Case clerk: Lord Roem ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: PhilKnight ( Talk) & Jclemens ( 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.
Inactive:
Recused:
No doubt continuing what is perceived as my argumentative approach, but: my responses were calm. If they were discourteous, they were such to a level that intentionally paralleled the comments I was responding to, for rhetorical effect, although those commenters do not as yet have similar advice proposed. I will avoid paralleling them for rhetorical effect and instead simply point out the discourtesy next time, although pointing it out might also be painted as discourteous. As far as I am aware, the discourteousness is only being taken on behalf of Deacon, not by Deacon himself. This bear trap of a move request had no good exit in which everyone was going to feel acceptably "courteoused", although the several extensive appropriately courteous discussions did result in the desired improvement to the encyclopedia navigation. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad says: "A key issue here is that as far as I am aware, at the time Deacon of Pndapetzim reversed the closure, there was no well-recognized venue for contesting the closure of a move request.
" While true, it certainly doesn't take much imagination to think of a good place to discuss the closure. Non-admins have been dealing with this problem quite successfully for a long time now. One suggestion is to open another RM or RfC right there below the problematic RM closure.
ErikHaugen (
talk |
contribs)
17:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There's little benefit in pointing the finger at the Community when the process is clearly in development stage, and moreover, it does seem like you are recommending the Community to make policy for one thing and against the other - that's not your role. Yes, the move review process is official in so far as setting up a separate venue for appeal, and much of the structure of how the discussion is conducted. But there are some aspects of the current procedure which do need to be ironed out before it is ready to be publicized further, hopefully with the support of an official guideline or policy. Currently, there is dispute over which version of those elements should stay, and which should change. If you are happy with the elements as they currently stand, that doesn't mean you should be giving a view via this case. In fact, I don't see the need to bring this case into view (individual cases make for bad policy in any event), or why the Committee should be interfering with the Community processes (yes, we already have that power, so you aren't giving us more, as such). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a proposed finding of fact, and a corresponding advisement, that my responses were problematic and that I should be more doormatish when accused of closing things with partiality. There's a subsequent proposed finding that Deacon has appearances of being involved. Can someone explain the difference between me saying so in response to an implication of my own involvement and the committee saying so? Thanks. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Risker noted: "The patent assumption of bad faith in these comments (assuming that membership in such a broad wiki-project as Wikiproject Scotland would necessarily taint the actions of another editor/administrator) raises this to the level of a finding, in my opinion." This seems to be continuing, although repeating my clarification might be seen as argumentative or badgering. Deacon implied that my close "sounds too little like an impartial close", with no justification whatsoever (the assumption of bad faith). I replied that my close was indeed impartial. I echoed P.T. Aufrette's observation that Deacon's project membership made his reversal look partial instead [1], and I was too brief in my restatement of it, but there is no patent assumption of bad faith in my rebuttal of his implication. The second diff for this finding [2] has even less to be mistaken for an assumption of bad faith. Compare to the earlier note's "No admin with any impartiality or experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus". -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to endorse NYB's comment that to desysop this admin would be "completely disproportionate and excessive", and NYB's noting of the value of this admin to the project. Heavens, Kwami seems to have been caught up in the inappropriate behaviour of other editors. A warning seems appropriate. Tony (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am quite horrified to see what is being said about me on the proposed decision page. I feel a number of comments made in my regard have been grossly unfair or matter-of-factly inaccurate (@ 17:02 July 9 2012).
Could ask please all the arbs in question to read these comments with a fair and open mind; and that other parties to this case refrain from posting.
Deacon of Pndapetzim was involved in the topic by having previously given his views on the matter [3], (SilkTork)
While this would indeed be rather harsh for an isolated mistake, it is considerably less so in view of Deacon's history of poor conduct. (Kirill Lokhsin)
The question for me is how many times do we admonish someone before stepping up the sanction. And Deacon of Pndapetzim has himself stepped up the level of revert warring from edit warring to page move and wheel warring. (SilkTork)
As a reality check, the decision was no-more controversial than many I have seen on Wikipedia every day. Of course that does not condone anything, but this does feel a bit like being prison-sentences being handed out for swearing. If I believed it was going to be a valuable precedent (like it would be in an actual court) that might be one thing; but ArbCom doesn't do things that way (almost never analysing or citing precedent) and in my experience varies its treament from case to case depending on how many and what friends/enemies a user has, and how much pressure they exert. What's worse, I am almost certain that if I were to bring each similar future action of comparable note to ArbCom's attention, you would dismiss them as WP:POINTy and label me "problematic".
