote in favour of a sanction on an administrator that required him/her to submit to a reconfirmation RFA or to lose their permissions. The current RFA culture appears to be quite unhealthy, with difficulty attracting candidates at all, and low success rates at RFA for candidates untainted by drama. This would simply move the drama from one forum to another. No, I think if the behaviour involved is egregious enough that desysop is called for, then it should be done by the Arbitration Committee cleanly and quickly rather than throwing people to the wolves. I fail to see how doing this would be of any benefit to the encyclopedia or to the culture of the community, and it would be an abrogation of our duty to deliberately put people in a situation where they are extremely likely to fail, using the weak justification that it was "the community" that punished them, and not us. Risker (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are incapable of fulfilling your function you should resign. As you have this personal position, irrespective of admin transgression, I hope you have abstained from the desysop motions. Verbal chat 17:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you are missing my point. My function is to assess the evidence and render a decision. That is exactly what I have done and plan to continue doing. I have been perfectly capable of voting for (and even moving for) desysops when I believe they are called for. I cannot imagine voting to send someone for a reconfirmation RFA, but instead would vote for desysop if I believed that was the appropriate remedy. I'm not getting why you think that it's a good idea for the Committee to not desysop someone with the explicit intent of sending them to RFA where they will almost inevitably be stripped of the tools after an additional week of drama, stress and baiting. Or have you been reading different RFAs than I have? And has anyone bothered to ask the bureaucrats what they think of being put in the position of having to stand in that place, where one bureaucrat would potentially have as much power to do something the entire Arbitration Committee had decided not to do? Risker (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to me a very reasonable analysis, and while it almost suggests a distrust of the community, RfA can be a harsh bear garden and your predictions seem likely. There's genuine concern about the apparent huge difference in outcome between desysopping and admonition, and given what Coren aptly calls "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", an admonition has to be strong enough to not appear to be just a slap on the wrist. I don't have any specific intermediate option in mind, perhaps a nominal short temporary desysopping would be suitably symbolic but I'm sure that Arbcom have given this more informed consideration than me. The intent seems pretty clear, and I trust that the outcome will be suitably measured. . . dave souza, talk 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Risker, your language (particularly the "or") was ambiguous. I find the lack of faith you place in the community, the community that elected you, to be worrying. If RFA is broken that shouldn't weigh on your deliberations here, you should keep that seperate - and if you think it is broken you should also try and fix it in your capacity as a normal member of the community. Excluding options because you don't like the communities process isn't something you should be doing in your position. When the committee strips someone of their admin rights and says they can reapply, which is something you say you have done, that is what causes the problem you describe. If you do not strip them of the bit and state it is the new RFA is to establish whether in light of your findings they still hold the communities trust, well that's different. Especially as you could have stripped them of the bit. The RFA could be after a suitable (but not too long) cool off period - where they remain admins. I'm sorry this process might not be painless, but it seems less painful than full desysop. By the way, it clearly crosses the line with the ridiculous self righteous justifications and non apologies. Verbal chat 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict, replying to Risker

I think the reason Verbal reacted as such may be Risker's statement: The current RFA culture appears to be quite unhealthy, with difficulty attracting candidates at all, and low success rates at RFA for candidates untainted by drama.'

I think, at the heart of this, is debate between opting for a Utilitarianism choice or "principle-based" (deontology) approach. When I read a sentence like the above, it ever so slightly pokes at my senses of justice and equality.

To take it to an unjustified hyperbole just for illustration: "We can't send Admin Q. Public to RFA, because we all know he wouldn't have a snowball's chance at passing an RFA. There's no way that guy has the community's trust. So, that's why we didn't desysop him. "

For many of us, that's a bit of a heresy-- "Are we to understand that we acknowledge there are active admins that would fail a truly legitimate, non-vindictive RFA?!?! If so, why are we sitting here talking, when we should be out desysopping them?? If Admins are required to be trusted, RFA is the process that defines what constitutes trust, and we all know RFA would find insufficient trust-- how does it follow that someone should be an admin?"

Notions of equality also come in to play. I think people might say: "The standards for being an admin are not consistently being applied. I behave better than they do good, but I'm not an admin. Meanwhile, one can behave badly and still be an admin, so long as they're already in the club."

But a different perspective is to simply ask "What's best for the encyclopedia?" and use that as your guiding star. An adherent of this theory might think: There's a widespread agreement that RFA is broken, so sometimes Arbcom has to substitute its own judgment for RFA, because sometimes RFA would yield the wrong answer. And of course, Arbcom does derive its authority from community elections anyway, so it's still democracy, any way you slice it.

I can understand both positions, and just hope that there will be a time when both our commmunity-based and our arbcom-based evaluations of adminship generally reach the same conclusions. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally concur with Alec. I notice it has become pretty easy to nominate an FA or GA article for a appropriate review process via WP:FAR or WP:GAR. Nominating an admin for desysop should be at least as simple, forgoing all this drama. Amerique^dialectics 21:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Create a community desysop process and RFA may even become less dramatic, more like granting rollback, if it were easy to take the tools away. Amerique^dialectics 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are variety of proposals for such floating around. See for example this one and this one. Helping hammer out the details or supporting those efforts would hurry this along. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alec and would like to see a serious determination to create a simple process as described by Amerique. Joshua's examples are a very good start. If you want any kind of moderation, ArbCom would be here to provide it. Just ask. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've heard several different theories of what standard Arbs use (or should use) when evaluating someone's status as an admin.

