User talk:Elen of the Roads

I'm at work at the moment. Give me till this evening to post a statement - the Arb statement (which I only saw an hour or so ago) isn't the full tale. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I must disagree with Dennis in respect of the "trust" Elen has gained. She went on record flatly denying that arbcom held a secret page on me - brusquely dismissing my claims out of hand. A few days later a fellow arbitrator emailed me to confirm the page did indeed exist. Oops. Naturally I won't be voting for Elen at the fortcoming election. However - neither am I calling for her resignation over this issue (and certainly not her admin tools, which would seem unrelated). So as someone who honestly thinks ARBCOM would be far better off without Elen of The Roads, but as someone who thinks Elen should certainly be an admin I have to disagree with the IP's knee-jerk request. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck latter half. More stuff falls out and SandyGeorgia has made some fine points. I note the motion below. Good. If Elen thinks she should remain an admin is up to her, I guess. If she thinks she should remain a contributor to Wikipedia is also up to her as well. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, there never was a seekrit Arbcom page. The Arbitrator who contacted you was the only one who had any idea what you were talking about, which wasn't a seekrit Arbcom page at all. Still, why spoil a good story. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have an email with a subject line of "The Secret Page - it exists" it rather looks like you're wrong. I'll not go further. Evidently disclosing private e-mails is your expertise not mine. Pedro :  Chat 

Not saying the page didn't exist. Just that it was something only one person remembered the existence of, not a page where Arbcom were actively plotting to throw you off the project, which was what you thought at the time. Which was a bit confusing, since no-one was fortunately. But you know that - you've got that email which explains it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC) That sounds snarky, and Pedro really was genuinely worried at the time that he was the subject of some Arbcom campaign to get rid of him, because of this page filed away somewhere that should have been deleted ages before it eventually was.[reply]

• With respect to Pedro (as I'm sure he knows, real respect, not
  fake respect), I think we'd be better off with you (Elen) remaining on ArbCom for 2013-15. Per Wehwalt above, there are candidates that I find worrying. You might not be better off, but I'm a selfish bastard so I don't care. WRT to everything else, I agree with a comment you've made in your statement below: the one thing that concerns me is your lack of transparency when ArbCom asked what happened. That was a mistake, but assuming you're human, you get to make those occasionally, and it doesn't rise to the level of negating the good work you do, and the benefit of having you on AC. It's a hallmark of dysfunctional organizations that they react to small mistakes with firings, so I'm not sure what the future holds, but if you choose to continue to run, I'm still supporting your candidacy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To be honest Floq, the mistake was dragging some poor third party into it at all. I should have just posted on my talkpage to start with and not involved anyone else. But I needed someone to talk to, and then I was trying to avoid shit getting thrown at him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was trying to imagine what I would have done in your position. It seems pretty... "lonely", I guess I'll say... maybe "insular" is a better word... not to be able to bounce ideas about non-private information off of someone unless they're already on the AC. If this was someone's private information, of course, you can't go sharing that, and having to deal with that kind of thing alone is, I guess, why you Arbs make the big money. But discussing, with a non-arb, the content of the JClemens email I see posted on his talk page doesn't seem wrong; I might have done the same thing if it troubled me. Much of the reaction I've seen so far seems draconian.

I guess I can think of several things that might improve the situation in the future. But since they don't involve putting JClemens' head or your head on pikes, or overthrowing ArbCom, or assigning blame, I don't imagine people are interested in hearing them right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends - I might be interested if it involves getting

hammered.--v/r - TP 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No heads on spikes? Then I'm not interested either.

Fatuorum 01:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Might have been better to discuss it with another arbitrator, or a former arb who is still on the mailing list (unless they got rid of that). Is it established that your confidant/e spilled the email? Anyway I see an error of judgment on Elen's part, but not a fatal one based on what's known so far. Even the CIA director can't keep email private, so the rest of us have no hope. I'm comfortable with Elen staying on arbcom, just be more careful next time. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They got rid of the having old arbs stay subscribed forever thing. It would have been better to discuss it with another Arb. That was poor judgement. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[18]. Courcelles 20:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I first of all confirm that I have at no time ever disclosed any of the sensitive personal information that has been sent to the arbcom mailing list. The mailing list software distributes email sent to the list (it's not webmail). When I cease to be an arbitrator, I will dump that part of my email archive. There is no requirement for ex-arbs to do this, but any UK organisation that permitted ex-employees to retain sensitive personal data after they left would suffer legal consequences, so I believe it is the correct thing to do.

Second, can I confirm that I am not the person sending anonymous emails. If I particularly wanted Coren to see that piece of text, I would just have sent it to him. I don't know who is behind that.

What JClemens had said about what he would do when he ran for Arbcom was said as part of a rambling conversation between a number of committee members, which got round to Hobbes Leviathan at one point. It moved on to civility, and views from the recent case were rehashed. Following this, JClemens sent the email on his talkpage, indicating that he was going to ask candidates whether a particular statement by Malleus Fatuorum should have resulted in a ban and, if not, why not. As has been alluded to elsewhere, several Arbs indicated that it was not appropriate to send it to the list, it belonged off list.

What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat. I was worried that Malleus would react to the question with one of his anglo saxon epithets, and another request for a ban would ensue. People were asking me if I would stand again, I did not want to get involved in this, but I did not know what to do for the best. Yes, I was angry and used some unparliamentary language. And yes, I did reproduce the words as part of the discussion. To say 'at the upcoming election I am going to stand on this platform and ask this question'- it simply did not seem to me to be something that had been said under the seal of the confessional (an absolute guarantee of non-disclosure).

Eventually I concluded that I was over-reacting, and the community would reach it's own verdict, so I just put the note you can see higher up this talkpage.

The next thing I knew, people were apparently getting anonymous emails with the text on JClemens talkpage. Where I do consider I made a substantial error of judgement is not at that point reporting back to Arbcom immediately everything I had said. This was because the person I had confided in assured me they were not sending random emails (and I have no reason to think they were) and I did not want them to be subjected to the hassle they were eventually subjected to.

So that's what happened.

I understand the view of those who say that everything ever said on that list must be under the seal of the confessional. My view is that ultimately a closed list creates an 'us and them' mindset because you can't discuss things with anyone else, and there's no requirement for propriety. I've seen it on a lot of forums, and would prefer to see much better confidentiality for personal data, and less exclusivity in discussion. That said, this was not an attempt to dismantle the list.

I also understand the view of those who don't think it was the sin that cannot be forgiven, but still think it was a huge error of judgement and I'm a complete incompetent.

I also understand the view of those who don't think there is a huge problem, but wouldn't trust me

I refute wild speculation about how I'm going to go mad and publish loads of personal data.

I'll accept whatever happens next. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly clarify what you mean by "What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat.", did this involve the release of email or snippets of emails, including the email Jclemens sent and that was later received by Coren and NW? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also got a quick question: You shared the content of JClemens' mail in private with someone, and then right after that someone else sent the content of that mail around anonymously to various user, but that someone else was neither you nor the person you shared the content of the mail with? --Conti|✉ 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowolf, Conti. Going to answer you both. Sorry, I thought I made it clear it included I think probably all of what's on JC's talkpage, plus the wording of the question he said he was going to ask. Incidentally, under the 'seal of the confessional' rules, just discussing it is as bad an offence as repeating what was actually said. I now know that the person who emailed NW was the person I discussed it with - I didn't discover this until recently. He used his own name and must have anticipated that NW would just refer it back to the committee, which makes me even more convinced he's not behind the anonymous email to Coren. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an honest comment, Elen, although it is vague as Snowolf has pointed out. I'm one of the folks who thinks you made a bad judgement call and you should step down from Arbcom. That said, Elen, I've always had immense respect for you and I still hold you in a high regard. I'm disappointed is all. Good luck.--v/r - TP 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that. See note above re vagueness Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take the completely opposite view, and wish that there were more disclosures about the unsavoury goings on in these secret email lists. Bollocks to the "rules", we need a damn sight more honesty and integrity. But it may be of course that Elen and I have a shared Anglo-Saxon legacy, just that she tones hers down a notch or two. (In the interests of full disclosure it's more likely that my ancestors were Normans, but hey, that was a long time ago now, let's forgive and forget.)

Fatuorum 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Pretty certain my English ancestors were of saxon stock, but we'll let bygones be bygones. It is the problem with any closed list, forum (Delphi moderator forums were often terrible for it) or chat room. If noodling, laundry lists and personal attacks are all under the same seal of the confessional, nothing gets challenged, and it can create a hothouse atmosphere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think the leak was a bad judgement call. Whistle-blowers are necessary to the health of any society. I think not taking ownership early was a bad judgement call. The rest of my comment still applies.--v/r - TP 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who sees something bad happening has a duty to speak out, so I'm wondering why the other sitting arbitrators just sat on their hands rather than exposing Jclemens' bully-boy tactics.

Fatuorum 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

We agree.--v/r - TP 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we do, except for the small matter of Elen stepping down from ArbCom. I hope that she's re-elected with a resounding majority for taking an ethical stand against Jclemens, someone who should never have been elected to ArbCom in the first place.

Fatuorum 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

With respect to Elen, I am not sure how these particular actions can be viewed as ethical. She secretly intimated confidential matters to a group of special friends and then lied to the Committee for weeks. While I am sure her actions in other cases are quite ethical, this situation was handled in one of the worst ways possible. Jeff Kilmar 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is confidential about an election statement? Just curious. What makes the statemet "at the elections I am going to publically do this" confidential? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I should say that you are handling a difficult situation with poise, and I thank you for responding kindly despite the fact that I was criticizing an action of yours. Now since you ask, I understand the view that all material should be public except that which directly involves personally-identifiable data or the like. However, that is not the policy at this time. You surely are more aware than anyone that arbitrators have an expectation of privacy for all list communication. If you wanted to change that, it doesn't seem quite right to just go ahead - that creates a sense of betrayal. Rather, you might have posted a motion to end secret mailing lists. The fact that you disclosed an email that the writer expected to be confidential seems unethical. It has been the case for years that the permission of the sender has been needed to post emails. Maybe that should change - but just suddenly going ahead with disclosure seems a bit off. But others may not agree. Jeff Kilmar 00:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short: If you had told the other arbitrators when you were elected that you intended to disclose their emails, that would have been one thing. But you evidently let them think their communications were private, and then went ahead and disclosed them. That seems a bit underhanded somehow. Jeff Kilmar 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, and a very valid one if I may say. I don't believe JC was aware of my views, although the committee remaining from the previous year would have been aware of previously expressed opinions, as it had come up in discussion before. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you were less than forthright with your fellow committee members in promptly revealing exactly to what information had been released; I fear this may make things more difficult for your future work on the Committee. At the end of the day, what is most important to me is the quality of decisions from the Committee, not occasional lapses of judgement from its individual members. It's fairly obvious to me that we are better off with you on the committee than off of it, so I will be voting for you shortly. NE Ent 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, foolish attempt to deflect the committee's attention from the person I had discussed it with (so they wouldn't blame him for the anonymous malarkey), not realising that he had in consternation bundled everything up and in effect sent it back to the committee. The mistake was dragging a third party into it at all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rather short attention span, and consequently find discussions such as this one difficult to follow without falling asleep. Who is this mysterious third party?

Fatuorum 03:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard
• User_talk:Jclemens?

Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Isn't this quite consistent with last year's leaking scandal? Who's been on the committee long enough to be implicated in both leaks?

Fatuorum 04:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No. The only common thread so far is that both involve disclosure of arbcom l posts. This case is targetted at EotR with a very specific and immediate petty political purpose, the former was some kind of grand statement about/assault on arbcom itself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The last leaks were targeted at me, no "grand statement" that I could see. And this current leak also centres on me. Coincidence?