It has been said by two users (one an admin), that I somehow "began" this affair. The implication here is that I am somehow responsible for other admins wheel-warring. This surely carries a pretty drastic implication, that one admin will be treated according to how others act; and is besides outside the realm of verifiable fact, since my decision was the 2nd of 4 decisions in this process (and of course preceded all wheelwarring!). I acted within existing processes and with the best intentions, if others after me choose to do certain things that is up to them. I've always tried to stay well clear of any dramatic wheelwarring. The measures being proposed against myself and others are well outside and beyond the rules and precedents known to me and exceed the measures justified by this activity (and I am referring to some of the measures against Kwami and Gnangarra as well as to myself). There is also btw no preventative function in changing rules as we go along, so such measures would be entirely punitive as received. All of us involved in this case are exceedingly unlucky that such an incident ever got this far, and any preventative ambitions any of you have for these matters are surely as close to guaranteed fulfilment as they ever could be by events as they have already transpired. But I digress ...
Most importanly, to Kiril and others, please reconsider putting on the record such comments about me. They are unfair and unjustified, yet they will almost certainly carry weight in future if not retracted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement among the arbitrators about when or if prior discussion is "required" before reversing an administrative action.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision#Reversal_of_administrative_actions—This proposal borrows language from Wikipedia:ADMIN#Reversing_another_administrator.27s_action, a section of policy dealing with the "2nd mover". Here, Kirill seems (I could be wrong?) to interpret the "courtesy discussion" clause as meaning discussion prior to the reversal, which doesn't seem to be how JClemens views it—see the response to the proposal that Deacon be advised not to reverse administrative actions unless there is a discussion or an emergency: "This risks making discussion before the first reversal normative". I agree that the "courtesy discussion" doesn't mean discussion prior to the reversal; I think it means perhaps a note letting the 1st admin know that the action was reversed and why. (Deacon did exactly this, of course). However, I disagree with JClemens that discussion before reverting oughtn't be expected in cases where there is no emergency. Immediately overriding an administrative action, in this case a move closure, is very disruptive, confusing, and frustrating for those involved. The theme of WP:TOOLMISUSE and its advice on reverting administrative action seems to be discuss first: "Resolve admin disputes by discussing", "disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling", "Seek constructive discussion", etc. However, I suppose it could be argued that the wording there does imply that for the 2nd mover, prior discussion is totally optional if you have a good reason and leave a nice note on the 1st mover's talk page. This describes what Deacon did. (involvement issues aside!)
I would appreciate some clarity here on whether discussion before the 2nd move in non-emergency situations should be normative, as JClemens puts it. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If we think that it's the best practice for an administrator to consult before overturning another's administrator action, unless there is some urgency (such as with clearly bad blocks), we should say so.—Does this imply that you think the phrase "courtesy discussion" in the proposal means that discussion ought to take place before reversing in non-emergency situations? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 22:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I only made preliminary comments (preserved on the main case talkpage, along with other comments from non-parties to the case). I am surprised and dismayed at how things have progressed. Regrettable, that the scope of the case has been less than clear. Several editors here and elsewhere have been unhappy with editing and closures by JHunterJ. If I had suspected for a moment that the consequences of one high-handed RM closure might include removal of three admins' rights, I would have participated in this case with hard evidence, proposed findings of fact, and proposed remedies concerning JHunterJ. As things stand, an RFCU is overdue for him, and that course of action remains open regardless of anything that has been deliberated on here (as he seems to agree).
Of the three admins [sic!] under threat as I write, I am familiar only with Kwami. If his record of achievements is echoed in the Wikipedian careers of the others, I must urge the Arbitrators to be lenient with all three. Kwami has done a prodigious job in enhancing Wikipedia's linguistic offerings, with rare expertise and energy – often through effective use of tools available to admins only. I know his work best at one crucial interface: where development of Wikipedia's style guidelines cries out for linguistic expertise. Kwami's help was invaluable last year when WP:DASH was reformed under ArbCom direction and supervision. This unparalleled community consultation on a style issue settled things for a great number of RMs, and lent stability that could not be achieved in any other way. (I could point to a contrast with JHunterJ's unilateral reversal of a MOS guideline, during the course of this ArbCom case. The resulting chaos is still consuming editors' time.)
