Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: Tiptoety ( Talk) & Amorymeltzer ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren ( Talk) |
Active:
Inactive:
Recuse:
Overall, very good. I don't understand the purpose of the second sentence here, though (from "Proposed principles"):
Also, to go out of order, #1 in "Proposed principles", Coren's comment:
From "Proposed findings of fact", #1, Coren's comment:
Excellent catches by JohnW in terms of drilling down into the proposed decision, and for what they are worth here are my thoughts on the three points he raised (rized?) above:
Otherwise I think this is pretty fair as a proposed decision sans remedies. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that remedy #2 is amended to allow CoM to nominate articles on T:TDYK? His behavior there has not as far as I know been problematic, and the proposed decision itself commends him for his DYK contributions. Ucucha 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Remedy 2 has an obvious loophole: 2) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited - so any time he wants to edit a talk page, he can just make a trivial edit to the article. This is equivalent to no restriction on talk pages at all William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously the traditional civility parole hasn't worked in situations like this one. This is simpler than what I proposed, and simplicity has its merits. Nonetheless, this is a gag rule. It is structured so that all appeals of the gag rule fold back upon the same body that imposed the gag rule in the first place. That is inherently problematic on a project whose functioning relies upon open discussion. To speak in general terms, the danger with gag rules is that people in positions of power have been known to silence legitimate criticism of themselves. What safeguards are to be set in place to prevent the possible misuse of gag rules on Wikipedia? Durova 412 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
In practice, for the remedy in question, it mostly constrains where that criticism can be aired — and I would fully expect that any legitimate complaint would be quickly picked up and relayed loudly by a number of editors. The remedy wasn't constructed to prevent criticism, but to prevent it from disrupting the normal editing and community processes. — Coren (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It talks about the RFCU in present tense. Also, it's the second second numbered 3.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
When I vote tonight or tomorrow I may take the liberty of doing some light copy-editing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
As currently written remedy two makes it verboten for ChildofMidnight to edit any user talk pages except his own. I do think something like this is needed, but I also think we need to leave room for some exceptions, though I understand the concern expressed by Coren above in terms of trying to avoid creating holes in the restrictions. Nonetheless I think something along the lines of what Durova proposed here in the workshop could work. There are a number of editors who would be happy to receive talk page messages from ChildofMidnight and I see no reason to restrict that. Also as I mentioned when commenting on Durova's proposal, allowing no talk page posts would put ChildofMidnight in a bind if he was working on an article and saw some comments or edits from another editor which led him to want to ask them a question (I proposed a standard, "do you mind if I post to your page?" query for situations like this). Under the current formulation ChildofMidnight would also not be able to consult editors with expertise about content questions as he recently did here for example, and I don't think preventing questions like that helps anyone. To my mind we do need a user talk page restriction if we are restricting C of M from certain parts of the project, but I think it needs to be more flexible than the current one or we end up hindering some of ChildofMidnight's useful encyclopedia work. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
(undent) I meant, simply enough, that any such admin is welcome to watchlist some agreed upon subpage of ChildofMidnight's talk page and be willing to act as intermediary without any requirement to allow an exception to the restriction which can remain simply worded and with few holes. For instance, I would see no reason why LadyofShalott could not do exactly that since she has so gratiously offered. — Coren (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
So far there is fairly strong support among some of the Arbs for a one year ban, which I guess is understandable given the evidence. However there seemed to be a decent consensus at the workshop (including among some editors like me who have been quite critical of ChildofMidnight's behavior) that it would be worthwhile to at least try a restriction that fell short of banning. I'm curious as to why arbitrators supporting a ban feel that a lesser remedy is not worthwhile, particularly as this is the first ArbCom case to focus solely (or even primarily) on ChildofMidnight's behavior.
I think there is some similarity here to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse (I'm not very familiar with that and apparently things recently ended badly with that user) though Mattisse's content contributions were arguably at a higher level (on the other hand the disruption seems to have perhaps been worse). Efforts were made to work with Mattisse to restrict activities rather than banning. Is the difference perhaps that Mattisse took some initiative in terms of a "plan" whereas ChildofMidnight has basically ignored this entire case? If so maybe an arb or a clerk should leave a note for ChildofMidnight saying he is likely heading for a year-long ban if he does not work with the committee a bit and "sign on" (i.e. acknowledge its validity and necessity) to a remedy like the second one offered by Coren. Obviously we only ban contributors as a last resort and would prefer not to take that step as a general rule. Frankly ChildofMidnight has not been up against the wall like this before, and it's possible he'll adjust his style and/or stick to a tight set of restrictions (perhaps grudgingly) in order to be allowed to continue to edit.
