This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Despite being entirely uninvolved in this mess, I've added some proposals as I think many of the existing proposals are going the wrong way. The process doesn't need tinkering with, the presenting circumstances need dealing with.
Complicating this is the fact that the committee has pronounced, unwisely in my view, an amnesty to all involved. This should be rescinded if at all possible.
I can add evidence to the proposed findings of fact if required, but I hope it's all pretty obvious; the facts of the case are not disputed. Unusually, even which facts are relevant is not really in dispute. GoldenRing ( talk) 23:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted somewhere (evidence, workshop, here, somewhere) that Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) was blocked today for one month by Keilana ( talk · contribs) following an unrelated AE request. -- B ( talk) 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I am going to continue reporting Eric when he violates his AE sanctionsYou really should stop. Eric is not a low-profile person; if he does something that needs attention, someone else will notice and it can be handled by someone without a clear history of repeatedly trying to sanction him and anyone who takes actions perceived to be in his favor (just for examples related to this case, see out-of-scope evidence, point 3 of my preliminary statement, talk page followup). You should effectively follow the terms of the original injunction and refrain from taking or initiating any administrative action with regard to Eric. The continued participation of involved users (some arguably, some unambiguously) as the self-appointed civility police is itself contributing to the disruption caused by the original incivility. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
GoldenRing I think the committee sort of passed the buck when they decided to pass the discretion back the community even though it was clear that the community had already failed to deal with it which is why it ended up at arbcom. I think you make very good point about leaving enforcement to the committee. Without in any way prohibiting normal admin actions the sanctions themselves could be taken over by arbcom.
We are feeling the repercussions of pushing the problem down the road right now. While the community can often be relied upon to handle enforcements of arbcom decisions it seems in this case it would help a lot if they just took it out the community's hands and dealt with the matter with whatever clear criteria they wish to. The matter is simply too divisive, I am seeing good people on both sides and neither side is feeling good about the site at the end of the day. Chillum 03:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@ L235, Jim Carter, and Penwhale: Requesting this section be hatted as off topic. The discussion has (of course) become about Corbett and Gorman. Not related to this case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 15:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely hope, whatever Arbcom decides in this case, it results in all sanctioned editors being treated equally. FWIW, the 2 times I was reported to AE, the results were quite swift & with little fuss. GoodDay ( talk) 10:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying to find time to add some significant proposals for a week or so, and only just now managed to get them down on the workshop. I hope these proposals get some discussion, but I notice that the workshop deadline is fast approaching. Would a one week extension be acceptable?
I also notice that nearly everybody has been uncommonly collegial on this workshop, and want to thank all involved for that. -- TS 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have just posted the draft PD for any interested users to comment on; as a result, I have reopened the workshop for the limited purpose of discussing the proposed decision. The workshop will close again on 9 August 2015. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In the draft proposed decision, the principle "Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement" specifies that administrators can act unilaterally to enforce an arbitration decision. The principle "Dismissing an enforcement request" states that once a request has been dismissed, it may not be reopened. These two principles are in conflict, and so additional clarification is desirable. The second principle implies that an administrator unilaterally deciding not to enforce an arbitration decision has now prevented all other administrators from acting, which prevents unilateral enforcement and forestalls enforcement based on consensus, if the dismissal is taken swiftly.
As a point of clarification: does the second principle hold regardless of where the request was made? If so, in order for administrators to be aware of the disposition of the request, a central log is needed to record the outcome. (Presumably, if an administrator notices a violation without a request, and chooses not to act, this too would have to be recorded, and so the first administrator on the scene will handle the incident.) If not, there is an asymmetry between breaches of arbitration remedies discussed at, say, the incidents noticeboard, and at the Arbitration Enforcement requests noticeboard. isaacl ( talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that this case has been intended to provide guidance about the ground rules in the event of future cases. I've looked at the draft PD with that in mind. I expect that, in the future, editors will look to what the PD says about the finding of fact at (2) Conduct of the administrators involved. As I read it, the draft PD is telling administrators "this is suboptimal, so you need to be careful about it". As such, it has to be very clear as to what the suboptimal aspects are, and I want to make some suggestions about that necessary clarity.
I'm expecting that there will be future cases, and that editors will be looking for ways to parse this decision to support whatever those editors are predisposed to do. As a result, I think it's important that the final decision leave no room for Wikilawyering, and that requires specificity. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Despite being entirely uninvolved in this mess, I've added some proposals as I think many of the existing proposals are going the wrong way. The process doesn't need tinkering with, the presenting circumstances need dealing with.