Fatuorum 04:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite likely. I think the target of the anonymous Gmails was Elen not you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Strike my unhelpful speculation. 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I would like to ask Elen a question. Roger Davies has indicated that there is a sliding greyscale in email communications with arbcom and between arbitrators. That evidently does not apply to sensitive personal data. There is no doubt in my mind that Elen can be completely trusted with that kind of sensitive and confidential data. The matters under discussion here, however, did not involve personal data, but an inappropriate use of arbcom-l as part of an election campaign. I have assumed that prior to the email addressed to Risker published on his talk page, Jclemens had sent a previous shorter email, also concerning ACE2012 and Malleus Fatuorum, to arbcom-l. If so, without mentioning names, had any arbitrators already objected to that previous email as being off-topic or inappropriate for the list before Jclemens sent the second email? Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Elen had a tough choice here - whether to stick to the letter of the rules and abide by the non-publication of a communication that she thought unethical, or to follow a moral course of action in exposing what looks to me like a malicious and bullying misuse of secret ArbCom communications channels and so putting herself at risk. In the event, it looks to me like she went for morality, and tried sounding out a third party - and that led to the whole thing coming out. While I could not recommend the routine publication of private ArbCom communications (because some really do need to be kept confidential), I support Elen's outing of this latest example of Jclemens' arrogant bully-boy tactics - and Mathsci makes a good point that this was not the kind of confidential information that ArbCom often holds about third parties and which really must be kept secret. I sincerely hope Elen's action does not significantly damage her support in the election, and I can only reiterate my own support. I have already cast my Support vote for Elen and my Oppose vote against Jclemens - and I do confess that in each case I clicked the button harder than I would otherwise have done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree with Boing! And, yes, the votes are in. I trust you, I always have, and I see no reason to change. In fact, the morality of this tale adds to my sense of trust. But there is someone within ArbCom who is really, really playing politics here. I know who I think it is but in any event the field narrows with each election. Keep well, and keep doing what you do. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Elen, I know we have had our troubles and I was both surprised and sorry to see this chain of events. I think we both know I know all too well how things can spiral downhill from one bad decision. I just wanted to let you know that I think that you are handling it very well and I hope that this doesn't affect your participation in the project. As others I agree that Arbcom had to do something (and I posted a brief comment about that at the Arbcom page) based on the seriousness of the events and I think they acted pretty fairly, even though it may not seem like it. I doubt it will affect your election so in a month you'll have access to all the tools again and things will be back to normal.
  talk) 03:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thought you could use one of these!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Certainly could. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed all the crap your getting, maybe a cute kitten will cheer you up, if not you can always eat it. You got my vote BTW, I have always been of the opinion you are one of the better admins around here. Cheers.

Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yum, kitten. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing or able to post the responses you gave to the Arbs on November 13th and November 25th respectively regarding the leak? I presume these are the dates where you acknowledged revealing details from the mailing list and I think it would be helpful to know what you specifically told the other Arbs regarding your communications with non-Arbs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in seeing that as well. In the meantime, I have posted my thoughts on the matter at my voter guide. --Elonka 18:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen: I wrote you a note above suggesting that you run again for arbitrator, and I have no regret now for having done so. When this recent brouhaha arose, I considered whether it would be best to vote for you or not in the current election, not because I have any doubt whatsoever about your discretion – which I do not – but simply because I wondered if your re-election might create a new ArbCom that was unable to be effective, given the actions taken by other arbs. In the end, I decided that it was best for the community that you be on the Committee, and that Jclemens not be, and I voted that way. We will see if other Wikipedians see things the way I have or not, but regardless of the outcome of the election, please know that at least one Wikipedian appreciates that you placed the good of the community above all else, and were willing to put yourself on the line. Best of luck to you, in the election and in all else. 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

I wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both, whatever happens. At the end of the day, it's only dispute resolution (and the pay is lousy) :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for absence - had the most humongous migraine and been unable to look at a computer screen for two days.

To answer a few points:-

@Anthonycole - the party I talked to bundled up what I said and passed it to Nuclear Warfare, who promptly forwarded it to Sir Fozzie, who had it by the 13th and was asking about it. According to those who have seen it, what was sent to Coren was slightly different, and I have no idea who sent it. I would not like to speculate that it was another arbitrator, but the request to Coren to verify it by returning it to Arbcom suggests that it was not intended as a tip of but for other reasons.

@Mathsci - Risker and a couple of others had already attempted to shut the discussion down at an earlier stage, as it was in their opinion running completely off the rails. However, another member of the committee argued that there was no precedent for shutting down a discussion as Arbitrators could basically post however they felt led. One problem with this setup, where everything is as sacred as everything else, is that Arbitrators are free to post personal attacks or outrageous statements and there really is not a lot one can do about it.

@TDA and Elonka - it would make about a dozen emails but I will totally put my hands up and say that on the 13th I named the person I had spoken to. I had asked the person I had spoken to, and they said they had not sent any text to anyone, so I tried to protect them by saying (several times) that they did not have any verbatim text, but they did have all the details. This was plumb stupid, and I fully accept all condemnation for being plumb stupid.

I didn't send anything to Arbcom on the 25th. I sent the following message to SilkTork, saying I was going to put it on my talkpage when I got back home (I had no access to a pc at that point), and he forwarded it to Arbcom. I gather Arbcom got the details of what I had discussed with a third party by subjecting him to the "third degree" at some point prior to this.

As I referred to publically above, a couple of weeks ago another member of the committee posted what appeared to me to be an election manifesto to the main arbcom mailing list. As you can see above I disagreed with what he said In fact, I was bloody angry. I viewed it as low politics and was particularly concerned that it would have a very bad impact on a third party who hadn't signed up to be part of it. As such, mentioned it to a couple of people and discussed it in more detail with a friend (ranted at him about it would be nearer to mark, to be honest. I wouldn't score any civility points).

The situation is being compounded because someone else (I have honestly no idea who) is apparently sending the text of what I referred to as the election manifesto to some of the candidates using throwaway email accounts. No idea what the point of that is, it seems very childish to me. If I'd intended to advertise it, I'd have posted it on my talkpage. All it said (in several paragraphs - it was a political speech) is that he was disappointed that the current committee did not back his stance on civility, he wants to see a future Arbcom that backs his concept of civility, he intends to make that his platform, and he feels very strongly that the community supports him on this.

It is the view of some members of the Committee that everything an Arbitrator ever sends to that email address - bad jokes, gossip, laundry lists - is under the seal of the confessional and can never be repeated or referred to elsewhere. I do accept that some people will feel quite strongly that what is said in confidence should remain in confidence. Some will feel that what I did (talking it over with someone) was entirely beyond the pale and means I can never be trusted again. Personally, I think that far stricter confidentiality than that email list is required where personal data is being handled, but by and large the deliberations of the committee should be in public unless there is a privacy issue. Where this leaves election manifestos, bad jokes, gossip and laundry lists is anyone's guess.

As to why I haven't resigned. Well, some of what I said above is actually important. Arbcom have already acknowledged that their mailing list system is not suitable for sensitive personal information, but continue to use it for that purpose. It sends your personal information to third party email inboxes, over which it has no control. Data can be kept forever by persons who no longer have any affiliation with the organization. There isn't even a requirement to delete your email archive when your term of office ends. There's a reason English local councillors all have official email accounts - so the Council can make sure the archive gets deleted when the councillor's term of office ends.

And did you know that if Arbcom sends you an email, you can't share it with anyone. That's part of what "Sent by a committee member in the performance of their duties" means, and there have been fireworks repeatedly when someone has posted an email that an Arbitrator sent to them.

And a closed list where members can say what they like without fear of consequence because nobody can say anything elsewhere is ultimately corrosive. There is no reason to extend protection to every petty comment, every off the wall statement, every personal attack. Because that's what is being protected. Not sensitive personal data. Not state secrets. For goodness sake, this isn't NATO, it's dispute resolution. Why do we have this institution in the first place, this sooper seekrit list that people are terrified of. Let's get the personal information somewhere other than fired into random mailboxes, and get the discussion out in the open. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"get the discussion out in the open" should have been done a long time ago. There's no need for any secrecy in the proceedings of the Committee in the most situations. But what's bothering me, Elen, is that you came up with this "fresh" idea only now, when you yourself are getting scrutinized for leaking some emails.67.169.11.52 (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has come up several times before - the committee at one point during the past two years even agreed to set up an open access mailing list, but never did because it was technically impossible with the kit available. At the very start of my tenure I had a blazing row with Risker over this business of emails sent by the committee to a third party being confidential (ie the third party was forbidden from publishing them). Came up in the Rodhullandemu case - the email in question ended up on wiki anyway. PDs always used to be drafted on the arbwiki without any preliminary workshopping - after Monty Hall, I said I'd never do that again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this bit of disclosure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Pony!
	Hugs! For your patience and professionalism with the current situation, exhibiting grace under fire, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awww. I always wanted a pony. No danger of speeding on a pony:) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, those roadsters can go pretty fast! Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Elen of the Roads. To follow up on the first survey in April , I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

		The Survivor Award
		Escaping execution
		motion declined NE Ent 16:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

I have to admit that at first glance that thing looked like some particularly old-fashioned kind of toilet. At least it isn't the Halifax Gibbet. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration motion regarding you has been archived as not passing. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elen.

It looks to me like somebody used a private list inappropriately (which bothered you), you discussed it with a friend (which is what friends are for), your friend spread it around without your intent or consent (aargh!), and your hobby suddenly became a lot less fun (at least for the present).

If that's what happened, you absolutely have my sympathy and moral support. I also commend your cool-headedness thus far in response to it! --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it, although in fairness to the other guy I don't think he intended anything like the drama it caused. A lesson all round, mostly for me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it's far too easy on WP to cause drama with no intention of doing so ;-)... the hiccups happen when you don't keep that in mind. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typical ArbCom drama. I don't think ArbCom should have anything private. You have my support as well. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elen, I'm still trying to decide whether to support you in the ArbCom election, and wonder if I might ask a couple of questions...

1. If you are re-elected, what action(s) do you plan to take on the issue of inappropriate use of the mailing list by arbitrators?
2. What changes will you advocate for arbitration policy relating to mailing list misuse, confidentiality, and disclosure?
3. In the (admittedly unlikely) event that both you and JClemens are re-elected, how will you go about working together?
4. Suppose another situation occurred in which an arbitrator posted inappropriately to the list on a topic where the community arguably has a right to know. I refer to a post where disclosure would not violate the privacy of any editor and where the comments made are inconsistent with an arbitrator carrying out her or his duties. How would you handle this situation?
5. Relating to your recent actions, I am much more disturbed by your misleading your colleagues when asked about the leak than I am about seeking the counsel of a friend. Voting for an arbitrator involves trusting in his or her judgment and whilst I accept that you would not have disclosed personal confidential information, I am concerned that you were unwilling to be fully open about your actions. Please explain to me why I should vote in support of you continuing to serve on ArbCom.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. EdChem (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I am the editor who posted the questions above; I have removed the IP address from which they were posted. EdChem (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's much more concerning to me is that you choose to post from an IP address rather than from your registered account. It's difficult to find the right word to describe that sort of behaviour, but cowardice comes close.

Fatuorum 03:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, if you can't find the right word, MF, then I hesitate to try, but maybe gutlessness has the right kind of ring to it? Begoon ^talk 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I apologise for my bad faith assumption. I offer no excuse for it. Begoon ^talk 07:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have many words to describe this sort of stupidity, but most of those who object to the honesty and integrity that Elen has displayed wouldn't understand them. If I'd confided in someone I'd believed to be a friend who subsequently decided to stitch me up I'd be more than a little bit peeved. Not that I have any friends of course, so my reply is entirely hypothetical.