I hope the Arbs will make some allowance for that possibility and perhaps reach out directly to ChildofMidnight in a "this is your last chance" sort of fashion now that we are in the final stages of the case. As one who has been on the receiving end of uncivil comments from ChildofMidnight as much or more than anyone here, I continue to think it's worthwhile to attempt to retain him as a contributor to the project. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom's original brief was for cases like this. An editor is considered valuable by the community but persists in highly destructive behavior of a kind that actively destroys all attempts to move towards reconciliation. The community is paralysed by its respect for the editor's excellent contributions and cannot agree on community sanctions, so it is left to the Committee to step up and draw the line. There are no complex policy considerations here, just a determination that an editor's valuable contributions do not excuse the intractable problems he creates. -- TS 17:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the workshop contains several rather vague gestures towards alleged harrassment and sysop abuse [1] [2], I hope the Committee will consider investigating the allegations. If a ban results it will leave a nasty taste in the mouth, and it would be as well to forestall further bad blood by honestly investigating the allegations. -- TS 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Rereading the proposed decision as voted on so far I think it shows a good appreciation of where the accusations originate and why they are made. This is a stubborn and uncooperative Wikipedian who does not handle criticism well. I agree that speed is important (I recommended a motion). Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of questions regarding Remedy 2). A note at the top of the "Remedies" section says "Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated." The votes on remedy 2 seem to suggest that it should run consecutively to remedy 1) but the text of remedy 2) daoes not explicitly say so. Also, Remedy 2) does not have a specified expiration date (one year, two years, or whatever). Do the committee members really mean the editing restriction in remedy 2) to be permanent? That sounds a bit too draconian... Nsk92 ( talk) 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Rather, the restriction remains in place only as long or briefly as is effectively required. — Coren (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: Tiptoety ( Talk) & Amorymeltzer ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren ( Talk) |
Active:
Inactive:
Recuse:
Overall, very good. I don't understand the purpose of the second sentence here, though (from "Proposed principles"):
Also, to go out of order, #1 in "Proposed principles", Coren's comment:
From "Proposed findings of fact", #1, Coren's comment:
Excellent catches by JohnW in terms of drilling down into the proposed decision, and for what they are worth here are my thoughts on the three points he raised (rized?) above:
Otherwise I think this is pretty fair as a proposed decision sans remedies. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that remedy #2 is amended to allow CoM to nominate articles on T:TDYK? His behavior there has not as far as I know been problematic, and the proposed decision itself commends him for his DYK contributions. Ucucha 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Remedy 2 has an obvious loophole: 2) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited - so any time he wants to edit a talk page, he can just make a trivial edit to the article. This is equivalent to no restriction on talk pages at all William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously the traditional civility parole hasn't worked in situations like this one. This is simpler than what I proposed, and simplicity has its merits. Nonetheless, this is a gag rule. It is structured so that all appeals of the gag rule fold back upon the same body that imposed the gag rule in the first place. That is inherently problematic on a project whose functioning relies upon open discussion. To speak in general terms, the danger with gag rules is that people in positions of power have been known to silence legitimate criticism of themselves. What safeguards are to be set in place to prevent the possible misuse of gag rules on Wikipedia? Durova 412 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
In practice, for the remedy in question, it mostly constrains where that criticism can be aired — and I would fully expect that any legitimate complaint would be quickly picked up and relayed loudly by a number of editors. The remedy wasn't constructed to prevent criticism, but to prevent it from disrupting the normal editing and community processes. — Coren (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It talks about the RFCU in present tense. Also, it's the second second numbered 3.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
When I vote tonight or tomorrow I may take the liberty of doing some light copy-editing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