1. I vote for desysopping if I personally feel there is a strong potential for future tool abuse.
2. I vote for desysopping if I personally feel there has been substantial tool abuse.
3. I vote for desysopping if I personally feel that the community no longer has trust or confidence in the admin.
4. I vote for desysopping if I personally feel that Arbs no longer have trust or confidence in the admin.
5. I vote for desysopping if I personally no longer have trust or confidence in the admin.

It might be useful, for future cases, to know just where each Arb stands on that. Not that it's a problem if the standards vary from arb to arb, evolve over time, or are applied with substantial flexibility. It just occurs to me that a lot of the recent issues involve confusion over what standard(s) ARE being applied by the arbs. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I do realize that this may not be the time or place to answer, since "in general" responses might be mistaken for "in this particular instance, I voted this way because..."

For example, in any particular case, there will always be lots of other factors to consider (e.g. past warning, prior blocks, acknowledgment of error, sincere repentence, existence of precedents, etc.) But at some point, if not now, it'd be good to learn how the Arbs generally decide desysopping. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's arguably even more complicated than that. Despite adminship being (in principle) "no big deal", the step of a desysop is perceived as a severe black mark on an editor; thus it needs to be applied gingerly. My own general criterion is has this administrator breached the fiduciary trust implicit in the position?. Like it or not, admins are both the police force and "face of authority" of Wikipedia from the point of view of every editor and the public. That they are seen as fair, competent and honest is necessary.

Misusing the tools, or using them against policy, certainly qualify as such a breach — but so can other incidents that do not involve them. So my own critera hover around "[...] substantial tool abuse" and "[...] no longer has trust". Ultimately, it is a personal evaluation (hence voting by the whole committee to "average" those evaluation) but one that we have been entrusted with by the community to protect them and the project. — Coren ^(talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gross abuse of the tools" is usually an easy call; "Lost the trust of the community" isn't.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I have gone through a long-term battle with illness. When very ill, I can have trouble with judgement, as do most people, but I'm ill more often. I believe some members of the current Arbcom know about this, but, not very much, and I have the impression of them misunderstand it, or think that me during the worst bout I've had of it is typical. If I run for RfA, does Arbcom intend to reveal inaccurate half-remembered private medical details about me, per this motion? I'd suggest rewrite the finding to limit it only to blocks, sanctions, and other Wikipedia actions. [Posted anonymously] 86.131.244.94 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

   The best option is to direct this same question to the community when nominating yourself. That would both protect you against any ArbCom intention to reveal "inaccurate half-remembered private medical details" about you and give you an opportunity to convince the community of the fact that you won't abuse the tools. I'd not advise you of any other approach. I wish you a total recovery. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Although ArbCom is not bound by precedent, there was an assertion that administrators should not be desysoped for a novel offense. Now that everyone has been put on notice, the offense is no longer novel. Do I correctly understand that future incidents of administrator dishonesty of this magnitude will not enjoy the same leniency? Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, though the specifics of any future cases will also be taken into consideration, as always. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The result appears to be useful, though incremental. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You got it right, Jehochman. Excuses and long debates lose their weight when precedents exist. Of course, every single case got its own particularities but the general line and boundaries are clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it wont apply, because the next situation will involve different people, and a slightly different situation, and will therefore be "novel". I honestly don't see what's "novel" about clear abuse of trust in a misleading RfA. Verbal chat 08:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold onto that thought. If it is needed, you can point back to this discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF, Carcharoth, perhaps you can explain why lying, abuse of trust, and avoiding arbcom sanctions at the very least are "novel"? Verbal chat 20:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT a case of lying and abusing trust. That's the tip of the iceberg. It's far worse than that and it's dramatic indeed. The thing I hope everyone understand is that I lie or abuse my tools to 'help my friend' because others are 'helping their friends'. This mentality is sickening.

Now, if you want me to serve the community please ask me for something more productive and not shortsighted. In fact, we use to believe that editing wiki-battles are so complicated. Not really... wp:3RR, wp:sock, etc are there and sanctioning violators is kind of a routine. What is complicated is the wp:battle mentality which guides the wiki actions of many established users. Wiki-politics is more dangerous than any other thing. You wouldn't encourage newbies to join a political party within an encyclopedia. There are obvious signs that Wikipedia is becoming more and more a real social and political club.

This is annoying in a sense that the rest of the battles happen off-wiki and then exported over again here with high magnitudes. There are no online boundaries to wiki political disputes (blogs, IRC, personal e-mails, secret cabals, secret mailing-lists, WR, Facebook, etc... including online media comments!) The concept of wiki-friendship is damaging the project. You are free to have a zillion wiki-friends but if you are not able to distinguish between friendship and Wikipedia duties then you are harming the project big times especially in the long term. I cannot talk on behalf of the whole ArbCom members because every member holds a different opinion (reflected in the votes) but what we agree about is that friends vs friends mentality should cease.

We have had in the past individual admins unblocking their 'friends' and wheel warring, and many got sanctioned. I voted to reset the block of the_undertow because of part of the routine duties of ArbCom. What is novel here is that the magnitude is totally different. It involves many people and the question is 'why people are behaving that way' and 'why some are not understanding that this is wrong'. You can easily deadmin these people but they would still feel victimized. That is not the goal.

Now, when I say this is novel I also mean the approach should be novel. The positive thing is to send the clear message that we all know from now on that wiki-politics would start to be officially frowned upon, fought and sanctioned. Now, if you want to sanction the whole batch of admins and wait for another couple of weeks before accepting another case of friends vs friends then let's do it. But we'd be missing the opportunity to start changing the mentality. Wikipedia does not do politics; it is not for politics. Also, politics complicates the dispute resolution process and creates a very unhealty environment. This project needs ideas and novel guidelines. We've got tons of policies but we've got the same mentalities that kept unchanged since the site has been growing exponentially. Reading case statements in large ArbCom cases became annoying because they are the same songs by the same groups of people. For me, this case has presented us a good opportunity to work towards fighting the real problem. At least, it would be the first time having a clause concerning the notion of 'friendship' (well, depending on the Arbs' votes).