Fatuorum 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be better if the contributor had signed in, I agree. Perhaps he or she forgot? It has happened to me. In any event, as someone who wholeheartedly supports Elen's bid for reelection, I think the questions are fair ones. Rivertorch (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rivertorch. I appreciate your comments. For the record, I have not logged in to Wikipedia for quite a while, I left at a time I was grieving when I couldn't cope with everything that was upsetting me - which included some of the actions of ArbCom. I have watched Wikipedia from time to time since then, made a few IP edits, and wondered if I would come back and / or whether I'd vote in the ArbCom election. Malleus, I have been angered at your mistreatment by ArbCom and their collective failure to respond appropriately to Jclemens' "not a Wikipedian" behaviour was one of the low points in ArbCom history. Elen's response to Jclemens has actually made my voting (including for her) substantially more likely, and I wanted to ask some questions to help make my decision, so I posted them; I did not stop to consider whether to log in. You are all correct that I should have logged in, which I have now done to claim my questions. It was disrespectful to ask any candidate a question without logging in, and I apologise to Elen for that - Elen, I hope you will accept that my action in posting questions from an IP address was thoughtless rather than deliberately deceptive. Malleus and Begoon, I am not a coward nor am I gutless, I have no problem admitting the questions are mine, I hope you will accept that I was at worst foolish. I agree with Malleus that I would be "more than a little bit peeved" with my friend if I were Elen - which I suppose raises questions about her judgment - but I feel it is not appropriate for me to ask about that; Elen's mistake in this regard was a human one, as she has recognised, and the idea of an ArbCom whose members believe themselves incapable of human error is frightening. ArbCom is already far too reluctant to admit to error, and that is one of its flaws. If this whole incident leads to a greater openness and to a willingness to admit to error then something valuable will have been gained. EdChem (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EdChem. I fear you caught a whiplash here because both Malleus and myself (and several other editors) have been plagued by trolling in times of trouble from what I can really only describe as anonymous cowards. I hope that time has helped to heal your real life grief, and you can return to this project and find pleasure in editing. I have answered your questions below, to the best of my ability.

If you are re-elected, what action(s) do you plan to take on the issue of inappropriate use of the mailing list by arbitrators?

Shut the damn mailing list down as soon as ever it's possible. It is totally unsuitable as a medium for holding sensitive personal information, as was made clear two years ago when sensitive personal information ended up on Wikipedia Review. There are comments on some technical work done in this area over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Having got the truly confidential into a safer place, the list can carry the other traffic (voting calls, availability etc) without having the burden that the need to preserve everything as confidential carries.

What changes will you advocate for arbitration policy relating to mailing list misuse, confidentiality, and disclosure?

• Firstly, require all outgoing Arbitrators to clear their email archives of any list traffic once unsubscribed from the lists (there are 3) because they no longer have a reason to possess it. One could request that ex-Arbs from past times do likewise if they have not already done so. No means of enforcing it of course, because all the emails go to private inboxes, but one can at least ask.
• Secondly, as said above, separate out the sensitive information. This may need some agreed definitions - existing legal definitions such as the UK data protection act start from the position that the information allows you to identify the person, the same criterion as used in the WMF Privacy statement. However, I would rather think that the community would want a definition starting with information that would identify the editor on Wikipedia, given the amount of traffic from editors who do not wish to be identified with the information they want to provide us with.
• Thirdly, make clear what you can expect to happen to your information. The current policy (
  WP:ARBPOL) says that everything is confidential and treated as 'appropriate'. However, at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Communications_and_privacy
  it tells editors that the committee might share your information with whoever it sees fit with or without informing you, and not to send it confidential information anyway, as confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Not helpful
• Rather, any policy should make clear that for example, personally identifying data is covered by the WMF Privacy policy, and a breach of this policy involving any WMF system (eg checkuser tool or this new crm if it comes off) will result in immediate loss of access to any WMF system containing p.i.d. The community will probably want information which identifies you as an editor, and which the committee has decided to accept as part of a private hearing, to be kept confidential with similar protections. On the other hand, allegations that the committee decides should not be dealt with by private hearing should be deleted off the system, not kept forever to haunt an editor who is completely unaware that User:FromMars, with whom she was in a content dispute, wrote to Arbcom saying that she was secretly employed by the FromVenus organisation to edit with multiple sock accounts. This is a basic privacy principle (or should be) - if Arbcom has told the reporting user to go file an SPI and they don't, it should delete it's record within a few months, not keep unsubstantiated allegations hanging around like the proverbial fart in a phonebox.
• As to correspondence between committee members - assuming that confidential information about other people has been got into a safer environment, any mailing list may still contain confidential information about it's members included in conversation (birthdays, family details, phone number, new job or whatever). In fact, the safest thing might be to say the mailing list is only for that kind of stuff. Discussing cases should be in a separate location, arguing with each other or making the kind of statements that led to this in the first place should be onwiki or by personal email.
• At the same time, most of the discussion on cases and motions should not have an expectation of privacy at all. Even if not held onwiki (the genuine difficulty here is that everyone and their dog chimes in and swamps the discussion), there should be an expectation that it can be disclosed upon request.

In the (admittedly unlikely) event that both you and JClemens are re-elected, how will you go about working together?

We would just have to, in the sure and certain knowledge that we completely disagree on several things. The committee can work with differing opinions - although part of the scope of discussion on cases and motions is to find a format which will achieve majority support, it is perfectly clear that it makes its decisions by majority vote, not consensus. I think it would be a mistake to expect it to be like a government with a

three line whip

.

Suppose another situation occurred in which an arbitrator posted inappropriately to the list on a topic where the community arguably has a right to know. I refer to a post where disclosure would not violate the privacy of any editor and where the comments made are inconsistent with an arbitrator carrying out her or his duties. How would you handle this situation?

I'll be honest, right now I'd probably just shut up about it :) In the future, there should not be a reason to put that kind of post on a list (or on a wiki, which seems to be one solution being discussed as I mentioned above) where most of the traffic consists of or is discussing personal information that should be treated as confidential. If a person did so, and another member of the committee was disturbed by it, they should be free to raise it with the person by personal email or onwiki without anyone yelling 'Leak!' or simply to ask for disclosure (see note above about discussion on cases and motions) It's what is in the information that makes it confidential, not where it was posted.

Relating to your recent actions, I am much more disturbed by your misleading your colleagues when asked about the leak than I am about seeking the counsel of a friend. Voting for an arbitrator involves trusting in his or her judgment and whilst I accept that you would not have disclosed personal confidential information, I am concerned that you were unwilling to be fully open about your actions. Please explain to me why I should vote in support of you continuing to serve on ArbCom.

Indeed, while I have said that I was trying to protect my confidante (who had assured me he had not sent the text of anything to anyone - and who I still think was only trying to do what he thought was best), I would anticipate a lot of voters deciding that my judgement is so completely shot to shit that I'm not fit to be an Arb. All I can say is it was the same motivation that has led many to criticise me for being way too lenient and over emotional. There are people behind these usernames, and a lot of the time they are trying to do what they think is best, it just doesn't work out. Arbcom is not the government. It's not there to make policy, rule on content, or 'guide the project' (which is what I do believe is what JClemens wanted to see - an Arbcom that would guide the project on civility). It is just there as the last stage of dispute resolution, to sort out those wrangles that have spilled over into intractable bad behaviour, deal with the odd private matter (mostly alleged paedophiles and stalkers) and to manage parts of the tool permission process on behalf of the WMF. I think I've done that fairly, and fairly well, and would do it fairly well again. There's a balance in many cases between protecting the editing community, who just want a quiet environment and would often favour a 'block the lot of 'em' policy, and being fair to editors who are not always the mendacious, pov pushing trolls the other side (who are always incivil, lying edit warriors) make them out to be.

In the end, it's up to the voter's conscience, opinion, or whatever one chooses to call it. There are a number of good candidates who would do a good job. I'd say pick the ones who take the job seriously as a means of helping good editors to keep editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful and informative responses. I would like to ask one follow up, if I may. In response to my first question, you advocate closing down the present mailing list as it is unsuited to handling genuinely confidential information - which I think is an excellent idea, but it wasn't the intent of my question. So, suppose the truly confidential material is moved to a secure storage medium. I presume there would still need to be some off-wiki communication channel for arbitrators. How would you like policy to handle the issue of inappropriate use of that channel by arbitrators? EdChem (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC) PS: If you like, I'd be willing to copy and paste my questions and your answers over to your candidate questions page.[reply]

Ah right. I would expect at that point that it wouldn't matter so much what they posted, because the expectation would be that anything that isn't personally identifying (schedule, job or family details etc) could be referred to elsewhere or requested for disclosure. Misuse is a problem where someone cannnot be called to any account because of list confidentiality. If something said on the list can be referred to elewhere, it both removes the kind of issue that came up here, and might make members less likely to post things that they are not prepared to say openly.

I think it would be a good idea to transfer it over to the candidate question page, so please go ahead. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EdChem (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		"For bringing such preposterous behavior to light..." I just finished saying my piece on Jimmy Wales' user page and it occurred to me that I was right! Anonymity is only necessary on wiki to protect people physically or financially — it is not meant to provide carte blanche for threats and backstage bullying. In your next term, actively work to end the veil of secrecy around ArbCom deliberations. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If elected I will work for better protection for the information handled by Arbcom that can affect people in real life, and greater transparency in the decision making processes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* <- that's a really cheap barnstar.

Hi Elen.

I can only recall once that I've ever spoken to you directly, but I did want to drop by and say hi. Perhaps I don't have the best of reputations on wiki, but regardless of what others think I wanted to express my own personal thanks to you. I know that you've recently gone through some very trying times, and I truly admire the way you've handled it all. Regardless of the end results, I wanted to say it outright that I very much appreciate all you have given to our project. The time, the dedication, the thought, the insight, and in many ways the very heart of who you are as a person. I don't always "get it" when you use phrases that are germane to your own culture, but I see a kind and intelligent person behind your efforts. That means a lot to me.

It seems that the older I get, the more I'm reminded on a daily basis how precious our time is in this reality. I think it is so sad that so much time is expended in railing against other people; and often people we will never have the chance to meet in real life. I hope you'll forgive me this rant on your talk page, but it's something of a cathartic exercise for me. I truly admire your honesty, your integrity, and your kindness. You are a good person. You have a good heart. I wanted to tell you that. I wish I would have told others that when I had the chance. You're good people Elen of the Roads, and I'm a better person for having read the things you've said. All my best to you and all you hold dear. — Ched :  ?  09:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, thank you so much for taking the time to write this. I have always found you to be a very thoughtful person (I don't go much on wiki reputations anyway), and I value your kind thoughts here. At the end of the day, I am convinced that the world goes round more smoothly if we try to understand each other and remember there are real people behind the typed words, even if we never get to know them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, would you mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski? In your arguments for blocking PMA/JCS back in February, you included as one of the hints the use of semicolons in edit summaries. Having stumbled upon this move request, I personally don't have the slightest shadow of a doubt over who Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) is. --78.35.235.104 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wtshymanski probably has a similar secondary educational background to PMA/JCS - his use of language suggests someone who has been taught formal grammar, syntax, punctuation etc. However, PMA majored in humanities, while Wtshymanski almost exclusively edits articles in the science/technology arena (the move request concerns a German chemist). Wikistalk shows only 14 article overlaps in over 100,000 edits between them. PMA might well have advanced the same arguments about the use of ss rather than the German character, but I can't imagine PMA editing articles on halogen reflector lamps variable voltage electrical switches or types of amplification circuitry. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of thousands of registered editors and I must be the same person as this other person because I've used semicolons in an edit summary? And because I like the English alphabet to be used in English language text? Get PMA to say he's not me - that's as believable as me saying I'm not PMA. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on your talkpage, while the IP editor asked the question in good faith, I think the answer is that there's no chance you're PMA. I just thought you should be aware of the suggestion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been critical of Wtshymanski, (as have many others, I have never seen even the slightest hint of anything underhanded or dishonest in any of his actions, and a deceptive practice like sockpuppetry flies in the face of everything I have observed about his behavior. If they are smart (and Wtshymanski certainly is), sockmasters avoid calling attention to themselves with incivility. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but if they are smarter than you, they'd delibrately be rude so as to relieve suspicion that they are a sockmaster. After all, we're willing to posit individuals who spend every waking or amphetamine-supported moment on Wikipedia obsessively carrying out their incredibly subtle schemes. Thank Jimbo we've got people willing to bring their own Maglites and thermoses to the mall to expose these monsters. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if they're really smarter, they'll know that we would know that appearing to be deliberately rude as ruse is obviously a ruse, so they would be not rude cause we'd expect a smart sock to be rude. But it really doesn't matter cause there's

iocaine powder in both goblets NE Ent 16:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That only works if we're as smart as the hidden sockmaster, but I've postulated that HS is much smarter than we are, so we are not able to discern his (or her) subtle ploy as in fact a ploy at all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if they're smarter than themselves, then... wait. Um. Well, now I'm hopelessly confused. But that's what you wanted all along, isn't it, Mr. Hidden Sockmaster! (I concede that NEE's comment is better than mine, because it's written in the fine print somewhere that a Princess Bride reference automatically trumps a South Park reference.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" I should have clearly said "all of the in-play editors who aren't aliases of HS". This might be a very small number, of course...for all I know, you're *all* tentacles of some malevolent polymath. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I use semi-colons in edit summaries sometimes, too! And no, Im not ... ;P Pesky (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. All it shows is that you went to a school where they taught punctuation. Or at least, that's what the Hidden Sockmaster would have us all believe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to be aware: that Wtshymanski does not approve of IP editors being able to edit Wikipedia. He also has a looong history of seldom crediting any other editor of acting in

"Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it."