I ask Arbitrators who have not yet voted to consider the larger picture, and the losses that they can help bring about – or help prevent.
I ask Arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider. We all make mistakes; the more active admins are, the more exposed they are to slip-ups. Some errors are more visible; some that are far more damaging to the Project are less obvious, and more protected behind a mask of policy that is still hotly disputed since the last case like this (affecting WP:TITLE and WP:MOSCAPS) – still interpreted according to the "supervoting" preferences of some closing admins.
The three admins under threat all acted incautiously, but with intent to keep good order; none did serious harm, and all deserve another chance to continue their good work for Wikipedia. We cannot afford to lose such talent, and such a wealth of experience.
Noetica Tea? 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Refactored, partly because the (accidental?) null heading "== ==" was disrupting markup on the page.–Noetica Tea? 07:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Not unintentional, I was at a loss for words and still am. As with grief, there is no label, no punctuation, no markup, that fits. If non-breaking space or somesuch is impractical, then leave as is, as a blunt reaction. Neotarf ( talk) 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This is getting ugly.
I'm still trying to figure out what anybody did wrong. Editors are told to be bold, then if there is disagreement, to discuss. We have here four, and now five bold editors, who were all chosen because their judgment was valued, who took the actions they were chosen to take, but where is the discussion? Unlike some of the stuff I've seen admins do on the talk pages, whatever has done here can easily be undone. In fact it has been undone — four times so far. So what harm has been done?
Anyone who is thinking of RfA should be taken to this thread to see the blood on the floor. Neotarf ( talk) 01:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom used to be overly deferential to admins but now they're getting far too punitive. We're practically at the point where arbcom is desysopping more admins than RFA is creating! 169.231.121.57 ( talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result."
"The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia."
"A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus."
"... a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes."
On this talkpage I count these editors taking these stands:
[I exclude Arbitrators and involved parties.]
The updated count is 18 against desysopping, and 0 for desysopping.
Let others add their names to one or other list if they want to. And with respect, let Arbitrators take their time, and take note of the weight of community opinion as we see it expressed here.
Noetica Tea? 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Views from the community can be useful and are taken on board by the Committee, so this discussion is valid and helpful. It is worth pointing out, though, that in the opinions expressed above people are stressing that this was a single incident done in the heat of a confused moment. The desysopping proposals on the case page are for those admins who have a history of revert warring and have been blocked or sanctioned for it, or who entered into the matter at a point where it was clear that a revert war was taking place. As I write, two of the desysopping proposals are passing, and one is not, and there is a spread of opinion among the Committee members. It is worth noting that in all cases the users will be able to regain their tools from the community, and it will be their decision if they choose to do that. We are not discussing banning the users, nor making an irreversible decision. I think most of the Committee at the start of this case would not have felt that desysopping was going to happen (worth reading our comments on accepting the case), but on examining the evidence and the history of the admins, it has been felt that a desysopping should be discussed, and carried out if that is the consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm further disappointed that so few of the arbs supporting these measures are bothering to justify them here, even when they lack support from even one non-arb. This exactly the sort of thing that increases the sense of ArbCom pitted against editors. And particularly concerning is that two arbs have voted to close this case without discussing with us here. "Yup, this deal is done. Give a care what the proles on talk think? Never!"