In a nutshell, we need to stop the iteration of the vicious cycle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Verbal chat 04:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. I can't sufficiently emphasize how much I agree with the message you and most of the rest of the Committee are sending here, Fayssal. That sort of difficult work is what we elected you for. I was in a dispute with Law at the outset of this case, so may be considered involved, but would endorse applying the same standards to any admin caught playing wikipolitical games of friends and enemies – games that several of those who called for a desysop here are themselves no strangers to.  Sandstein  05:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@Verbal, They are "novel", when talking about their relationship to admin tools, as they don't relate to their use that much; of course that depends on where specifically you would as the admin "draw the line". But as a regular, per say, offense, they are relatively "novel", and don't necessarily cause a difference in the way you use the tools, especially in an instance like this where the tools weren't used in any harmful respect to the encyclopedia, they weren't even needed to support at an RFA. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For years, the ArbCom has operated on a mostly political basis, deciding cases according to the influence of the people involved and the skill of their political manuevering rather than the merits of the arguments and the weight of the evidence. Therefore it's nothing more than bad comedy when Fayssal tells us that "Wikipedia does not do politics; it is not for politics. Also, politics complicates the dispute resolution process and creates a very unhealty environment." Even if he were sincere, the claim would have no credibility because the mistakes of the past have never been disowned. In any case, since there is still no transparency in the ArbCom's deliberations, there's no way for the community to review how the ArbCom is making its decisions—and furthermore, this entire case seems to be nothing more than a political exercise. Everyking (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the direction in which the motions are going is acceptable, if the conduct of all parties were looked into - otherwise all motions on individual users should be taken another notch down (to reminders). What I mean is that is some users are escaping liability for conduct issues of their own in this mess which warrant similar admonishments. If ArbCom does not include them in this motions-drafting, it enforces the mentality that driving away good contributors (or those who obviously had the potential) holds no importance on-site. I bring this issue up as there are several notable users (even uninvolved ones) whom repeatedly lose sight of this on-site, or simply do not get it. While contributors may be replaceable, and may even deserve sanctions, battling to getting rid of them and then proclaiming it as such on-site when the outcome goes their way, is inappropriate. So is singling out one involved user (at ANI) with whom you are known to have differences with, in the way that it happened here. Is it good enough to merely be "concerned" about these issues, in light of the type of sanctions that you are imposing on the "losing side"?

On a separate note, it's never been an actual requirement in RFAs that all users are expected to disclose all material information relevant to an RFA they vote in, let alone nominate. Due to the sheer importance of this point, it would have been written explicitly into policy if those discussions (even at WT:RFA) yielded a consensus - it did not. The expectation is so utterly flawed - particular for RFAs that (for all we know) may have went ahead in a similar fashion prior to now. Enacting such a harsh motion for the nominator would guarantee that nobody will come forward and be honest about prior RFAs. The first motion states that the user "has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position" - the deciding question is this: had the user thought so at the time, would the outcome be indifferent? As humiliating as the bitter facts may be (that a user sanctioned by ArbCom "got away", that some ArbCom members supported the adminship request, that the user got tools from a nomination made by an ArbCom clerk who was aware of it, that a fellow-arb felt the need to resign because of similar awareness), only 3 arbitrators are actually talking sense on motion 2.1 - I hope everyone else opens their eyes. We don't need forced-RFAs, forced-recall, forced admin conduct RFC, etc (just because desysop option fails) as it will needlessly prolong this further; no more drama please. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The comments are a little too oblique to know who you're referring to. Who's conduct here warrants admonishments "similar" to the sanctions under consideration? Are any other administrators socking? Are other admins making statements intended to mislead? If so they they too may lose the trust of the community and be considered by some untrustworthy to use the tools. If you mean to say that those against whom a behavioral complaint may be lodged should not complain of administrator behavior, I do not follow it. You put quotes around "concerned" (five people have used that word to describe their state here) and "losing side" (nobody but you has used that). Who is taking it this way? On what do you base your claim that commentators here are "battling to get rid of" others and see themselves as on a winning versus losing side when they voice their concerns? That seems to conclude bad faith. Is there a reason to think those ostensibly upset by sockpuppetry actually have ulterior motives?

The requirement that people not lie is implicit everywhere in life. In real life, lying about material things (intending to cause reliance, when reliance occurs) is fraud, and is a violation of every procedure where it occurs. Real world laws do not each have a fraud provision. Fraud is read in where it occurs. Similarly, truthfulness is part of every policy. It would be pointless to add a "no deception" clause to each. The point raised is not that people should disclose everything that may interest others in their RfA comments, but rather that they should not deliberately deceive by misrepresenting things.

As I've said elsewhere, the temptation to lie when caught should no be honored by refusing to punish admitted misdeeds in hopes that people will admit to them. As for whether we "need" forced review of discredited administrators, many in the community think so. The proposition that, once appointed, administrators are beyond review, accountability, or sanction, even after unapologetically violating basic rules of adminship, would imply the whole system is broken and needs to be redone - given that the community has no voice here, something that would most likely would require intervention from staff.