- Wtshymanski on his own talk page.

You may also care to read this. A second RfU is apparently in draft as I type. 86.145.244.183 (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of which makes him a sock of PMAnderson, which was the question asked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we shoud be checking to see if 86.145.244.183 is another tendril of the PMA conspiracy? All I know for sure is that there's me and all those other guys...who might be me typing in my sleep. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er no! The first point that I saw raised was you pointing out that an IP editor may have edited in

good faith (here). That makes my point apposite. I had responded on Wtshymanski's talk page, but added it here because I figured (correctly) that the comment would be deleted quickly because Wtshymanski does not like his talk page showing what a tendentious editor he really is. 86.145.244.183 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Months later: how long does something like this [19] have to hang around? Every few weeks the spinner lands on my name and I get threatened with some kind of "partly constructed RFC/U" gobbletygook. I'm baffled as to what triggered this latest go around. Since you've been helpful in the past, I'm appealing to you to explain to me what's going on. I don't understand any of these people. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to "understand any of these people" might be related to your steadfast refusal to have a substantive conversation about your behavior. I'm just saying.

As has been explained to you before, such pages are allowed We even have a template for marking them.

That being said, this one seems to have stalled. Wtshymanski, would you like me to ask DieSwartzPunkt to either move ahead with it or delete it? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the very short history this user has had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and determine if Administrative intervention is appropriate. I have tried to explain to the user the policies, yet they do not wish to debate in Wikipedia's rules. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur has claimed in his nomination that the first time in world history that an openly gay person and a woman will compete for a championship in mixed-martial arts in a globally televised event put on by the world's largest MMA league and which is already being covered in mainstream newspapers such as USA Today and the Detroit Free Press is neither notable nor verifiable. That claim is not just false, but frankly insulting. Anyone with a computer can verify this information and to suggest that the first ever openly gay person and also first ever woman, who is an olympian to boot, competing for a world title on an event televised around the world is not historic is so bizarre that it does not deserve to be responded to with anything that gives it any ounce of legitimatcy, because objectively Hasteur either did not research the subject, is flat out lying, or is being both sexist and homophobic. THAT is the kind of behavior that any freedom loving person would find unacceptable! One need to be a femnist or gay rights advocate to be insulted by this level of ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common Sense MMA (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, it's a sock. What a surprise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at

Mtking ^(edits) 08:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Dennis Brown got the named account. I've not seen anyone socking on a Verizon range before - which is not of course to say that it isn't BStudent0 or similar at his auntie's house. I've given the IP 48 hrs off for harassment - let me know if he reappears. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... yeah. I may have got a little carried away, but basically I meant what I said. I expect it's time to move db's RFA to her userspace, or what do you think? Incidentally, you might like to check out this cool screenshot of the main page on a certain date a couple of centuries ago. Ah, fame. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Bloody thing wouldn't be so bad if it was obviously entirely made up, as it is it's a BLP violation (says he went out with some woman off the tv - while this may well be an 'in your dreams' scenario, it's also a BLP violation). Come on, he's had this thing deleted twice before. 'He's fixing it up' really isn't going to fly - both he and you should have realised that posting it as it was (with the addition of tv lady) is just going to get it deleted again. If he wants to 'fix it up' he can do it elsewhere. As for db...has anyone had the temerity to complain? And lived? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did reply this morning (USA - Eastern time). Again - sorry for being such a grump. I know you've been through a lot, and I shouldn't have added to it. — Ched :  ?  01:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K... ttyl — Ched :  ?  01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you are standing again for arbcom after your recent record. I refer to the following instances, which are just those I know about and come to mind:

1. Your ill judged reference to "Obsessive compulsive anal retentive on the autism spectrum"
2. Your blocking of an account you were involved in an arbcom case with as a party
3. Your blocking of an editor for posting a cartoon
4. Your blocking of an editor who had behaved after a warning form another administrator
5. Your saying an editor "could edit if he changed his ISP"
6. Your lack of understanding of technical issues, yet running many many checkusers
7. Your blocks of a user for editing on another Wiki, together with unfounded accusations of socking.

There have been worse abuses by other arbitrators, but I think that is enough to suggest that you should not be standing.

I urge you to withdraw.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't the community the best judge of these things? Let's see what happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. And if Elen were to withdraw it would simply leave one more position available to the crazies, which is perhaps Rich Farmbrough's intention.

Fatuorum 20:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Crazies - on Arbcom? Some mistake, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think so. There are quite a few of them, and we surely don't need any more.

Fatuorum 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Incompetence and defensiveness may be worse than craziness. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No Elen would be quite within her rights to withdraw. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Which is to miss Wehwalt's point big time.

Fatuorum 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Some people are more talented at missing the point than others.

talk) 20:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed they are.

Fatuorum 20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah the elections are done? Shame. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, please stop. This is beneath you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not active on WP these days and was under the impression the elections were still running (even looked for the place to vote). I would have removed/re-written the section if not for the comments from others. Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You would have been better advised not to make your comments in the first place.

Fatuorum 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Chin up and get editing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

What a very strange exchange above. I really don't know how to respond to it other than to deny the rumours about myself and Helpful Pixie Bot and insist that we were just good friends.

I'm sorry you didn't get the chance to vote me out. If elected (which I'm not at all sure is likely, only time will tell) I would feel honour bound to take my seat on the assumption that the community at the very least viewed me as the least worst option :)

I share your concerns about data protection (if Arbcom were a UK organisation subject to our data protection legislation, it would have been fined out of existence by now and all the Arbs would be in jail) but am hopeful that the proposed crm will provide a superior technical solution which limits the prospect of misuse of personal data. I'm also hopeful that some form of FOI policy can be agreed on, so discussions not featuring personal data can be at the very least released on demand after the case or whatever is over. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Wikimedia foundation once seriously considered moving the servers to Britain, but dropped the idea when they realised that they would have to purge a huge amount of content to comply with British law. My information is that copyright law was the main issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if data protection issues were involved too.

talk) 09:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Interestingly I filed a request for information that followed the DPA protocol with all then sitting arbitrators, and the committee, some months ago. It was ignored totally including by those members who are based in the UK. There are implications here because the transfer of personal information into and out of the EU is subject to additional restrictions relating to handling those data with the appropriate safeguards, corresponding more or less to the DPA, which is something that has been totally failed in so far.

The committee's motto should be "Nothing so important it can't be ignored, nothing so trivial we can't ban someone."

Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Richard, could you pursue such complaints at the ArbCom pages? Elen has been subjected to a lot, and deserves a bit of rest. You are no doubt right to be upset, because nobody can be just all the time. Even Jesus couldn't keep all his disciples happy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a conversation here, it is useful to see that we are of the same opinion about this, as many other things. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

civility
Thank you for your answers to my questions about our respect for editors as living persons, for your illustrations of "fishy" with "grace under fire", for a flavoured tea, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (22 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English muffins

Hello. I wouldn't normally ask a personal-experience-type question of another editor, but I was so excited by your edit that I have cast caution aside: are you actually British or British-resident or British-visiting (OtherNationalitiesAndLocalitiesMayApplyNoConclusionIsHereinImpliedYourMileageMayVaryAlwaysReadTheInstructions), and have personally consumed muffins in their BrE non-cakey variety and in the AmE "English muffin" species? If so I think I might faint with pure joy. :) That article is depressing me far beyond what should be possible in writing about small breadlike objects... Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed an Englishwoman, and have eaten and made Lancashire oven-bottom muffins (which are believed at least in Lancashire to be the originals), I have frequently eaten the things sold in supermarkets as muffins (which have a dusting of cornmeal on the outside) and more occasionally American "English muffins" (which must be made with a lot of yeast as they have a texture a bit like ciabatta) and I have both eaten and baked the things with choc chips, blueberries etc that you bake in twists of paper in muffin pans. I also have sources, as I have an interest in historical recipes.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French fries

We Americans are weird that way -- we eat "French" fries and "French" toast that an exchange student from France years ago assured us were not French. And we call our language "English" every tho it's obviously not the same thing you folks use over there. (Took a break in the Everglades this past weekend and some Brit sounding folks wanted to come back at night with torches! Seem ungrateful to want to bring fire into our little park.) NE Ent 22:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you are aware that French fires are so called because the potatoes are "Frenched" - cut into thin strips, before being fried. In English English, of course "being Frenched" has a totally different osculatory meaning. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

French toast

French fries are Belgian :) The french do make something called pain perdu which is supposed to be the original of 'french toast', but I don't get the impression it's much like American french toast. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like our "eggy bread" really, which isn't at all sweet. That article on

Fatuorum 23:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I often think that Wikipedia would be as well served by the removal of much of its material as it would by the addition of more, and in that spirit I've made some changes to that

Fatuorum 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

A definite improvement I would say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improved? Obviously. Complete without the vanilla??? I don't think so. NE Ent 01:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty with "American" food is once you get beyond

Restaurant chains you end up with lots of regional variation; Southern "French Toast" is likely to be much sweeter than that in the North. NE Ent 01:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Difficulty is all the uncited "In Pakistan, French toast is called Scratch my Arse, and is made only with the milk of virgin cows". You get my my drift I'm sure. Last time I looked Wikipedia wasn't a cookery book.

Fatuorum 01:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

In Sweden, a "poor knight" (Fattiga_riddare) is fried bread first soaked in milk, and a "knight" is fried bread first soaked in milk and egg---according to Smalanders. In Ukraine, bread is soaked in milk on one side, and then fried. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for food

(

WP:V says we should remove all of that info...but somehow it just pains me to do so. I find that often all I can do is to glance at the article as quickly as possible to get the info I need, then rapidly close it so that my fingers don't start reaching for the "edit" button. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources we use for food articles should be as reliable as those we use for any other articles. Whether individual recipe books would qualify as reliable sources depends on for what and who wrote them. The overwhelming problem with food articles is the "my granny always used clarified butter, but many nowadays recommend ghee, known in Pakistan as ghoo" rubbish. There's probably a Wiki recipe book project somewhere, but this isn't it.

Fatuorum 04:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Try b:Cookbook. Not sure how much is going on with it these days, but in the early days of Wikibooks it was one of the largest projects. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's not that bad...

