![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: 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.
@ Nightscream and Beeblebrox: Nightscream, I have reviewed the evidence submitted so far and, for the moment, the main issue in this case seems to be that your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED appears to be somewhat out of step with the community's.
The current interpretation is that an administrator who has edited an article in his capacity as an editor should not use his tools whenever said article is concerned and that the exceptions to the rule should be strictly construed: blatant vandalism, blatant violations of the BLP policy or other uncontroversial cases such as these (and, when an admin acts while involved, best practices suggest he should start a thread on a noticeboard, asking for outside review), the same goes for editors you've been in a dispute with, even if the action in question is related to a different article. In short, when you start editing an article as an editor, then you can no longer use your tools wrt it or the other editors you've been in a dispute with.
There are various reasons. The first is that when you act as an admin, you are supposed to be neutral and to appear to be neutral, which is impossible if you've shown your bias wrt the article or the editor in question. The other is that doing otherwise gives the inappropriate impression that you're using your tools to advance your position, even if that wasn't your intention. Again, there are exceptions: if your edits were all minor (although the expression "minor edits" should be strictly construed as referring to those where you were just reverting vandalism or fixing typos and the like) or if you've only been dealt with an editor in an administrative capacity, then you're not involved for the purposes of the policy. However best practices suggest you should be careful and always err on the side of caution.
In short, your interpretation of the relevant policy is, in my opinion, excessively liberal, which is problematic. And, though I have not discussed the case with my fellow arbs yet, my opinion is that they'll agree with this view. For this reason, before proceeding further, I have thought it necessary to start a discussion on the issue with you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Concerning Beeblebrox's unblock, my opinion is that his actions were reasonable and many of our current admins including myself would probably have acted in the same way, because the block appeared inappropriate on its face (being that it had been imposed by an involved admin), which is covered by the "except in cases of unambiguous error" clause in WP:UNBLOCK. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It may not make a big difference in this case, but I think Salvio may be reading the "involvement" policy a bit more restrictively than is optimal. It is of course common ground that an administrator who has been involved in a dispute concerning article content may not take any administrator actions concerning that article (with the usual caveats for blatant vandalism, etc.). I demur from the broader statement that an editor who has edited an article at all, or at least in any non-trivial fashion, is similarly disqualified. If I have an article on my watchlist because I added a couple of sentences about a non-controversial aspect of the topic a year ago, I wouldn't necessarily consider myself disqualified from dealing with a dispute arising on that article today. The question in my mind is whether the administrator will be seen as non-neutral in addressing the specific issue, not whether he or she happens to have ever touched the article in any way at all in all of his or her years of editing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Salvio, thank you for referring me to WP:UPDATE. I was going to ask Beeblebrox to list which policy pages he still had on his watchlist, but WP:UPDATE makes it unnecessary. Beeblebrox says that many active admins do keep a range of policy pages on their watchlist, though I hope you understand that many others like myself may not have thought to do this. Even looking over WP:UPDATE, the number of updates and the seemingly picayune nature of so many of them may make it difficult to keep track of them by heart, so I hope you understand that even an admin may not have a (no pun intended) encyclopedic command of them. I hope you also understand why an admin may not be aware of the admin community's stance on any and all permutations of a portion of a given policy's wording, especially when most of the blocks he enacts are to anonymous IP editors for cases of straightforward vandalism. Nightscream ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Over the next couple of days I'll be posting on the workshop page my proposed decision, so that everyone (parties, arbs and neutral observers alike) can leave their comments. I anticipate that I'll post a proposed principle to the effect that, in keeping with WP:NOTPERFECT, admins are expected to know policy and to remain up to date; however, ignoring the existence of a policy or of an amendment thereto or interpreting it in a way which is incompatible with how the community interpret it may be considered a mitigating or exempting factor, provided the admin is acting in good faith and is willing to change his behaviour so as to meet community's standards and expectations. Clearly, this is only a proposal, which means that the final decision may be quite different, but this is what I think at the moment. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I want to thank you (Salvio) for offering the extension, life just is what it is sometimes. So my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
It looks like Beeblebrox has already pointed out in the workshop discussion some of what I was going to post (the jennifer grey discussion, for example), though I suppose I should note that due to copy pasting discussions back n forth (and at times, just removal), that discussion may need to be read chronologically between the three talk pages (NS's, DC's and mine), using the page history diffs alone. (NS's talk page history would seem to be moved to User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1, with some at User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4.) But I suppose one could start here and read diffs at least through October 20ish 2008. Several people besides me, including Hiding, Emperor, Doczilla, DC, etc., tried to talk with NS (with his responses mostly on their talk pages). It's been years now, has there been a behavioural change in the meantime?
When I had a spare moment, I started trying to better illustrate with diffs, and it just became a point by point lengthy mess which I'm guessing you'd have wanted me to trim anyway. And I just ran out of free time after that.
What also may or may not be of note was how NS seemingly turned on DC. Which surprised me, since DC had noted to me that he had met NS in person previously, and they were friendly. It seemed to surprise DC too, and apparently cooled their subsequent interactions.
I can note this all in some case page/talk page if you like, or you are of course welcome to paste this as well, at your discretion.
And again, my apologies for the late reply. - jc37 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: 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.