To avoid drama, we ought to firmly and swiftly deal with this and put an end to socking as best we can. Meanwhile, I would not blame so-called "drama" on the reasonable objections many have to what happened - it is the people who did it who caused the drama. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then, you should consider whether the comments are for you to know. In this case, they were for arbs, and they will know who I'm referring to on reviewing their votes+accompanying-comments, and a few of the statements/comments made at the requests page. But to clarify one point for your benefit: I was not talking about general commentators when I touched on the battleground issue; I was talking about users directly involved in this.

Beyond that, you seem to be talking nonsense: the notion that the community has no voice is utter rubbish - disagreement does not mean no voice. For forced admin processes, if many in the community think it is good enough, developing a process and/or making it into policy is the way to go. Desparately trying to get ArbCom to do it is a foolish thing to be doing; unless the drama, problems, and loss, caused for ArbCom so far has not been enough. And what you expound with respect to lies and so on is nothing more than a noble dream, given what has occurred on site over many years - these problems cannot be remedied with your approach. To call it a "no deception clause" that is applicable anywhere is overly simplistic and does nothing to remedy the underlying problem; a more nuanced approach is the only way to avoid test-cases - which this one is, undisputedly.

Users should be expected to find ways to resolve issues with the least amount of drama. In these particular circumstances, users who go out of their way to make problems bigger (by pursuing a dispute inappropriately) need to have such conduct recognised, as they are responsible for the extent of the drama caused. It's a cancerous problem. Two wrongs does not mean that one of the two is wrong. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Regarding my "utter nonsense", sorry if my point was unclear. It appears unlikely that the community can institute arbcom confirmation and recall process. Many have wanted to for some time and those proposals don't get a hearing. There's nothing desperate and nothing foolish about observing that ArbCom could be more forceful in policing administrator behavior, although I'm not tryign to "get" ArbCom to do anything in this case. I'm simply pointing out that honesty can be required without writing that rule into every procedure. There's nothing simplistic about this widespread real world principal of rule interpretation: misrepresentation in complying with rules is noncompliance. I don't know the players involved so I can't judge who may be pursuing this inappropriately, but on the face of it that looks like a finding of bad faith with no evidence presented. If you want to call complaining having a voice then the community has one, but if admins cannot be recalled and ArbCom refuses to act except on the most egregious of violations, the complaints are futile and the voice is meaningless. There is some noise, bluster, and hyperbole on both sides, but it seems dismissive to characterize people's expressions of disappointment as mere drama, while at the same time advocating for inaction. This is actionable if ArbCom chooses to act. I'm not saying it should; the position that these particular admins' actions do not rise past the level of an admonition is reasonable. It just seems strange to categorically rule out the proposition that honesty is an enforceable requirement of adminship. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with Ncmvocalist.

Adding my own thoughts: those who have used the present circumstances for score settling and who have caused horrible disruption with their actions have gotten strong encouragement from the Arbs ignoring these behaviors. Those who admitted what they had done are being punished while those who remained quiet are getting off completely. This process has been an atrocity. There is no clear policy for whether editors or admins have to disclose what they know about policy violations. There is no clear policy on whether candidates at RfA have to disclose past accounts. And for good reason. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in punitive and vindictive campaigning against people who may have made mistakes in the past (or simply no understood the gamesmanship that goes on here and been on the wrong end of it). This process has been corrupted from the start by self-serving abuse. That none of the Arbs have stood up to suggest that this is an encyclopedia building effort and that our punitive justice system and these witch hunts are disruptive and damaging (far more so than the oversights of the accused) is truly unfortunate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Although you are talking about the encyclopedia building effort you are still not getting the message fully clear, CoM. If you really care about building the encyclopedia you should focus from now on on that goal. But if you keep pointing out to the 'other side' then your goal will not be achieved. If you agree with Ncmvocalist then you should stop pointing out fingers. Arbs have indeed addressed the witch hunting, the punitive justice system, etc... You've just been busy arguing about televangelists and science above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, Fayssal, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question along this line of reasoning above and received no answers from any arbitrators, (one did comment but did not actually answer any of my questions). I don't know if there's some history with this ChildofMidnight person or something, but I think he makes a valid point in the message to which you're replying. There's a disappointing lack of indication by many of the arbitrators that their actions here are aimed at facilitating the construction and maintenance of an encyclopedia, rather than being aimed at enforcing respect for the authority of the arbitration committee. I say this in general terms, though, as there have been a few glimpses of that attitude among a few arbitrators. I don't often follow arbitration proceedings, and I've only followed this one out of curiosity, mostly driven by me playing a minor role in the argument on IRC which precipitated all of this. But I'm saddened to see that this process seems to be driven more by grudges, egos, and personality conflicts than a focus towards helping the encyclopedia, and these pages have simply become yet another battlefield for what seems like an ongoing conflict. I was afraid of commenting too much, because I don't have want to become just another editor to be dismissed as offhandedly as ChildofMidnight was dismissed above, and I certainly don't have an edit count or name recognition to get much attention. And now I'm rambling, so I'll finish with this: I wish that these proceedings had resulted in a stronger sense of protecting and improving the encyclopedia and less of a sense of protecting the authority of the arbitration committee. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Kmccoy. In fact, your question has been answered via the motion in question and the comments made by the arbitrators. As for the protecting the ArbCom authority I disagree with you. If you read well my multiple posts at this page you'd see that my main aim (other arbs have shown theirs while voting) is to end -or at least fight- the battleground mentality characterized by on and off-wiki politics.

If you'd note, CoM still uses "their", "those who", etc... So, naturally, as an arbitrator I'd need to advise him that that is not the proper way to build the encyclopedia. And, of course, I don't base my replies on the edit counts of the users I am replying to.

Now, for people to really build the encyclopedia, they really need to stop being "mostly driven by playing a minor role in the argument on IRC which precipitates all of this and that". IRC is not an encyclopedia and problems and arguments there should stay there.