Clotted Cream all turned out alright ;) Worm^TT(talk) 12:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that your average coffee table cookbook is no use as a source. Silver Spoon is invaluable when confronted with an animal or vegetable you have never tackled before, but Wikipedia is not a cookbook. There are however authors with an interest in the history, geography, enthnography or what have you of cooking, whose works can form the equivalent of academic sources for dishes and cooking, so it's not impossible.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't most of the food articles we have here because of some cultural significance? Like Worm's example Stargazy pie (gag...). I would think a reputable and well known cookbook would be fine for providing some facts such as ingredients, just not enough to establish the notability, which would require sources more independent from the subject matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Escoffier's original Peach Melba. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed there is no definitive recipe for....anything. But what if I provided three different but similar recipes and all were sourced back to reputable sources, like the Guardian, Betty Crocker and Rachel Ray's cookbooks? Wouldn't this be encyclopedic as showing the varieties that are still considered the same dish? One small paragraph might cover all three varieties, listing only the differences? Seems to be the most neutral way to present the information, obviously depending on the article. Just a thought, I'm better at eating the food than writing about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be

Original Research. You could quote Felicity Cloake or Elizabeth David comparing recipes, but you can't do it yourself. Quite apart from queries like who died and made Betty Crocker a reliable source for anything to do with baked goods :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Betty Crocker Cookbook I think we did ;-) And I wouldn't compare them, just document that multiple recipes exist. But again, just curious, not proclaiming policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backfired joke. In the UK, the name Betty Crocker is synonymous with packet 'just add water' cake mixes and ready made frosting that seems to contain the entire output of a chemistry lab. If you want the absolute rock solid reliable source for baking, it's the little book available from BeRo flour when you send in a label and a few bob. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily --

calculation? NE Ent 01:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be if there were a finite number of cookbooks. But their numbers are as the stars in heaven, or the sand on the seashore, for lo, everyone's a chef these days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That assumes you have found all the sources, so that might be OR. If you said "Recipes vary, where some such as Betty Crocker Cookbook uses beef(), The Guardian recommends only using pork()" then you aren't giving an opinion except that they vary, and you have backed it up with sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muffins and Crumpets

Qwyrxian, I could have written what you wrote, almost down to the last letter. I've had several food articles on my watchlist for ages, and I admit I'm a lot more liberal about letting questionable changes stand than I am with articles on any other topic. When 90% of an article is unsourced to begin with, it's really hard to demand sources for new additions unless they're wildly implausible or off-topic. And there are so many regional variations—even among standard restaurant fare, let alone dishes one would prepare at home—that it's sometimes very hard to judge: what may seem sky-is-blue, duh! obvious to me may be completely unheard of a mere 500 miles away, and vice versa, never mind on a different continent. There's a dearth of online sources that I'd consider reliable, so it's frustrating. (Btw, this thread reminds me: could anyone here explain the precise difference between a muffin and a crumpet? Our articles don't make it clear, and I've read endlessly confusing things off-wiki.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the C-word in a discussion of muffins. That way lies death and madness. I have spoken. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, thank you very much for the reply. (Sorry I've been unable to respond quickly.) I would be very happy to see you show up at the article with some sources. At the moment, as Malleus and other wise people say above, the trouble is that the debate is all very much of the "I have seen and eaten these so they exist/No, I have not seen and eaten these, so they do not exist/or the claimed Am/Br difference does not exist" type. It's very depressing and I am guilty of it as much as anyone - except that I do find it difficult to know what else to do when it is just a game of assertion and counter-assertion and I do feel it necessary to at least make the effort to contradict, based on what I have personally

OR-eaten! Of course I should not be doing this but it's a bit like watching people who only know Baroque music claim that rap does not and cannot exist, or vice versa. If you have heard both then it's hard to see people claim that one does not exist, or that there is no difference! We will never really move it on without some decent sources but I quail at the thought of what these might be; and I guess I have to accept the risk that I won't like them - that is, what if someone produces a credible-but-wrong US source which clearly states "The product sold in the US as 'English muffin' is exactly the same as the product sold in England as an 'Unamerican non-cakoid muffin' or whateverthehell whateverthehell"? If that happens, I'm screwed aren't I (not in a good way) and there's then a battle on to find a better source that contradicts this. I have no doubt that my example is plausible, for all the reasons that people say above - food is such a personally and locally accented business that even the knowledgeable will produce what is little more than folklore. However, even references that were debatable would be better than none - they'd at least be a platform for further development and an improvement on the current shouting match. I'm probably wasting too much time on this so I feel guilty encouraging others but do please come and help kick it into shape a bit. And, as someone said, "This talk page is amazing, surely a Wikipedia classic." - it's probably worth reading for a laugh, given the modest admission charge. And yes, it is part of a broader pattern of much-loved, I-know-what-I-know subjects where there's a lot of information but few references and not much sign of, er, encyclopaediaism. (-ness. -dom. -igkeit.) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know what part of England Elen is from, though from what she says above Lancashire seems likely. However, I have lived in England for over 60 years, starting in the Midlands and subsequently spending time in East Anglia, the South East, the South West, the North East, and the North West. Until I moved to the North West I had never known the word "muffin" to be used for anything remotely like what Elen calls "Lancashire oven-bottom muffins". In much of Yorkshire those things are called "bread cakes", and in most of the rest of England they are pretty well unknown, under any name. I hate to say it, but what I grew up knowing as "muffins" (and what in my experience were what the word usually meant in most of England before American "muffins" were introduced) were indistinguishable from what Americans call "English muffins". My mother in law, an American, is convinced that "English muffin" is one of those things like "French toast", "Brussels sprout" (which originated in England), and "cor anglais", and is a purely American invention, but she ain't right. Of course, my experience may not be typical, and I can't swear that I actually came across muffins in every one of the places where I have lived, but what Americans call "English muffins" do actually have a well-established history of being the "muffins" eaten in at least substantial parts of England.

Unfortunately, seeing this discussion led me to look at the article

talk) 09:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

James: I think this might be the last time I say this, or perhaps not, but I absolutely promise you, on my honour as [ermm ... whatever] that if you go to Sainsbury's round the corner here in London EC1 and buy a pack of ordinary plain muffins and then go to the supermarket in Manhattan, Kansas, and do the same with English muffins, you will have two absolutely distinct products. I promise you. Really. I have done it. The texture is markedly different. I know I am just doing the same thing again that I have decried, the assertion and counter-assertion, but I am stuck until we get some credible references into the article. I have never seen the AmE English muffin on sale here and would be very interested to see this. But I really should stop this now - I think it is close to affecting my mental health, or perhaps more than close. In passing I note that I missed an opportunity for a gag somewhere in "counter-assertion" (it would have been a bit half-baked, mind you) and also that "Proposal to split" in the English muffin talk page is possibly the best section header I have ever seen, anywhere - whether it was deliberate or not. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has gone stale. Time to stick a fork in it.

talk) 15:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

I'm reading it thanks. Looks like a good discussion going on. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for letting me know about the botched edit. When I hit "save page", I bet there were a few others working on their own and thus it wiped out theirs. I decided to let my outdated comment go and latch onto the current discussion. Thanks again. (DefGrappler (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Elen, over a year ago you courtesy blanked and protected the pages of PD, and deleted the sockpuppet categories. This was done with the understanding that he would stop all socking. See e.g. this version of your user talk page, where you promised that " The person behind all the accounts has agreed to stop entirely all attempts to edit Wikipedia - if he doesn't I'll put the main pages back myself, with added vim." He has since socked quite a few times, the latest one apparently being

I was alerted to Hestiae as you posted this. I'm considering whether to restore the deleted pages immediately or, as you say, when there is an unban request, but if anyone at SPI need's 'em now, they can have them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that even today he was socking (

Fram (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I contact you as you took part in the discussion on Penyulap's talk page concerning the Ombudsman committee matter. I've started some proposals and discussion on meta about how best to reform the OC to fix the issues it currently has and I would be very grateful if you could drop by and voice your opinion at m:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Dear Elen, I just want to say Thank you for being there to help people and being one of the best Arb's ever! Your Positive dedication and Priceless contributions are a big part of what makes Wikipedia more enjoyable and easy to use for all ~ For now, all I can say is "Keep It Up" :-) TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

blushes --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the barnstar, all of it. Thank you, Elen for the blushing colour! I could have used it twice, and avoided the third ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you're not there, Elen, as I certainly voted for you. You have always talked a lot of sense. Who will keep the "big boys" in check now, I wonder? But enjoy your break from all the grief. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sad for us, happy for you, Elen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I might even get to y'know...edit some articles :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Most welcome, thank you :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try as much as possible to avoid the underside of Wiki (drama boards and such), but I did appreciate your willingness to stand up for what you thought was right regarding the whole mailing list issue. You had my vote...guess it wasn't enough, though. Intothatdarkness 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the sentiments of the above. Still, bravely done under trying circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs to you; I'd give you another Pony, but for most people, one is enough! Montanabw^(talk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Barnstar of phronesis
	Thanking your for your wisdom, decisiveness, and kindness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly honoured. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could've just not run instead of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with the arbcom-l screwup? Regardless, my respect for the hard work, insight and good judgement you've added to the committee the past couple years remains unchanged. NE Ent 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know. I think it's started some interesting threads. Be interesting to see what comes from it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be doing the congratulations, depending on how you look at it :) It has been a pleasure serving with you; hopefully we'll see Each other on wiki in less fraught circumstances. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for your two years of service as an arbitrator, not to mention all your other service, and your various forms of future service. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what may have happened since November, you dedicated two years to the most thankless and shitty job there is for Wikipedia's sake. That deserves sincere thanks and accolades. — Coren ^(talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work on ArbCom. Losing elections sucks, but you can take solace that you received the 4th most "For" votes of that big slate. Good luck with your future endeavors on WP now that you're free at last... Carrite (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you too Elen. I hope you can be free now, and dedicate yourself to other endeavours :) —

²¹ 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry to see you weren't reelected. I respect your great ability to cut through to the heart of things. Frankly, I feel the chaos and attacks that that developed in regards to both your and Jclemens actions and which may have influenced this election to be a disappointing sign in Wikipedia's progress or lack of it. Thank you for all of your hard work and best wishes.(olive (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• It's no secret that I supported you, and will continue to do so in any way I can. Since you finally have an opportunity to work in a drama free environment, consider visiting (or joining us) at
  Wikiproject Editor Retention. It is a very laid back group that just tries to find non-contentious ways to make the place a little better. It's nice to just help people or bounce around ideas with optimistic people every now and then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• My support was evident, and it's too bad you lost. Well, try again next year. I guess the ArbCom mailing list ordeal made you have less support. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You had a good run. I'm happy you didn't resign and withdraw your application for these elections though, even though there were people wanting you to. The funny thing about being an arb though, is that the majority of WP doesn't know the comittee exists, except for the minority, who are usually those who participate in the WP namespace a bunch. For the rest of them, they just want Wikipedia to keep functioning. And I think during your time as Arb, you've done a great job at that. Best and maybe we can work on some getting some pages up to FA status in the future? --Kangaroopowah 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks indeed. Appropriate to see so many people lining up to entice you towards new projects. – SJ + 02:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Home-Made Barnstar
		You showed honour and integrity in how you dealt with the whole "civility" shitburst. Just as my confidence in Arbcom reached an all-time low, you were there to shore it up. I am sorry you are leaving the thought police but perhaps you are better off out of it. Best wishes, and thanks for being you. John (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

	Thanks
	Thanks for all your hard work, Shearonink (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[22] - although it's an odd one to pick, as there's a massive discussion between myself and Rich that follows the link, and it's clear it's not a personal attack, even though I'll hold my hands up and say for the umpteenth time it was thoughtlessly offensive to people with OCD.

Ex Arbs are normally allowed to retain the checkuser bit - I'm waiting for her to start demanding that be removed as well, plus I expect my admin tools, and a siteban as a final outcome :) Ah, happy days. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be the

Other Duck. Be like Paul Atreides (movie version) -- "I will bend like a reed in the wind". NE Ent 14:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Elen, it (what you said) is clearly not a personal attack to you (I.e. in your view), because you wrote it (and know what you meant to convey). As a (probably) non-ASD person who knows you reasonably well I know you didn't mean ill by it. But to an outside observer it can be interpreted in no other way, unless as a serious face-value comment which would be bad for other reasons.

But Sandy is not attacking you, despite the fact that you understandably may feel attacked. She is saying, "this is a thing Arbs should not do, yet one did and nothing was done - can we handle this type of thing better? why was nothing done? should there be a policy on this?" and so forth.

Had she said "a random arbitrator said..." it might have felt less personal. I really doubt that she is "after your checkuser bit" - even though I have had issues with some of the cases you have checkusered, I think that it is a role you perform well and are well suited to, and I don't hear anyone saying to the contrary. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, I meant - it wasn't intended as a personal attack on you. SandyGeorgia has been clear all along in her personal feelings about me, hence I said I was expecting something like this. She has already been among those asking for removal of the Checkuser bit. I was under no illusion that this was going to go away after the election.