As currently written remedy two makes it verboten for ChildofMidnight to edit any user talk pages except his own. I do think something like this is needed, but I also think we need to leave room for some exceptions, though I understand the concern expressed by Coren above in terms of trying to avoid creating holes in the restrictions. Nonetheless I think something along the lines of what Durova proposed here in the workshop could work. There are a number of editors who would be happy to receive talk page messages from ChildofMidnight and I see no reason to restrict that. Also as I mentioned when commenting on Durova's proposal, allowing no talk page posts would put ChildofMidnight in a bind if he was working on an article and saw some comments or edits from another editor which led him to want to ask them a question (I proposed a standard, "do you mind if I post to your page?" query for situations like this). Under the current formulation ChildofMidnight would also not be able to consult editors with expertise about content questions as he recently did here for example, and I don't think preventing questions like that helps anyone. To my mind we do need a user talk page restriction if we are restricting C of M from certain parts of the project, but I think it needs to be more flexible than the current one or we end up hindering some of ChildofMidnight's useful encyclopedia work. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
(undent) I meant, simply enough, that any such admin is welcome to watchlist some agreed upon subpage of ChildofMidnight's talk page and be willing to act as intermediary without any requirement to allow an exception to the restriction which can remain simply worded and with few holes. For instance, I would see no reason why LadyofShalott could not do exactly that since she has so gratiously offered. — Coren (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
So far there is fairly strong support among some of the Arbs for a one year ban, which I guess is understandable given the evidence. However there seemed to be a decent consensus at the workshop (including among some editors like me who have been quite critical of ChildofMidnight's behavior) that it would be worthwhile to at least try a restriction that fell short of banning. I'm curious as to why arbitrators supporting a ban feel that a lesser remedy is not worthwhile, particularly as this is the first ArbCom case to focus solely (or even primarily) on ChildofMidnight's behavior.
I think there is some similarity here to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse (I'm not very familiar with that and apparently things recently ended badly with that user) though Mattisse's content contributions were arguably at a higher level (on the other hand the disruption seems to have perhaps been worse). Efforts were made to work with Mattisse to restrict activities rather than banning. Is the difference perhaps that Mattisse took some initiative in terms of a "plan" whereas ChildofMidnight has basically ignored this entire case? If so maybe an arb or a clerk should leave a note for ChildofMidnight saying he is likely heading for a year-long ban if he does not work with the committee a bit and "sign on" (i.e. acknowledge its validity and necessity) to a remedy like the second one offered by Coren. Obviously we only ban contributors as a last resort and would prefer not to take that step as a general rule. Frankly ChildofMidnight has not been up against the wall like this before, and it's possible he'll adjust his style and/or stick to a tight set of restrictions (perhaps grudgingly) in order to be allowed to continue to edit.
I hope the Arbs will make some allowance for that possibility and perhaps reach out directly to ChildofMidnight in a "this is your last chance" sort of fashion now that we are in the final stages of the case. As one who has been on the receiving end of uncivil comments from ChildofMidnight as much or more than anyone here, I continue to think it's worthwhile to attempt to retain him as a contributor to the project. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom's original brief was for cases like this. An editor is considered valuable by the community but persists in highly destructive behavior of a kind that actively destroys all attempts to move towards reconciliation. The community is paralysed by its respect for the editor's excellent contributions and cannot agree on community sanctions, so it is left to the Committee to step up and draw the line. There are no complex policy considerations here, just a determination that an editor's valuable contributions do not excuse the intractable problems he creates. -- TS 17:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Since the workshop contains several rather vague gestures towards alleged harrassment and sysop abuse [1] [2], I hope the Committee will consider investigating the allegations. If a ban results it will leave a nasty taste in the mouth, and it would be as well to forestall further bad blood by honestly investigating the allegations. -- TS 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Rereading the proposed decision as voted on so far I think it shows a good appreciation of where the accusations originate and why they are made. This is a stubborn and uncooperative Wikipedian who does not handle criticism well. I agree that speed is important (I recommended a motion). Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of questions regarding Remedy 2). A note at the top of the "Remedies" section says "Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated." The votes on remedy 2 seem to suggest that it should run consecutively to remedy 1) but the text of remedy 2) daoes not explicitly say so. Also, Remedy 2) does not have a specified expiration date (one year, two years, or whatever). Do the committee members really mean the editing restriction in remedy 2) to be permanent? That sounds a bit too draconian... Nsk92 ( talk) 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Rather, the restriction remains in place only as long or briefly as is effectively required. — Coren (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)