Please take my reply here as an advice; it is not my intention to be tough or authoritative. It is just natural to respond this way to people coming straight from IRC -regardless of the username or the edit count. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I said "Those who admitted what they had done are being punished while those who remained quiet are getting off completely." So your objection to my wording seems nonsensical. I used "those" as a pronoun to refer to various parties involved. Feel free to substitute alternate wording if you'd like. And I used "their" as a possesive pronoun (if that's the right terminology) instead of repeating my identification of the editors causing this disruption, who are encouraging the witch hunt and using the circumstances to settle old scores. That you'd disrupt the discussion with meaningless semantics is very unfortunate. After all the Arbs are doing real damage to the encyclopedia building effort by encouraging abuse of process by people with vendettas and ulterior motives. Since you are playing a substantial part in this counterproductive activity, I suggest you reread my comment and think carefully about its meaning and implications instead of questioning my word choice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that it's easy to see the three letters "IRC" and immediately respond with something negative, but would you mind giving me the respect of not quoting me out of context? As I said, my minor involvement with the incident on IRC was simply had me curious enough to read these pages. I did not participate in the dispute, nor did I bring a dispute from IRC to Wikipedia. Your focus on such a minor comment in my post and a lack of any real answer to the meat of my concern just continue to disappoint me. I apologize for thinking that I could participate. Thanks anyway. kmccoy (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@FayssalF, Wait wtf, what sort of weird way is that to respond to someone's query? Kmccoy seemed mostly interested in the fact that a question he asked earlier wasn't answered, and merely pointed out that he didn't usually stop by Arb discussions, and happened to be curious about this one because he was talking about it on IRC... and you replied with a comment to state that he shouldn't be "mostly driven by playing a minor role in the argument on IRC which precipitates all of this and that". He didn't seem to be saying that he had rushed here directly from IRC with some weird idea of this incident. Rather condescending of you IMO to reply in that tone, "It is just natural to respond this way to people coming straight from IRC", really, I thought that people on IRC were editors as well, to me IRC was just a method of communication faster than talk pages, and less formal; but meh I guess it doesn't really matter seeing as I didn't come straight here from IRC. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to Kmccoy. However, the fact about IRC remains. It is clear that it is a very effective tool for instant communication but as a subscriber to arbcom-l we receive from time to time logs from IRC users showing inappropriate behavior. Most of the time the IRC problems affect the smooth running of the encyclopedia. What I say... when people have problems off-wiki they should keep it there. Recently an admin was blocked here for an on-wiki offense a couple of days after tensions started on IRC.

As for CoM, I have no doubt that he has to change his collegial behavior and cease the battleground mentality. If you are unsure of which kind of problematic behavior I am referring to you can use this as an example. That is unacceptable as a wiki behavior. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fayssal please don't ignore WMC's thread immediately above the one I posted trying to propagate was the lie that I had some involvement with Undertow, who I had never even heard of until the recent disputes.

Since you have played a large part in encouraging the battlefield mentality and the score settling disruption we've seen, I find it ironic that you would point the finger at others. There's no ignoring that your decisions have been punitive, haven't benefitted the encyclopedia, haven't prevented disruption, haven't addressed the abuse of noticeboards and arbcom by those using them to win content disputes and for personal vendettas, that you're punishing people for rules you won't even sign on to, and that those who acknowledged involvement are punished while those refusing to say what they knew get off scot-free. Perhaps this is your idea of justice and useful action, but it most certainly isn't mine. That you would encourage the very abuses you accuse others of engaging in seems clownish. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, and I don't mean to stir the pot or promote drama, or anything like that - but I want to make sure it's crystal clear to me. The remedies proposed here deal with the three administrators who failed to act on their knowledge of Law and Undertow's connection - Glasscobra, Jennavecia, and Jayron32. This stems primarily from their involvement at the Law RFA. My question is this: If any of the several dozen other administrators who participated there also knew about the connection, is there any sanction for them? Put another way, if some admin later (inadvertantly or otherwise) reveals that they knew about the connection, and supported the RFA anyway, would there be some sort of sanction on them?

Should there be such sanctions? I don't know. But the three admins who are being sanctioned here are the ones who confessed, and the ones who knew but said nothing will receive no sanction. I want to make sure we're clear on that - or, I want to clear up my misunderstanding, if that's not the case. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A group of administrators undertook to effectively reverse an ArbCom placed block and de-sysop. The acted in secret without the required public notice and discussion. I brought this case against those who I perceived to be the leaders of the movement. Jennavecia gave the Law sock puppet rollback access, and posted multiple times to Law's RfA. GlassCobra made the nomination. Jayron32 later came forward and disclosed his involvement, which was less than the other two, and he appears to be receiving an admonishment. I think these motions include an implicit admonishment of any unnamed parties who knowingly supported the sock puppet at RfA. Would you prefer an explicit admonishment of them? Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Jennavecia and Glasscobra's offenses are different in scale than Jayron's, and I don't dispute that. My main concern is that the primary difference between Jayron and other undisclosed admins is just that - they are undisclosed. With respect, I don't see an implicit anything, given that the remedy reminding and encouraging the admin corps is not (yet) passing. It's a precedent, yes, and that has value for future incidents - but the concern is that it doesn't really say "Don't help blocked users sock, and especially don't help them pass RFA" but it says "Don't get caught helping blocked users sock, and especially don't admit it...", which isn't really that great of a precedent. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

At some level, any rebuke directed at people who are caught for something or admit to something has to the unscrupulous the message of "don't get caught and don't admit anything." That's true in any system. There's nothing we can do about that. The fact that others have not come forward is an implicit demonstration that they (if they exist) understand that the ArbCom and the community is upset with their action. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point by Ultraexactzz. I believe it is implicit as per Jehochman and JoshuaZ summarizes the situation very well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a random drive-by suggestion, and feel free to take it or leave it - but the first sentence seems necessary, useful and agreeable, and it's after that that it's getting tangled up in knots. Perhaps proposing an alternative motion consisting solely of the first sentence of 6/6.1 would break the deadlock? Orderinchaos 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Jennavecia contests that she was unaware of the link between The Undertow and Law at the time she granted rollback. She maintains that she granted it in response to a request on her talkpage in the same way that any other admin normally would.