I understood what you said, I've added a parenthetical or three to my previous posting to clarify it. I am though, confused by your second point. If she has already asked for your CU bit to be removed, I don't see how you are "waiting for her to demand". As to things "going away" I have been pursued by more or less the same handful of people for over two years now, with occasional help from outsiders, either well meaning, like yourself, or with a long running dispute over something they

WP:OWN. Such things never truly go away once they have gone past a certain point. There is no way I can "legally" edit on Wikipedia at the moment, I have even broken Arbcom restrictions writing this. But <meh> I am not going to abandon those who need me, even if I am substantively retired from en: - and effectively have been for many months. I expect that regardless of any such outcome you will continue to do your best to contribute to the project, and I would wholeheartedly recommend the Editor retention programme Dennis mentions, as a real key initiative, potentially, which requires more application of brainpower and experience than it is getting at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply

]

Based on support votes alone, it looks as if Elen would have come in 4th. Negative voting is a grossly unfair system. Systems that effectively give some users (who use negative votes) many times the number of votes that others (who use only positive votes) get, are generally considered unconstitutional. LittleBen (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Elen, ya shoulda been elected, but now that I've gotten myself on Sandy's Shit List too, I guess at least I'm in good company! Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that likely puts us in a majority here on wiki. — Ched :  ?  21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Unconstitutional? Strange word to use, perhaps you mean unfair. If so then you should bear in mind that "not using negative votes" is a choice, just as is "only voting for the same number as there are vacancies". All eligible voters have the same votes available, so, as far as that goes, I see no unfairness. And while "controversial figures" are the lifeblood of the community, there is good reason not to appoint them to certain posts where the decisions require the confidence of the community. If, however, you wish to change the voting system I suggest you start an RFC for 2013 now. Doubtless a good case could be made for some form of improvement. Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I apologise to all for this bit of a grizzle. Rich and others are right, there are more constructive things to be going at :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are more gracious than I would be, Elen. But then, maybe you are tasting the sweetness of freedom from Arbcom, where once again someone is trying to ban Malleus... Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to restore Penyulap's talk page access so they can participate in the active discussion there about the ombudsman commission, currently a game of telephone. May I take it from your earlier comments there you'd be fine with that? Regards, – SJ + 02:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the discussion not taking place on Meta? That is, after all, where the Ombudsman commission is headquartered. With SUL, the account is already "created" there. In fact, I'll go further. Why is the Ombudsman commission looking to discuss the use of privacy-related tools in a public forum? Risker (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to your second question, Penyulap has admirably posted the request openly, and equally admirably requested an open response. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It actually is: m:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals --Rschen7754 04:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Penyulap has an account with the same name on Meta, which has been active there and is not blocked. They are already participating in a discussion about the Ombudsman commission at meta:Talk:Ombudsman commission#Inconsistent with other wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SJ. As others have said, Penyulap can take part in that discussion as they are not blocked on meta, and it (not their talkpage) is where the discussion needs to take place to have any impact (I doubt if even FloNight has Peny's talkpage on her watchlist). Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow up for SJ - I don't personally have a problem what you do with Peny's talkpage, but I'm not the one who removed access. Penyulap is very difficult to understand sometimes. I think this does come across to some people as trolling. You can see the whole conversation - at the start I did think Peny was being deliberately obtuse about creating other accounts because of the way he said it. It was only as the conversation went on that it occurred to me that maybe we were looking at a 'feature' of the mediawiki interface, and Peny wasn't being deliberately obtuse at all, just upset.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the followup. I have restored his talkpage access. I have the same impression of his method of communicating.

  To the other comments above: yes, the thread about how to fix the Ombudsman Commission belongs on Meta. And others who do not frequent meta are having a discussion on his talkpage that relates to en:wp, which is normal. Meta is not meant as a substitute for homewiki talkpage access (even if sometimes used that way!). – SJ + 22:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • SJ already asked Courcelles. Sadly no cooperation was forthcoming. And you are doubtless right that supporting Penyulap is a very bad idea, especially against Arbitrators who I may one day wish to appeal to. Nonetheless I made it clear in my retirement posting that I would continue to attempt to right this particular wrong, and I am not in the habit of going back on my word. Courcelles and Arbcom were both given opportunities to sort this out previously, Courcelles deleted my posts, Arbcom (despite you good offices, for which thanks) never had the courtesy to reply to me. Hardly reassuring behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    

Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

—

²¹ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas

, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—

Bringing giftwrapped Chocolate Bishzilla for little nominator, omnomnom! Careful you don't get in the way of my cool santa hat morning star, seasonal replacement for biting! Just to keep everybody on their toes! darwinbish ^BITE 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Elen! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

Strange how someone I consider a font of humane jollity could poll so divisively—a result that in no way reflects how helpful you are to this community. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is [this] called

User 98.207.22.233 has been making a string of non-constructive edits to the project. After adding a non-notable uniquely named individual to various "People from ..." pages, edits were made to pages about a religion. First links to pages of things for sale from the uniquely named individual were added; after those edits were reverted, User 98.207.22.233 blanked the resources sections that contained links to books about the religion which appear on Amazon and WorldCat. Whatever you can do will be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the whole discussion is here [[23]] now.TJD2 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are the "Elen" User:Rich Farmbrough is referring to on my talk page @ User talk:Brewcrewer#Sepsis II. Any assistance would be appreciated. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par ". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose , And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians ! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Elen! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the good wishes, chocolate, fish, whisky (particularly appreciated) and all else. I've not been around due to a combination of rushing around, determined relaxing, Caorunn, and a slow wave of lurgie passing through the family. Also, this place seems to have got at the cooking sherry and gone mad on Boxing Day, and I'm not sure it's recovered yet :). Still, I hope all of you had excellent holidays, whatever and however you celebrate them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was mentioned here. I'm not involved at all, just happened to notice that you weren't notified.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's pretty much a troll - enough admins in the Troubles area know who MoAinm was previously. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and happy new year. As a recent Arbcom member I was wondering if you could take a quick look at

Hey, Elen. I just realized I should have told you that I quoted you in the Arb case I recently requested. Sorry for the delay!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'd have added something about the time I blocked him for 3 months, but it looks like its a snowball accept. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user 12.118.47.158 is persistently messing with a wide variety of articles. Any assistance would be most gratefully appreciated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (

I see you've dealt with him in the past. I'm having issues with him in his present username "Guerrila of the Renmin" where he has taken ownership of not one but three disambiguation pages when I discovered one of them was using CJK characters (now at AFD), one he redirected to the first, and a third he kept because the items listed are written with different CJK characters than the first. What should be the next course of action with this guy before he attempts to clean start again because he's up to his usual tricks.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. I only (remove content/redirect and) revert you once on each DAB page (which I will not do until the AFD closes as a certain "Keep"), and you jump to conclusions that I will "attempt to clean start again" and scramble for administrative assistance. Give it a break. GotR

Talk 16:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You threaten to have my "other rights taken away" because I reverted your removals of places named "Pine Mountain" on Songshan. How is this not an issue?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were abusing rollback for what was clearly not vandalism or otherwise intentionally disruptive editing. Yes, my edit summary was blunt, but you must bear the full brunt of responsibility for this; we both know very well that I alone cannot have your "other rights taken away", and that if you continue using rollback in such a manner, the community will not look kindly upon you. You need to start breaking out of your present mentality.

Oh, and more than 24 hours have passed since you came here whining; I have fulfiled my promises of not removing from/redirecting each DAB, so you have no right whatsoever to continue complaining (with not an iota of evidence, too) about OWNership. GotR

Talk 21:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

So its so long and thanks for all the fish, I guess. I might stop by occasionally and see whether the account is still unblocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, Elen. I see how utterly unproductive those who tear down others here are.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no worries. I never was much of an editor. Although maybe I'll get the chance to fix that English muffin article some time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not determined by statistics. It's about what you are here for.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is just really unexpected and very sad. I still don't understand how a trusted member of the community like you could have been overkilled, but I think that this is just a maximized version of what happened to me some time ago (a bigger fish, a bigger weapon). I am starting to think that ArbCom was the worst thing that happened to you. —

²¹ 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm sorry (and, stupid, stupid me, surprised) to hear this, Elen. I don't always agree with you, but I've always felt you had a large reservoir of clue, which is more valuable than people who agree with me all the time. When I've saved up my pennies and created Grownupedia, I'll ping you. Of course, we won't need checkusers and oversighters because we'll all be grownups... Still, it will be a point of pride if the Grownupedia's English muffin article is better than WP's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Perhaps, Elen, you should make public the email you were actually sent rather than the one you seem to have invented? (Given that your description of it doesn't seem to resemble the former in the slightest).

    Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to mention that my data retention policy you seem so stunned with now was detailed over a year ago to both the Committee and the foundation general counsel and that you didn't have any objections then. — Coren ^(talk) 04:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coren. Tackling that last one first, you're clearly not doing anything wrong in US law according to counsel. I mentioned you only because I got the sense that people did not believe me that Arbitrators could retain these archives, and you handily confirmed that they did. In UK law, an organization would have been fined out of existence for the way that mailing list worked. Both countries have a completely different definition of private information and the expectations pertaining thereto, and it's not up to me to decide whether the current approach is kosher or not, although I would counsel anyone in the UK never to send sensitive personal data to Arbcom as were they an organisation which fell under the UK Data Protection legislation (which clearly they are not) their data security is lousy.

As to the email, I don't mean to sound cranky, but as you sent it from the mailing list and copied it to Arbcom, I believe I am unable to repeat it here as it is of course top secret (I have pointed out previously that the mailing list policies prohibit anyone who has received an email from Arbcom from circulating it or posting it). I do concede that it contains the line "Any response you send will be circulated and considered before taking a decision" - I do not consider either the email or that line to be the equivalent of hearing and being able to respond to my accusers, and I prefer not to take part in show trials if you don't mind.

I appreciate that your intention in sending it was to 'do the right thing'. Can I ask why is this being done by private motion and not onwiki? Probably not. I do think Arbcom in general ought to have the courage to place their opinions of me onwiki, not still be hiding behind a cloak of private discussion, with the sop of getting an individual to send me an email that the Committee know perfectly well I am prohibited from sharing with others.

Response to motion

I do not believe I can be prohibited from replying to the motion onwiki, and so that is what I intend to do. Should any other Arbs communicate their concerns to me, I will respond here.

To respond to the issue that Coren posed, which was along the lines that he did not trust that I would not suddenly decide that some other piece of information should not be kept private. I have a very clear understanding about the need to protect personally revealing information provided by or on individuals. Following UK law, such data must not be shared with individuals who are not authorised to see it (and numerous large fines show the vigour with which this is followed up). The WMF privacy policy relating to OS and CU data covers the same types of data and has the same restrictions (I wonder if it is modeled on European law, which is stricter, to give it the widest possible applicability). It contains more than adequate provision to cover the exceedingly rare situation where a CU or OS might find themselves in possession of information that urgently needs to be lawfully passed to a third party (eg the Feds), and it is clear that the WMF takes an active role in managing that, through their emergency mail system.

That (to my mind) is quite a different situation to revealing outrageous statements made by Wikipedia Arbitrators which, in the opinion already given by several lawyers who perused the situation, could never have had an expectation of privacy in the first place. What must I think be in Coren's mind is that an oversighter can see an allegation about a third party that warranted oversight. Some allegations might be explosive and have very serious consequences (claiming someone is a paedophile or an undercover cop could endanger their lives), others less so, but the key thing is that it must be personally revealing information to be oversighted under the the WMF policy. If the text does not fall into that class, then it should not be oversighted (handily allowing any administrator to delete gross insults that reveal no personal data). If it is oversighted, then it is covered by the policy and can only be revealed to a third party under the constraints imposed by that policy. That's a bright line.

In the case of Checkuser data, it is a little more complicated. The WMF will only provide it to a third party on being presented with the right order from the right court. Consequently, a checkuser should theoretically never be discussing CU data with non CUs. It sometimes happens on the Functionaries list, which has non-CU functionaries subscribed, but all are agreed on that list that it shouldn't happen, and it certainly must not happen anywhere else. At the same time, it is sometimes necessary to put information into SPIs, particularly when dealing with persistent vandals and diligent sockfarmers - and paid editing rings that are socking from each other's locations. There's more of a balancing act here - the minimum necessary information to the smallest number of people, being aware that "editing thru a proxy in China" conveys no identifying information, "editing on a RoadRunner range" just says they are in the US while some Verizon ranges practically give you a street address, "range 212.xxx.xxx.xxx/24" will tell anyone who does a lookup that the editor is in the North of England, "IP is assigned to FooCorp" means you've just revealed where the guy works even if you haven't posted the IP address, and "always edits from FooCorp IP between 23.00 and 06.00 means that FooCorp can finger him as the night watchman. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, of course, no objection to discussing the matter here if you so prefer. That email was sent to you, and you can dispose of it as you will; the Committee would not have disclosed it without your permission, but you are free to do so.

