Arb retires while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases. Two cases are currently open.

Open cases

(See earlier Signpost coverage for background about this case.) During the week, the evidence which was submitted on-wiki by the filer of the case (now blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user) was collapsed. Other parties made modifications and additions to their on-wiki evidence.

(See earlier Signpost coverage for background about this case.) During the week, 11 of the 15 active arbitrators voted on the principles and findings of fact drafted by Elen of the Roads. In the coming week, arbitrators are expected to submit more votes in the remedies section of the proposed decision; currently, proposals concerning three individual editors and a discretionary sanctions scheme are being considered.

Motion

An arbitration case request regarding administrator Nabla (talk · contribs) was declined. Instead, the Committee enacted a motion, which was passed 13 to 1 (with 1 abstention):

The Committee reaffirmed its expectation (along with the Community's expectation) that admins will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While admins are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and Community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.

Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Committee joined in disapproving of this behavior, but accepted Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.

Nabla is aware from the relevant admin noticeboard discussion, as well as the arbitration case request, that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective admin has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an admin, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies. The Committee recommended that he initially focus on less controversial admin tasks.

The Committee noted that to an extent, the recommendations in 3. apply to any admin after a long period of inactivity.

Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Committee expressed its awareness of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive admin accounts. The Committee indicated that it stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined.

Other

Arbitrator resigns

The Committee announced that Shell Kinney resigned from her position as an arbitrator. A few hours before the announcement was made official, Shell Kinney put a "retired" tag on her userpage with an edit summary that said "update". Her name was also removed from the list of current members of the Arbitration Committee.

The resignation has come at a time where several email threads of arbcom-l, the Committee's non-public mailing list, continue to be leaked on Wikipedia Review. See also last week's Signpost coverage.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

4 July 2011 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

For clarity, this report (and its author) are observing that the email leaks issue has not been resolved when the resignation occurred; the resignation occurred at a time where/while the emails continue to be published. This is not a statement or suggestion regarding who is responsible for the leaks (and it would be unfair to interpret it as a suggestion or attempt at aspersion-casting). The Signpost is specifically limiting itself to the statements from the earlier coverage linked in the report. Should further information about the source of the leak be identified, we will let our readers know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Nobody reads comments 2) The Signpost is not sophisticated enough to do this, but it's not "bad faith" - in some cases, phrasing like the above often is used to convey a connection, an implicit nudge-and-wink. This is usually done in a situation where there is evidence, but it wouldn't hold up in court and stating the connection outright would be cause for a libel lawsuit. Again, this isn't at the level, it's just poor phrasing. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd prefer the title to be “Arb resigns; mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin” so that it doesn't appear to imply what it's not actually saying. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The leaks are mentioned under the heading of "Arbitrator resigns" and the two are linked, if only temporally, within one sentence. Regardless of the writer's intent, this gives the very strong appearance of innuendo. It is at best extremely poor phrasing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  ACK. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Shell Kinney has now confirmed that her resignation was connected with the leaks - not in the sense of any wrongdoing on her part, but I can't see that assertion in the report either. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not assertion, rather, poor phrasing, which in different circumstances could be an implication. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the subtitle was changed here from a previous wording similar to that suggested above. My issue with the wording 'while mailing list leaks continue' is that is it just plain inaccurate. It appears (though it is not certain) that this was a one-time leak and that the drip-drip of postings on Wikipedia Review is from a copy of the archives that was downloaded and is now being selectively released. This looks like it will happen for the foreseeable future until those posting the extracts at Wikipedia Review get bored. Are you going to say every week that the leaks are 'continuing'? You might also want to note that the person claiming to be the original leaker ('Wikileaker') is now posting what they have, so you have the bizarre situation of rival leakers 'competing' for attention. Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carcharoth that the phrasing "leaks continue" is misleading (and that's generous). I also think the timing of the resignation and the leaks is not coincidental, but I disagree that the Signpost should imply this absent evidence. I do not see the admission of the connection that HaeB sees, but I'm not good at penumbras, so perhaps I just don't know how to parse the tea leaves.--SPhilbrick T 17:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the leaker has appeared on Wikipedia Review. Count Iblis (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to a different leaker - there are two different people (I assume) leaking documents now -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]