As a result it may be prudent to enhance the rollback policy so that editors have to request it through a standard process instead of contacting an admin directly. It may be instruction creep, but it would protect admins somewhat from granting rollback to socks that they are unaware of at the time. Many thanks, Gazimoff 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I'm somewhat concerned that this may be in conflict with rationales given for supports 5, 6 and 7. Far be it from me to question ArbCom, but the arbitrators concerned may feel it's appropriate to review their statements in light of this recent information. Many thanks, Gazimoff 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did Jenna make this claim? Frankly, given her earlier comments that claim seems a bit incredible. This is her best friend in the whole wide world and he didn't tell her who he was when he requested rollback? The account was active for 23 days before he requested rollback. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[7] from what I can see. I'm still looking to see if it's been mentioned on wiki. That said, what reason would she have to lie? AGF unless there's very hard evidence to the contrary, and all that. Many thanks, Gazimoff 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What reference is there to this rollback issue in rationales given for supports 5, 6 and 7? The only reference I see is in rationale 2: "there is no evidence of misuse of admin tools" in relation to this incident, written in knowledge of the granting of rollback.[8] The indication is that the Arbs were aware of this additional issue and deliberately did not include it as part of the rationale. . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that link - it would appear that KillerChihuahua's comment there and Jennavecia's own statement on the subject are in conflict. KillerChihuahua states that "she knew at the time he was an ArbCom-ban-evading-sock", which Jennavecia's account does not agree with.

Anyway, to try and demonstrate my concern further is a quote from Vassyana's statement on motion 4.1 (support 5), which states "Knowingly granting rollback to a block-evading sock account, regardless of noble intentions, is a blatant abuse of the admin tools". He goes on to add "Her failure to accept that [...] unfortunately leads me to support to this measure". Wizardman adds in support 6 "Was teetering, but Vassyana's note puts me over", while support 7 from FayssalF also concludes "Per Vassyana".

While I hate to nitpick on the topic, it would be regrettable for an Arbcom motion to succeed based on a challenged and unclear version of events, instead of agreed findings of fact. I think this is something we can all appreciate and understand. Many thanks, Gazimoff 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, 5 and 6 do note the issue. However, they will be aware of this discussion and there are inconsistencies in Lara's excure of today: see below. . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict) I don't think there is anything more to find. Lara told the entire story very openly here: [9] where she said she knew all about the Law user becoming The Undertow with all the associated personal background that evidently developed. It is clearly not feasible that she did not know that The Undertow was the same editor as The Law when she granted rollback. Leaky Caldron 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your response. But as her statement does not mention when she discovered that Law was The Undertow, and she has further stated that she did not know they were the same at the time when rollback was granted, we are left with a conundrum. In absence of hard evidence to the contrary or Findings of Fact, our only option is to AGF. I hope this makes sense. Many thanks, Gazimoff 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this statement confirms prior knowledge: "I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too......AC was silent, though. So he went on as Law and I supported him in that."