I don't think anyone has any doubt that you are well aware of the constraints of the law (certainly nobody on the Committee does), and indeed even the more exacting standards of European law, and that you would follow that religiously. The problem lies in that our rules (the Committee's and the Foundation's) do not align with those laws: some things European law covers that US law does not, and some things our policy protects that the law does not. No arbitrator is allowed to simply pick and choose by fiat what should or should not have been covered by our rules, yet this is exactly what you did. Had you constrained yourself at expressing concerns (publicly or not) that you were being bullied by Jclemens, it would have been okay. Demand that the Committee release the email? Kosher. Hell, seek help from the Foundation if you felt ArbCom wasn't doing enough to protect you? Also fine. (Incidentally, I do agree that the Committee had handled Jclemens's behaviour poorly but, given the proximity to the election and the sudden worries around a new leak that just sprung up...)

What you did, instead, is decide unilaterally that it was okay for you to leak that email (and part of another) to a buddy of yours. You knew it was against our rules to do so, but decided that you were justified in ignoring them because they didn't match some other set of rules you preferred. In short, I don't have a worry that you might discard our confidentiality rules when you don't find them agreeable – I observe that you already have.

And then you lied and obfuscated to hide what you did. You claim, post-fact, that this was done to protect the person you sent to email to, but that rings hollow: they had nothing to be protected from; all they did is pass along an email that they never were under any obligation to keep confidential to begin with.

And lastly, come the claims of whistleblowing. You started claiming, long after it was determined you were not being truthful, to have done so out of a desire to expose (or, in your words, "not cover up") misbehaviour by another arbitrator. Funnily(!) enough, I agree that Jclemens's behaviour was bad enough, probably, for outright expulsion from the committee and that – if the Committee failed to act – making that behaviour known publicly so that the community could act (if only with their voting ballots) might have been entirely defensible.

But that's not what you did. A whistleblower makes a matter public or brings it to the authorities, then owns up to their action. If a rule had to be broken in order to do so, then they accept the consequences and take their lumps. What you did is gossip to at least one friend, then lie and cover it up when the breach of the rule became apparent. You didn't step forward to make a great wrong public, you desperately tried to cover up when your gossip leaked beyond your control. You didn't own up to your action as ethically justified or necessary, you lied and misdirected to conceal your involvement as long as you could.

So, no, I do not trust you. — Coren ^(talk) 13:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elen. I'm leaving this note here to suggest a way forward and to give a bit more background. As you know, ArbCom tends to have a lot of things on its plate at the same time. This was one matter which was being discussed, and then brought to a head by Coren's e-mail to you. That e-mail was not from the committee, but from him with the committee copied in (though I for one hadn't seen that e-mail before it was sent). As you correctly surmise, that e-mail prompted more discussion. At some point in that, I checked when you had last edited and noticed that it was sometime previously (10 days or so) - Coren can probably clarify whether he had noticed your absence or not. That would have been a good point to send a follow-up e-mail asking for a brief response from you when you got back as to whether you wanted this discussed in public or dealt with by e-mail. You are right that you should have been brought in on this much earlier, and that a public discussion is in some ways easier than e-mail and certainly more transparent, but we are where we are now. I hope we can wind this back a bit and start again. I have suggested to the rest of ArbCom that we move this discussion to a public fora (somewhere better suited for this than your talk page), but it is quite possible that the decision may be that most of the discussion needs to remain internal, though I am happy to state on-wiki my views on the matter. It may take us a while to sort this out, but let me know what you think and how you would like this dealt with. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carcharoth. I don't myself see there being particularly a privacy issue with this - it's surely down to individual Arbs views which would, to my mind, be better expressed in public. It's also likely to spark a more general discussion - Coren refers to 'the rules' above, as if they are a monolith, but the whole thing showed that there are actually at least three 'rules': the WMF privacy policy (which appears to be bound by law in various countries and is therefore a bright line, as well as being nice and clear in its application), that part of the Arb Policy which relates to privacy and confidentiality (which is approved by the community and subject to change only by approved procedure, but which from the opinions offered by several lawyers at the time is clearly not as restrictive as Coren for example believes that it is), and finally the custom and practice of Arbcom not appearing in any written policy, which is that its mailing list is under the seal of the confessional, and verbatim text from it can never be quoted.

I can understand a concern that any onwiki discussion will just spiral off. A more managed venue than my talkpage would definitely be good. I will await further communication. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elen. It may not be until after the weekend now, but I (or another arbitrator) will update you when we have decided where to go from here. Will you be around on-wiki this weekend if there are any questions that arise relating to this? What I think may happen (certainly the way I would approach this) is for each arbitrator who has concerns to state them on-wiki (much like Coren did above), likely in the context of a motion designed to resolve this, and for you to respond individually or collectively, and then a decision taken. My own concern is that I don't want to take a decision until I've heard what you have to say, but I think I'm right in saying that you don't want to respond until you have the assurance of a public venue (partly to air your concerns as you have above)? Would that be about right? Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've summed it up well. Given the amount of snow coming down outside, I don't expect I'm going anywhere outside walking distance, so I'll check in anywhere you want over the weekend. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A brief update Just to tell you where things are now and not leave you hanging: we're currently hashing out the details of a proposed motion that will be posted publicly for voting (I expect /Motions is the most likely venue), and where you will have have an opportunity to respond. That motion will not propose removal of your permissions; that alternative has been robustly discussed (to say the least) and it would have passed or failed by the barest of margins depending on an abstention and an inactive arbitrator – and nobody feels that a decision that marginal on such a delicate issue is advantageous to anyone or the project.

So that you are not taken by surprise, the proposed motion will consist of a strong admonition and a reminder; I expect it should be ready for public discussion in a day or two. — Coren ^(talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update Coren. I shall await further announcement. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking per

Star chamber to include Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, right? NE Ent 17:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I should say that

WP:POINT is the one you are thinking of, or perhaps WP:POINTLESSHYPERBOLE? I mean, after all, exactly like the Star Chamber court we didn't inform Elen of charges... oh. Well, we certainly didn't give her the opportunity to comment or... oh. Well, we certainly used it as a political cover for a pre-ordained conclusion that couldn't possible change... oh. — Coren ^(talk) 18:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Those of us not privy to the star chamber secret tribunal may not be entirely comfortable with seeing Elen's character and community spirit impugned at vague length on this page, followed by a threat of "strong admonition and a reminder" in a day or two that's stretched to a week. I had been hoping to learn more about ArbCom's standard of ethics. I'm fine with saying it's nobody's business, if Elen is satisfied with how the matter has been resolved. But while I've never been interested in exercising any powers other than reason on Wikipedia, I do like to be a concerned citizen of the community, aware of its norms, procedures, and codes of behavior. I suppose I'd like to hear either "it's been resolved privately, nothing to see here, move along," or a clearer articulation of the issues we should be aware of as a community. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-arb and arb commentary

Welcome to the masses; you're treatment is not uncommon for us grunts. Indeed, you were on the Arbcom that decided I was too untrustworthy to have the CU (or OS I forget exactly) bit because of a comment I made about publicly logging IRC... despite managing to be a perfectly OK OTRS agent, and a RL digital forensic analyst (yep, I iz in ur computers!). So.. I do have sympathy. Chin up and sock it to the secrecy :) Perhaps consider it a learning experience ready for a new Arbcom stint in a few years. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

;\ I remember that. The plain truth is that except for the odd candidate that no-one would trust further than they could throw them for some very obvious reason, it just comes down to personal view/like/dislike. Never seemed very satisfactory, but when secret ballots were held, I gather nobody voted. Before that, I believe and RfA type process was used, which was replaced with the secret ballots . That wasn't felt to be very satisfactory either (but I could be wrong about that - it's before my time). Not sure I'd stand for Arb again - too much like

that Greek guy rolling the rock up the hill. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeh, I know - the only thing that annoyed me was that it was dressed up with an excuse. I can't stand that sort of dishonesty. I guess what you're feeling now is what a lot of people dragged before Arbcom feel - so I think you should think about standing back up there. It's like... how politicians are so disconnected from the populace, but every so often one falls to disgrace and comes back "changed". I dunno, I might have drunk too much good claret :) Anways; I think in this situation you were placed between a rock and a hard place, and although I voted Nay for you (because I believe it is worth changing arbcom membership as much as possible), you have my support for what you did. All this faux secrecy hides a lot of bad stuff (TM) and in exposing just a small portion of it I think you've upheld the core of our communities ideals. My advice? I find walking away for a bit, or narrowly focusing on a non-contentious topic that interests you, is like a balm. And eventually people will forget you are a BAD person(TM) leaving you in peace. Tools 'r' not the be all an end all. Are you interested in WW2 history? I have a whole topic area that desperately needs some lurving... :D --Errant ^(chat!) 23:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, Coren has an interest in keeping alleged Arbitator misbehaviour under the super secret seal of the mailing list archives, the fallout from the his block of Giano makes it clear that his own actions have been and are being concealled from the community by the policy on list secrecy. Any former Arbitrator who has misused the list has reason to fear disclosure and the idea that you are unable to distinguish between genuinely sensitive personally identifying information and material that should have been addressed on-wiki is a fiction – in reality, it is precisely because you are capable of understanding the distinction that you are feared. I am surprised and disappointed that you are being targetted but not at all surprised that Coren would be leading the charge. Unlike you, however, I have great difficulty assuming that the motivation is about potential misuse of the tools or the information to which you have access; that is merely a pretext for action, and I hope that there are enough members of the current Committee who recognise this. EdChem (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as the unending hounding that eventually loses us another worthy contributor who happens to be politically disfavoured.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, you should not be denied a public hearing. Elen, nobody should not be denied a public hearing, and nobody should be denied an opportunity to defend himself publicly. The only thing I cannot understand why while being an arbitrator you bluntly denied the same right to others or simply ignored requests for transparency. I guess what goes around comes around, and now you've found yourself on the receiving end of the Arbitration Committee. 76.126.173.89 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that she did so because it was what she was entitled to do; it was part of her job as an Arbitrator to behave like that. Otherwise, she would have been removed way before. I, as a member of a family surrounded by politics, understand how this works. If you are good enough, you will be removed by your peers. If you are bad enough, you will be killed by community. Then, the only choice you have is to balance both. Of course, you can weigh in for one side (e.g. to be as good as possible, or as bad as possible) without breaching the red line and being shown the door, and this will become the textbook that the whole community will read when assessing your contributions to the project. —

²¹ 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The thing is that sometimes "balancing" is not an option because as I said before what goes around comes around, and besides there's also

this. 76.126.173.89 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I always feel that conversations have reached a low ebb on this project when someone is quoting that poem. Although I do sometimes feel that Wikipedia has reached the point where Cromwell is suppressing the Levellers. However, in both of the cases you quote, silence was the only answer, in that no evidence could be presented because there was none to present. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it interesting that Coren chose to add a "Kibitzers" sub-heading. According to the

1. ArbCom contemplating sanctions on an editor is not akin to a game, no matter how much any arbitrator might wish to see editors as pawns to be controlled at will.
2. ArbCom do not rule the community, and commenting on proposed ArbCom actions is not a breach of etiquette. Further, the community are not supposed to be spectators who have no role in contributing to ArbCom proceedings.
3. Coren may view himself as manoeuvring to win a contest and defeat Elen and thus that pointing out to Elen other potential motivations is unfair, but all that illustrates is his bias and demonstrates how inappropriate is his approach here.
4. I note from Carcharoth's post that he felt the need to inform Elen directly that Coren's "e-mail was not from the committee, but from him with the committee copied in (though I for one hadn't seen that e-mail before it was sent)." Coren's on-wiki comments to date did sound (to me) like he was representing himself as spokesperson for a Committee-agreed position (though I haven't seen the email, of course). Three weeks into a new term as arbitrator, Coren is apparently already pursuing unilateral authority, and Carcharoth's comments indicate a desire to set aside this behaviour to instead focus on a more appropriate discussion of Elen's situation ("... but we are where we are now. I hope we can wind this back a bit and start again"). Inappropriate arbitrator behaviour will continue to go unaddressed, I fear.