My thanks to SirFozzie and Jclemens for giving reasons for their votes, even if I cannot agree with them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
An appalling state of affairs. Can someone please explain why these measures are a good thing and how wikipedia will benefit from them? I've had a lot to do with Gnangarra over the years, and seen his contributions across much of wikipedia. IMO, he's about a good an asset as Wikipedia is going to get. I would tend to say the same about Kwamikagami, except my experience with this editor is to a lesser extent than Gnang. I'm just a lowly editor of articles (quaint huh?), and maybe important people might think I'm talking out of turn, etc. But it's got to asked - what is wrong with you? And indeed, I note that none of those supporting the measures are particularly active in defending them. -- Merbabu ( talk) 11:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This case has clearly divided opinions on how hardline ArbCom should be in such cases. It may be the case (probably very likely) that much of the wider 'community' are not aware of this case. It will be interesting to see the reaction once the case has closed and more people become aware of the stance ArbCom are taking/have taken here. There is also a clear onus being put on the voting community at RfA (if any of the admins are desysopped and choose to run again in the near future) to weigh in the balance the good work done by the admins and the (with hindsight) silly wheel-warring that took place. It is possible that an admin with a good record desysopped over this may be resysopped if they: (a) apologise fully and frankly for their role in what happened here; (b) say that ArbCom did the right thing in desysopping; and (c) lay out their 'good record' in full and ask to be allowed to continue that work (I would also add that asking one of their supporters here to nominate them may or may not be best). Point (b) is important. Any knee-jerk new RFA done with comments that are critical of ArbCom (both by any desysopped admins or their supporters) may succeed, but will be unnecessarily divisive.
It should be possible for desysoppings and resysoppings to be routine, not a cause of great angst and drum-beating. Some insist that adminship is a big deal. The only way to roll that back is to lay down a marker and insist that it is not a big deal. We may eventually end up in a place where a desyopping and resyopping are not a big deal (though second and third and more desysoppings may be more concerning). That may eventually lead those !voting at RFA to be more willing to sysop those who have (infamously) failed RFAs and then react by being harsh critics of admins and the system (as clearly any system that fails to accept them is rotten to the core - that last bit said with more than a hint of sarcasm).
Having said that, this may have been a case where time-limited desyoppings may be a better option. Just remove the tools for six months and then restore them, and provide the admins with the option of being resyopped by the community before those six months are up (or indeed an immediate reconfirmation RFA if they choose that option). Carcharoth ( talk) 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the standard procedure for contesting a closure — can it be brought to review after it has been unilaterally reversed? That is, can it be reversed AND reviewed, or should it be reversed OR reviewed? Where is the proper place for any discussion prior to requesting RMV? Neotarf ( talk) 00:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Perth to ask that the original closure be restored, and then any editor who wishes can take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it."
"I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant."
Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action...try these alternatives:...For example: move the issue to WP:ANI ....
Maybe there's a different way to solve that problem. Right now, if the closure outcome is "move", the move is always done immediately by the closing admin. Maybe there should be a slight delay.
For example, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, there is a 48-hour waiting period to allow for objections to be raised. Perhaps there could be a similar waiting period after a "move" closure outcome: only do the actual rename 48 hours later (if no move review was started), or wait for the "move" closure to be endorsed (if a move review was started). That should prevent move-and-revert wars from ever starting.
This means the article remains at the original title for either 48 hours or until a move review is completed. However, that's OK, because the initial move is never an emergency: the article has been at the original title for many months or even years, so it can easily wait one more week.
The 48 hours would also allow an "attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page", as per WP:MRV. — P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Continuation of a dispute between Noetica and JHunterJ, largely off-topic. | ||
---|---|---|
JHunterJ thinks "sweeps in" is just spin? When I posted a comment here about JHunterJ's Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions [12] at (23:44, 13 June 2012), thirty-seven minutes later, he went to an RM I was participating in and closed it, [13] (at 00:11, 14 June 2012), cutting off a discussion that was in progress less than 2 hours after the last posting. When I asked for clarification of his administrative actions, instead of engaging in discussion, his response was defensive, accusatory, and insulting. [14] The RM backlog was absolutely huge; what are the odds that we would both be on the same one, especially after I had just stated that I stopped participating in RMs that involve primary topic because of several unpleasant exchanges with him. I'm not saying JHunterJ intentionally used his admin powers to close off my participation in the RM in retaliation for me questioning his actions, but from where I sit, it sure does look like "sweeping in". Neotarf ( talk) 13:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Neotarf ( talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