I admit that there seems to be some ambiguity in the statements. I'll ask Jennavecia to expand on this area in order to help bring some clarity. Many thanks, Gazimoff 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That was what I was basing my belief that she knew on; she is saying she supported him coming on as Law, which is saying she knew at creation Law was the undertow. "So he went on as Law and I supported him in that." If she's saying otherwise now, she misspoke before, or she's revising history now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that it's ambiguous, and it's easy to infer one from the other. It's why I've asked Jennavecia for clarification on her talkpage. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ambiguity? They are contradictory, so one is untrue. Doesn't seem to be a plus for Jennavecia. Verbal chat 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<ec> Her statement does say she had previously written to the Arbs, and "So he went on as Law and I supported him in that" with the paragraph implying shat she was in full discussion with him at the time he began the Law sock. She has contact with the Arbs and full opportunity to raise them that with them, but as far as is known has only mentioned it in passing this evening (UTC) in offsite gossip. It also raises the interesting ethical point of what she should have done when, accepting this offsite excuse, she found this editor she'd given rollback to was her best friend in the whole world who hadn't told her for three weeks he'd been using this sock, and had asked her to investigate that his sock was rollback worthy without telling her. Guess love is blind, but not very reliable. So, interesting to ponder, and your post has rightly brought it to attention for the arbs to review. . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) correction to grammar dave souza, talk 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Law received Rollback permissions on 30 September 2008 (per the log). Jennavecia notes on her talk page (here) that she became aware of the fact that Law was the sock account being used by Undertow on 5 December (Presumably after this exchange). It makes sense that Undertow would ask for rollback from Jennavecia, given the relationship - she's the admin he knows best. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to accept that Jennavecia didn't know who Law was, both based on their "BFF" status, and also the amount of posts that each were placing on the other's talkpages. For example, I found this exchange interesting on September 26 (four days before the rollback request), when the three of them (Law, Undertow, and Jennavecia) seemed to be having an exchange, where Law and Undertow were seemingly getting in an "argument" with each other (see this comment from Law with an edit summary, "Just wtf to the undertow".[10] And "Undertow" accused Law of being a sock of "JV" (Jennavecia).[11] Obvious deception, considering that Law and Undertow were being run by the same person, just going back and forth between two accounts and "arguing" with himself. I also found other comments by Law to Jennavecia's page where he was referring to his real-life career, which surely Jennavecia knew about. --Elonka 23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, "a lot of chatter between the accounts" is meaningless. My talkpage is #8 on User:Malleus Fatuorum's all-time most edited pages list, and I think it's safe to say he's not my sockpuppet, meatpuppet or any other kind of puppet. FWIW as of 25 November 2008 when Law/t_u confirmed the connection to me, he told me "she [Lara] currently has no idea". Believe what you want to believe. – iridescent 23:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, could you point out those comments by Law about his job that occurred before Sept 30? A quick scan by me didn't find any. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably moot at this point, but to answer your question, the comment I ran across was on November 19, 2008.[12] The context of the comment is also interesting, because Lara was saying that Law should be an admin, and Law replied that he didn't wish to nominate himself, but that he would look into it during tax season. Which is exactly when the Law RfA did run, in April 2009. --Elonka 06:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. You can understand now why I'm concerned about a motion being supported without further investigation, considering the the level of deception that Law was conducting to distinguish his sock from his original main account to avoid being discovered by Jennavecia. It's a complex issue, no doubt. Gazimoff 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this in more detail, it looks more plausible that Lara is telling the truth about this claim. Although it does still strain credibility that she wouldn't recognize even after extensive interaction her "BFF". JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Later on the same page of WR at [13] Lara says "I granted Chip rollback" (perhaps implying she knew him) and on the next page when asked specifically about the rollback issue she appears to obfuscate on the question. Would an admin. normally grant rollback to a new user of only 23 days? When I requested it the admin. I asked, bless her, gave me a mini Spanish Inquisition! Leaky Caldron 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate you were grilled over the issue of rollback - my own was a simple request-grant process. And yes, I know admins used to commonly give out rollback about 3 to 4 weeks after an account was created - the whole point was for it to be easy to grand and remove. I can only apologise that your own experience wasn't as smooth. Gazimoff 23:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't put out by it in the slightest. The questions were fairly put and fully justified. Leaky Caldron 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've notified Flo, as well as Vassanya, about this discrepency. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[14] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To make life easier for all concerned, the dif KC is pointing to is Vassanya's rationale which points to a remark by Lara in which Lara wrote "Tool abuse my ass. Any admin can grant rollback at their discretion. Did he abuse it? No. Which I knew he wouldn't, considering I know him." That seems pretty clear cut. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I realized after making that post that I didn't recall giving him rollback. I went back and checked the dates and saw that I had done it before finding out. But fuck it, I wouldn't believe me either. Lara 01:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2 days ago. Lara 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, my fate is sealed and this doesn't matter, but I'll clear this up anyway. I don't recall the date he told me he was editing again, but it was the week he appealed his ban to ArbCom. I asked him what the name was, he didn't tell me. I suggested he appeal his ban. He did that, he got no response, so I supported him to continue editing.

He would talk to me about what he had been doing on-wiki, but he wouldn't give me specific enough information for me to go look at a page and find him. I tried to figure out the account based on things he would say, just to satisfy my own curiosity, but it wasn't something I put a lot of effort into.

Law, as XF Law, posted to my talk page one day. I don't recall when, but fairly early on. I clicked the sig link and saw that the editor was in San Diego and there was a sushi userbox. I thought I'd found him. I clicked the contribs and they didn't seem to show the pages he'd discussed, of course he hadn't necessarily edited the pages he talked about, but I didn't think about that until just now. Anyway, I had made a few wrong guesses and so just dismissed it as not being him.

On December 5, he had been drinking and posted a really strange message to my talk page, something he would do as the_undertow, though usually less weird. I talked to him the next day and asked if it was him. He said it was. He also pointed out that if I looked at the contribs I would notice that the articles he edited were on topics he and I had been talking about on any given day, and he was surprised I hadn't figured it out before considering he'd been putting himself in my view for weeks.