@ Nightscream and Beeblebrox: Nightscream, I have reviewed the evidence submitted so far and, for the moment, the main issue in this case seems to be that your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED appears to be somewhat out of step with the community's.
The current interpretation is that an administrator who has edited an article in his capacity as an editor should not use his tools whenever said article is concerned and that the exceptions to the rule should be strictly construed: blatant vandalism, blatant violations of the BLP policy or other uncontroversial cases such as these (and, when an admin acts while involved, best practices suggest he should start a thread on a noticeboard, asking for outside review), the same goes for editors you've been in a dispute with, even if the action in question is related to a different article. In short, when you start editing an article as an editor, then you can no longer use your tools wrt it or the other editors you've been in a dispute with.
There are various reasons. The first is that when you act as an admin, you are supposed to be neutral and to appear to be neutral, which is impossible if you've shown your bias wrt the article or the editor in question. The other is that doing otherwise gives the inappropriate impression that you're using your tools to advance your position, even if that wasn't your intention. Again, there are exceptions: if your edits were all minor (although the expression "minor edits" should be strictly construed as referring to those where you were just reverting vandalism or fixing typos and the like) or if you've only been dealt with an editor in an administrative capacity, then you're not involved for the purposes of the policy. However best practices suggest you should be careful and always err on the side of caution.
In short, your interpretation of the relevant policy is, in my opinion, excessively liberal, which is problematic. And, though I have not discussed the case with my fellow arbs yet, my opinion is that they'll agree with this view. For this reason, before proceeding further, I have thought it necessary to start a discussion on the issue with you... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Concerning Beeblebrox's unblock, my opinion is that his actions were reasonable and many of our current admins including myself would probably have acted in the same way, because the block appeared inappropriate on its face (being that it had been imposed by an involved admin), which is covered by the "except in cases of unambiguous error" clause in WP:UNBLOCK. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It may not make a big difference in this case, but I think Salvio may be reading the "involvement" policy a bit more restrictively than is optimal. It is of course common ground that an administrator who has been involved in a dispute concerning article content may not take any administrator actions concerning that article (with the usual caveats for blatant vandalism, etc.). I demur from the broader statement that an editor who has edited an article at all, or at least in any non-trivial fashion, is similarly disqualified. If I have an article on my watchlist because I added a couple of sentences about a non-controversial aspect of the topic a year ago, I wouldn't necessarily consider myself disqualified from dealing with a dispute arising on that article today. The question in my mind is whether the administrator will be seen as non-neutral in addressing the specific issue, not whether he or she happens to have ever touched the article in any way at all in all of his or her years of editing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Salvio, thank you for referring me to WP:UPDATE. I was going to ask Beeblebrox to list which policy pages he still had on his watchlist, but WP:UPDATE makes it unnecessary. Beeblebrox says that many active admins do keep a range of policy pages on their watchlist, though I hope you understand that many others like myself may not have thought to do this. Even looking over WP:UPDATE, the number of updates and the seemingly picayune nature of so many of them may make it difficult to keep track of them by heart, so I hope you understand that even an admin may not have a (no pun intended) encyclopedic command of them. I hope you also understand why an admin may not be aware of the admin community's stance on any and all permutations of a portion of a given policy's wording, especially when most of the blocks he enacts are to anonymous IP editors for cases of straightforward vandalism. Nightscream ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Over the next couple of days I'll be posting on the workshop page my proposed decision, so that everyone (parties, arbs and neutral observers alike) can leave their comments. I anticipate that I'll post a proposed principle to the effect that, in keeping with WP:NOTPERFECT, admins are expected to know policy and to remain up to date; however, ignoring the existence of a policy or of an amendment thereto or interpreting it in a way which is incompatible with how the community interpret it may be considered a mitigating or exempting factor, provided the admin is acting in good faith and is willing to change his behaviour so as to meet community's standards and expectations. Clearly, this is only a proposal, which means that the final decision may be quite different, but this is what I think at the moment. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I want to thank you (Salvio) for offering the extension, life just is what it is sometimes. So my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
It looks like Beeblebrox has already pointed out in the workshop discussion some of what I was going to post (the jennifer grey discussion, for example), though I suppose I should note that due to copy pasting discussions back n forth (and at times, just removal), that discussion may need to be read chronologically between the three talk pages (NS's, DC's and mine), using the page history diffs alone. (NS's talk page history would seem to be moved to User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1, with some at User talk:Nightscream/Archive 4.) But I suppose one could start here and read diffs at least through October 20ish 2008. Several people besides me, including Hiding, Emperor, Doczilla, DC, etc., tried to talk with NS (with his responses mostly on their talk pages). It's been years now, has there been a behavioural change in the meantime?
When I had a spare moment, I started trying to better illustrate with diffs, and it just became a point by point lengthy mess which I'm guessing you'd have wanted me to trim anyway. And I just ran out of free time after that.
What also may or may not be of note was how NS seemingly turned on DC. Which surprised me, since DC had noted to me that he had met NS in person previously, and they were friendly. It seemed to surprise DC too, and apparently cooled their subsequent interactions.
I can note this all in some case page/talk page if you like, or you are of course welcome to paste this as well, at your discretion.
And again, my apologies for the late reply. - jc37 08:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)