EdChem (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, just so as not to wrongfoot EdChem's comment above: I'm disappointed that Coren created a section with the condescending header "Kibitzers" for the non-arb commentary here. Really, Coren..! Separating these posts from Olympus up above may be convenient, indeed, and I'm not removing the separate header; but I'm changing it to "non-arb commentary", which seems appropriately dull and neutral. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC).)[reply]

Thanks Bish. As you say, a dull and neutral header seems preferrable here, where the opinion of the community does appear to me to have quite a bit of relevance, and not be kibitzing at all. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish formally to state that I am not here kibitzing but (broadly defined) gongoozling. I do hope that this helps. Best wishes 82.45.217.156 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I am dismayed to see Elen considering stepping back from Wikipedia and more than dismayed to see efforts to push her to a situation where she can't use the abilities she has to Wikipedia's best interests. The election shows Elen has a lot of community support and had her situation been heard with out the drama that stalks some of Wkipedia's pages she'd probably have more. I have always had concerns about unilateral power-too many editors damaged by deliberate biased actions. And I have equal concern with the power generated on talk pages to create chaos, and emotional upsurges that have little meaning in terms of logic and reality. This is a collaborative community which means we can use a community in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I 'm not saying Coren is doing anything beyond voicing a concern, but the impact could be as has happened in the past to create a volatile situation that impacts unfairly another person. I sure do wish Wikipedia had a visible-to-the-community-page where something could be explained and where the general community could not come in and pile on, colouring and perhaps twisting what has been said and done. Another fine mess.(olive (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Coren may not have thought through the implications of his unhappy turn of phrase. If he did, his thinking was not representative of the view of this arb, nor (I'd guess) that of a majority of my colleagues.
  [•] 11:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also, Elen, I see above that you are under the impression we are out for your head. This is wrong. Nobody intends to ever propose any action other than the revocation of your advanced permissions. I certainly do not think your sysop rights have been questioned, nor that a siteban is being proposed.
  [•] 11:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think Wehwalt's comments about Charlie Brown and the football probably explains the reaction - although I fully accept your assurances as to your own motivations. I think everyone is aware that there are at least three prominent editors who would be happy to see me sitebanned for insufficient application in the bunny boiling department, so I think it's not a wholly fantastical theory on my part. Still, what will be will be. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The move to expel Elen from ArbCom was extraordinary as there was no complaining party; a second such procedure doesn't exactly give assurance for the future, AGK. At some point, Charlie Brown quite rightly concludes it's irrelevant which way the wind is blowing as he runs up to kick the football that Lucy is holding. There's also something about sticks and the present state of equines that I would urge upon the Committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Wehwalt. As you (and we've) seen in the past, a bully never likes to be challenged, so it's not surprising when they call in their friends and markers. @Elen. You still have my full, complete, and unadulterated trust. Just the view from one peon. — Ched :  ?  14:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Elen, just a lurker weighing in that you are on the side of the angels. If The "Queen of Hearts" ("off with her head!") contingent is targeting you, and they are, don't let them run you off, we need you and those like you - too many good, solid contributors are being run off for, at most, momentary brain farts - and said momentary brain farts were often filled with good intentions with the goal of improving "teh wiki" ;) . There are some seriously problematic people on-wiki, but the ones I am thinking of are not you, but some (not all) of those in positions of power and influence. I feel sad that they have you in the beam of their magnifying glass, but don't let 'em fry you! Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Oddly, the effect has been probably the opposite of that intended - I had been busy elsewhere and taking a bit of a break, but it's brought me back here. I'll just have to wait and see what comes next. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I used "Kibitzers" in its "A back-and-forth conversation outside the main issue, where the people having the conversation are not directly participating" sense (which I had believed the be the primary, if not sole, meaning). I did not mean to imply that the commentary was particularly unwanted, only that it was from uninvolved parties and the separation was only meant to allow dialogue about the substantive matter to flow without interruption. — Coren ^(talk) 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where the heck did you get that definition? Kibitzer and wikt:kibitzer are pretty clear the word means the key element of the word is unwanted. NE Ent 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought a kibitzer was the guy two stools along at the bar, offering unsolicited advice on your choice of drink/date/spouse/job/car etc. The sort of guy the barman has to rescue you from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, kibiters bring to mind the image of Statler and Waldorf, which is hardly anywhere that pejorative (and considerably more amusing). The choice of word was brought on by levity, and not out of any intent to insult; I am sorry if I've offended anyone by using it. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take it as an insult, because "kibitzer" is a term which is usually used slightly tongue-in-cheek. The problem more generally I have with the situation being brought up by you now is that the conduct of Elen was considered, and as far as I am concerned, settled, by ArbCom during a term for which you sought to be a member, and the community told you no, as you were not re-elected in 2011. Coming back now and saying "by the way, there were some things ArbCom did when I was gone that I don't agree with and I'd like to redo" is somewhat problematical, as it was by the community's wish that you were not a part of the decision in December 2012. Of course, you may have campaigned on the platform that you would go and reconsider 2012 decisions in 2013, including with specificity the Elen situation, if you did you can give me a link and, if so, you will be heartily within your rights.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could get into an interesting debate about ongoing committee responsibilities, but the simpler matter is simply that the matter was not settled by the end of the year – it had simply stalled for a number of reasons.

You are correct that I have not campaigned on such a platform – not counting the fact that it would have been extraordinarily inappropriate to do so during the election (the closest I've ever gotten to something like that was opine on the propriety of Jclemens's "not a Wikipedian" comment as an answer to a direct question) – I could not possibly claim to have enough information to pronounce myself on that incident at the time.

That said, advanced permission review is part of the normal scope of the sitting ArbCom, and there is nothing exceptional about the incoming committee making that evaluation as part of settling in (to wit what happened around FT2 in 2009). — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me suggest that it is a poor idea to establish precedents that can bite you in the ass.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure exactly what brought on the above, it's reminding me forcibly about when I closed a discussion after having asked a single question, and was reverted for being

I am astonished anyone in this day and age thinks an email has any hope of being private. Reminds me of the woman in 1881 who was upset because the contents of her singing telegram became known to others! For at least the last century, electronic or post correspondence is the property of the recipient, hence the high auction prices for historic letters which go to the owner of the letter or telegram, not the sender's descendants. For someone to get upset about electronic mail shared by the recipient to the point of reams of commentary and redefining the English language, shows me that emotion has become involved because logic and reason are discarded unused. As a retired college professor with years of graduate student spat-solving, I read the entire foregoing text and find it obvious where the fault lays. I also introduce Sayre's law into the discussion with a reminder that the project is what is important here not "winning" or "scoring points." Yes, be bold, but don't forget the politeness. That said, let me add my voice to the chorus crying "Elen, please don't leave!" Us little people in the trenches need you. PS to anyone who wants to take a bite out of me for my opinion... you'll show your truest colors when you do, so have at. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So with this edit Coren states Elen is deceitful, a gossip, untrustworthy, a liar and unethical ... and adds a section header for "levity" because he's thinking about

Muppets? NE Ent 15:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I did ask him to give his honest opinion. At least he didn't hold back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Liar and gossip" imply the other insults.

I had thought this year's ArbCom would a relative safe haven from the decadence of WP. What has WTT gotten himself into?

The best last all conviction, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it... I swear I'm sprouting grey hairs... can't believe it's only just been a month... Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just another morlock stopping by to say "Don't let the bastards grind you down." So, uh, don't let the bastards grind you down. Life is short, the world is large, and almost no one gets what they deserve. But I like the pseudo-person that appears here as "you", and wish you well. - 124.168.72.151 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I must nominate this page for deletion. It consists of mere songs that were used in the show. There is nothing encyclopedic about this, as it may violate

Indeed. As Elen won't be very active, I nominated the list. You are welcome to post your vote there if you wish. Regards. —

²¹ 03:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello again... Collis Potter Huntington has been changed several times recently Collis Potter Huntington's History Page by a pair of anonymous users [24] & [25]. The edit summaries look quite educated, but if you look at the actual edits on the page, they're very ignorant. Any help you or other admins can give to this page, which for some reason seems to attract odd vandals (or perhaps just the same one over & over). Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same problem is also to be found at James Buchanan's edit history and Franklin Pierce's edit history. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) comment - not sure why you mention 71.246.62.88 here since their only contribution seems to be fixing Collis Potter Huntington. Agree that the other "editing" is a real problem though. :( 82.45.217.156 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Materialscientist blocked the 67 IP for a month (sorry I wasn't quicker off the mark) - agree with 82.45 that the other IP was only trying to fix the mess. Don't know why poor Collis Potter Huntington seems to attract vandals. I can understand juvies vandalising
  Beyonce - they have one of the first category, and probably...well, you can guess the interaction with the second. But how would you even find Collis Potter Huntington if you didn't already know he existed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for a stop to the anonymous editing! @anon-TalkPageStalker... I mentioned both 71 & 67 because I couldn't figure out what was going on, and rather than make a bad situation worse, I pointed to both IPs and asked for help. @Elen... My guess is that C.P. was found on some kind of "Potter" search at some point and has been attractive to mess with ever since. The other page in constant vandalism state that I watch is Guy Fieri who is apparently, in his spare time from the Food Network, also the Antichrist. It gets changed, we change it back, it gets changed... I wish these people put as much effort into working on the project for real as they do on trying to mess it up! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious! Although I gather he's in competition with Simon Cowell for the antichrist tag [26]. And did you know, Colonel Sanders discovered the elixir of life, and added it to the KFC recipe (I can't find the vandalism for that unfortunately - someone wrote a whole spoof article about how Harlan Sanders is still alive and eating KFC (if you can find the shop that sells the right version) will make you live forever, but I can't recall the exact title. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, please don't give up, 'cos you have friends ... and the English muffin article is still patiently awaiting your visit. Really. Politics is poo but editing is good. Best wishes 82.45.217.156 (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Yes I am not logged in but don't worry, no drama, no conspiracy, I'm just on a break ... not someone you know well or anyone interesting or important. Just would hate to see you stop editing here, that's all. Cheers 82.45.217.156 (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

No worries. I agree, the best thing is to ditch the politics and get some editing in :) And don't worry about logging out here to avoid drama - it's only the ones who log out to leave insults that get bit by User:Darwinbish (usually) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love that song, BTW. Always been a fan of both of them, so put them together and boom! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes, great song, great combination of artists. And I really wasn't logged out here to avoid drama, but merely because I was on a self-imposed break so actually couldn't log in at that time! :) Cheers 82.45.217.156 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I begin to think that the user,

No he's not. You can relax. 90.202.58.225 used

Wikipedia:Articles for Creation to create the article. Anthony Weights works at AFC approving new articles and moving them into article space. Check his user contributions - you can see him doing the same with lots of articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Elen, I know you're not terribly active, but on the other hand, I probably know you better than other active checkusers, so I'll bug you first. Do I understand correctly that a CU can tell whether or not one account sent another account an email thru the WP interface? Not the contents, but the fact that the email was or was not sent. In a case where one user says another user sent them a harassing email, and the other user denies sending any emails at all, would a CU be willing to check this? Not asking for the check yet; still hoping the one not telling the truth comes clean without the check. But I'm inclined to block the liar indefinitely if he doesn't come clean, whichever one it turns out to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CheckUser can see the recipient of the emails. They can only see that the email was sent and the IP address from which it was sent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, rats. If that's the case, I guess CU could still conclusively disprove one of the claims, but not the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would still work; the other user says they have not sent any emails thru the WP interface in over a month, so a check could be used to substantiate one side or the other's claim. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser tool shows if the user sent an email through the interface, but only shows who it was sent to as as a hash code. I suspect that somewhere there is a lookup table, but it's only available to a developer. However, if the user is insisting that they never sent email thru the interface, that can be demonstrated with the tool. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't come clean, is this something you'd be willing to check? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just go on with it now. This is getting really annoying, like a bug that won't stop flying by your ear and you can never hit it in time.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your user is alleging that they have received harrassing emails from User:Foo, they need to forward the emails, ideally with all the headers - it would then be possible to compare that fairly definitively with the return from the checkuser tool. Even without the full header, the tool could compare timestamps. I wouldn't be happy to do it without confirmation that the email exists. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email, Elen (if you doubt it, you can use CU to verify! :) ) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave you guys to it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – With an indef block, no CU needed after all. The accusation against Status is false. Thanks for your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This guy sounds like a piece of work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]