It wasn't until he slipped up (or whatever you want to call it) with that drunk message that he started telling people who he was. As for the discussion Elonka pointed out, that's a whole other story, but I didn't know that was him. Feel free to ask questions on my talk page or even by e-mail. It's not necessary to state assumptions as fact, though I suppose it may not be intentional. The wording in my statement was to distinguish between the two accounts (the_undertow and Law). I didn't even consider it when I was typing it. He wasn't Law at that time anyway. He changed his name to Law later. Lara 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems very believable. The level of detail is more than a liar would generally give (unless one was a very good liar) and this is completely consistent with the difs. I also have trouble believing that after everything that has happened that Lara would be lying here. That may be because I'm still having emotional trouble assimilating her actions- the level of deception that occurred with the RfA seems out of character to my mental image of Lara(and I may just have a shitty theory of mind). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Joshua. SarcasticIdealist asked on WR today if people (those supporting me) would be reacting the same if it had been other editors in mine and GC's shoes. Surprisingly (to me at least), I hadn't looked at it from that perspective. I really didn't see what the big deal was until I read his sentence. Even knowing it was a hypothetical I was reading, it stirred emotion and it clicked. Anyway, I'll elaborate more after the case is done. Lara 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Joshua, what you say is believable and I accept it. From personal experience at work, concealing something adds to stress and can lead to misjudgements, and you've been in a very difficult situation. If you can look at things from other people's perspective that will be a good way forward, hope it all works out in time. . dave souza, talk 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did look at it from other people's perspective. I just didn't do it until today, which was quite a bit too late. I've resigned. I'm going to take a couple days break before coming back to try to fix this. Thanks to Jehochman and Joshua as well for not taking advantage of a perfect opportunity to kick me while I'm down. Lara 04:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple of anecdotes from life which I hope help: in my early career taking minutes (written records) of contract meetings, I gave in to the temptation to present them from my viewpoint until it became clear that it worked much better to represent the "other side" fairly and not add in things I wish I'd said at the time. Later I concealed failing eyesight for a time, that got very tricky but people were much more helpful than I'd feared. Live and learn, I guess. All the best and hope to see you around, dave souza, talk 04:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think Lara is a liar. Her statements should be taken at face value. The rollback issue is not decisive. I was aware of it from the start but did not mention it in my request because it did not seem to be the central issue. There are good reasons to support the motions; there is no need to cite dubious reasons, which can only generate more strife. Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Three Arbs are using that logic in their votes. Note that it would still be a majority without that but this seems not great when three arbs are voting for a desysoping on questionable grounds. It also sets up an implicit finding of fact that Lara did abuse the tools, which seems to not be the case in reality. That's not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By my count, which should be rechecked, only two Arbs were using that logic, and both have reconsidered their statements in light of these discussions. . dave souza, talk 04:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are the admonishment and desysopping motions mutually exclusive? It doesn't seem like they absolutely must be, and previous counts held them to be passing simultaneously, but Hersfold's most recent version of the "implementation notes" has only one or the other passing based on which has more support. Nathan ^T 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, they are not mutally exclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking just predicatively (not remotely authoritatively)-- Carcharoth has called for a separate vote, so that will almost certainly occur. Since there will always be equal-to-or-more support for an admonishment than for a desysop, it would be just silly to rigidly treat them as alternatives. If a case ever did treat them as alternatives, surely it is because the arbs have informally thought it through and decided (as a body) to settle on mere admonishment. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, this would make no sense. The error lies mostly in my formulation and formatting, and in the way I have voted which confused matters. The intent was not to allow the nonsensical situation where a weaker measure that passes overrides the stronger measure if it also passes; there is no reason that an editor cannot be admonished and desysop.

My own votes were meant to indicate that I felt the strong admonition was sufficient, but I also supported (though did not prefer) the desysop. I will go and clarify my votes now. — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The first people voting often need to review their voting because of the additional comments, new motions, and ongoing events. We'll get this sorted out now that we've all voted. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The clerks are interpreting those remedies as exclusive. If this is not the case, and each admonishment and desysopping remedies are supposed to be alternatives, then clarification from the Committee would be appreciated. AGK 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The current implementation notes are correct, as endorsed by those voting to close the motions. The earlier confusion was over whether a passing admonishment can have more support than a passing desysop. As Coren points out, it was never intended that a weaker measure (admonishment) would override a stronger one (desysop) that is also passing. There is still some confusion over a different matter, which is whether it makes any sense to pass both an admonishment and a desysop. Some think you can have both, while others think that the desysop inherently includes an admonishment, and thus the admonishment should be dropped once the desysop has passed. Jennavecia's case shows the importance of completing voting on both, since her resignation made the desysop moot, but the admonishment still stands. But really, the important thing is that the current implementation notes are correct, and those should be used as the basis for closing and enacting the motions. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

By adopting the first two and rejecting the third, the committee is effectively doing two Very Bad Things:

1. Since it's not willing to make a statement barring this kind of thing as a "well, obviously!" behavior in the future, it runs the risk of creating the impression that this is a punishment given at the request of "the mob".
2. Since the committee clearly does not see point 5 as something entailed by other policies, the other two decisions don't make any sense.

This is dangerous stuff. I strongly urge the committee to stick to admonishing, rather than sanctions, if they are not willing to endorse an interpretation of policy and community consensus that would apply to all.

FWIW, I think point 5 is probably not a bad idea, but it's something to be discussed by the community, not just a small subset thereof. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, if you read the individual arbitrators' comments, that you'll find that the problem isn't so much disagreement that this is barred behavior so much as how exactly — and whether — the committee can (and should) make certain the community works it out. — Coren ^(talk) 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when voting to sanction editors, do the arbitrators take into consideration the potential consequences their actions will have? For example, if an administrator is single-handedly maintaining a particular process (and the issues at hand were unrelated to this process) would the effects of desysopping said admin be relevant to the arbitrators' decisions? Please note that this is a legitimate question; not an attempt to prove some kind of a point. Thanks in advance for the answers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Such considerations might cut both ways-- if a particular admin was singlehandedly maintaining some process, that might be all the more reason to remove them, if there were judgment/trust concerns. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my apologies for not being clear. I've clarified my initial question. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That would depend, I expect, on the arbitrator, the editor, and the function in question. I, for one, am not inclined to consider this at all. I work under the assumption that nobody is irreplaceable (or, for that matter, that nobody should be irreplaceable— having someone whose departure would make a system fail is a critical operational failure in itself). I don't believe in the concept that good contributions in one area compensate or forgive for misbehavior in another in any way.

There is inherent danger in the belief that someone who does something very good should be given more leeway rather than be held to higher standards (they should, after all, know better): it leads to disenfranchisement for everyone else. It doesn't take much to make people feel injustice and if they see some people being "more equal" than they, they'll soon find something else to do. — Coren ^(talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Coren. I must add that I have a great deal of respect for people who work hard especially in a problematic area. But that respect should not be used as a shield protecting them from being accountable like any other especially when the actions of that person become problematic themselves. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)