Complicating this is the fact that the committee has pronounced, unwisely in my view, an amnesty to all involved. This should be rescinded if at all possible.
I can add evidence to the proposed findings of fact if required, but I hope it's all pretty obvious; the facts of the case are not disputed. Unusually, even which facts are relevant is not really in dispute. GoldenRing ( talk) 23:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted somewhere (evidence, workshop, here, somewhere) that Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs) was blocked today for one month by Keilana ( talk · contribs) following an unrelated AE request. -- B ( talk) 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I am going to continue reporting Eric when he violates his AE sanctionsYou really should stop. Eric is not a low-profile person; if he does something that needs attention, someone else will notice and it can be handled by someone without a clear history of repeatedly trying to sanction him and anyone who takes actions perceived to be in his favor (just for examples related to this case, see out-of-scope evidence, point 3 of my preliminary statement, talk page followup). You should effectively follow the terms of the original injunction and refrain from taking or initiating any administrative action with regard to Eric. The continued participation of involved users (some arguably, some unambiguously) as the self-appointed civility police is itself contributing to the disruption caused by the original incivility. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
GoldenRing I think the committee sort of passed the buck when they decided to pass the discretion back the community even though it was clear that the community had already failed to deal with it which is why it ended up at arbcom. I think you make very good point about leaving enforcement to the committee. Without in any way prohibiting normal admin actions the sanctions themselves could be taken over by arbcom.
We are feeling the repercussions of pushing the problem down the road right now. While the community can often be relied upon to handle enforcements of arbcom decisions it seems in this case it would help a lot if they just took it out the community's hands and dealt with the matter with whatever clear criteria they wish to. The matter is simply too divisive, I am seeing good people on both sides and neither side is feeling good about the site at the end of the day. Chillum 03:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@ L235, Jim Carter, and Penwhale: Requesting this section be hatted as off topic. The discussion has (of course) become about Corbett and Gorman. Not related to this case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 15:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely hope, whatever Arbcom decides in this case, it results in all sanctioned editors being treated equally. FWIW, the 2 times I was reported to AE, the results were quite swift & with little fuss. GoodDay ( talk) 10:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been trying to find time to add some significant proposals for a week or so, and only just now managed to get them down on the workshop. I hope these proposals get some discussion, but I notice that the workshop deadline is fast approaching. Would a one week extension be acceptable?
I also notice that nearly everybody has been uncommonly collegial on this workshop, and want to thank all involved for that. -- TS 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have just posted the draft PD for any interested users to comment on; as a result, I have reopened the workshop for the limited purpose of discussing the proposed decision. The workshop will close again on 9 August 2015. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In the draft proposed decision, the principle "Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement" specifies that administrators can act unilaterally to enforce an arbitration decision. The principle "Dismissing an enforcement request" states that once a request has been dismissed, it may not be reopened. These two principles are in conflict, and so additional clarification is desirable. The second principle implies that an administrator unilaterally deciding not to enforce an arbitration decision has now prevented all other administrators from acting, which prevents unilateral enforcement and forestalls enforcement based on consensus, if the dismissal is taken swiftly.
As a point of clarification: does the second principle hold regardless of where the request was made? If so, in order for administrators to be aware of the disposition of the request, a central log is needed to record the outcome. (Presumably, if an administrator notices a violation without a request, and chooses not to act, this too would have to be recorded, and so the first administrator on the scene will handle the incident.) If not, there is an asymmetry between breaches of arbitration remedies discussed at, say, the incidents noticeboard, and at the Arbitration Enforcement requests noticeboard. isaacl ( talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that this case has been intended to provide guidance about the ground rules in the event of future cases. I've looked at the draft PD with that in mind. I expect that, in the future, editors will look to what the PD says about the finding of fact at (2) Conduct of the administrators involved. As I read it, the draft PD is telling administrators "this is suboptimal, so you need to be careful about it". As such, it has to be very clear as to what the suboptimal aspects are, and I want to make some suggestions about that necessary clarity.
I'm expecting that there will be future cases, and that editors will be looking for ways to parse this decision to support whatever those editors are predisposed to do. As a result, I think it's important that the final decision leave no room for Wikilawyering, and that requires specificity. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)