If JHunterJ doesn't understand my objections, then I will try to explain what I find to be problematical about his editing, first in the pattern of incivility and personal remarks that seems to be his trademark response to any concerns raised about his actions, and second with regard to policy and the particular RM closed by JHunterJ that I referred to RMV. JHunterJ's behaviorThis is the first instance of incivility that I spoke up about. Here JHunterJ is suggesting I didn't accept his math because it "doesn't support my argument", implying that my motivation for posting page view statistics was because I was going in with preconceived opinions. [16] He declares that I should refrain from bad faith or not to pretend someone is making ad hominem remarks, however there is no evidence that this behavior is going on. [17] An unsupported accusation. Here, I was accused of having an "edit-history" with another editor. I'm not sure exactly what this means, or what is the purpose of this remark. Why should it be an issue where I edit and who agrees or disagrees with me? [18] He has seen fit to discuss my edit history in detail: which talk pages I have been editing, and turns up his nose at the quantity of activity. [19] Quite frankly, I find this a little stalkerish. What does this have to do with anything? Here he is misrepresenting my position -- claiming I agreed with another editor when I disagreed. [20] Then, rather than consider my points on their own merits, dismissed them by claiming ulterior motives. When I questioned him about an RM he had changed the title of without discussion, he impugned my judgment and claiming I had "personal disdain" for him, rather than responding to my valid concerns. [21] The first time JHunterJ started in with these personal remarks, I let it pass; anyone can have a bad day. This last one I probably would not have thought twice about either, but for the weight of the ones that went before it. Why am I referred to so dismissively, and by name, on the original arbitration request page? [22] I have expressed my objections to this pattern of incivility and explained exactly what I felt was uncivil, [23] [24] but my concerns were dismissed as "bad faith". I no longer participate in RMs.
JHunterJ's policy explanationsIn this Move Review, it was proposed to move First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) to First Battle of the Jordan. The reason given for opposing the move was "The current title is recognisable, it clearly, concisely and precisely describes this military attack by the EEF. The title is consistent with two other articles which also deal with military operations in the area across the Jordan River. The year has been added to avoid confusion and locate all three articles within World War I." [25] JHunterJ closed the review without any comment. But instead of abiding by the consensus, he then moved it to First Transjordan attack on Amman without discussion. When I question his action, the response was " WP:PRECISION for the consensus to avoid unnecessary precision." and he added a derogatory remark about my judgment [26] If you look at WP:TITLE, the WP:CRITERIA are that a title should be 1)recognisable 2)concise 3)precisely describe the scope of the article and 4)consistent (follows the same pattern as those of similar articles) in the series. How is it "unnecessary precision" to give the piece a title that is unrecognizable, confusing, does not describe the article or the historical period, and differs from similar articles? What is this "unnecessary precision" that we must scuttle the rest of the article policy title for, and how does it differ from "necessary precision"? And why doesn't he explain it instead of just hurling insults. If there isn't any better explanation for this than "WP:PRECISION", followed by an attack on my judgment, then it's not a very good title choice. Since when does the technical requirement for a unique IP mean you have to have a title that doesn't serve the reader? As far as boldly changing the title without consensus, I don't see any provision for that in the policy. WP:TITLE states clearly, "There will often be two or more possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus." I don't expect JHunterJ to be very happy about me questioning his actions here; he has not reacted well to this in the past. But I would not even bother if I did not think he was making a valuable contribution to the project, and believed that he was capable of something more positive. I can appreciate that he does what he can to keep up with the backlog of RMs, but he seems to be a techie sort of person, and sometimes those kind of people are too focused only on task results, and need to step back and look at process. Maybe he needs to take a little more time with explanations, and with the people who are involved in the process with him. If he would spend a little more time on rationales, it would move the conversation forward, and he probably wouldn't have to spend so much time reading lengthy responses on forums like this. Due to time zone and connectivity issues, I probably won't be able to post a response to any answer that might be given before this discussion gets archived. I certainly hope that any exchanges we might have in the future will be civil and reasonable. Neotarf ( talk) 03:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
|
(outdent) This discussion between Noetica and JHunterJ is important, but it's not directly relevant to the proposed decision. I suggest that it be continued elsewhere—perhaps in the context of a comprehensive RfC on how disputed pagemoves should be addressed that was proposed above. (If such an RfC or continued discussion takes place, though, could someone please post a link to it here.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
More disputation between Noetica and JHunterJ, largely off-topic. |
---|
|
This current ANI thread may be of interest to both arbitrators and interested parties. WP:ANI#Help_with_page_move.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I see a reference above to a "campaign promise" to undertake more desysops by an an arbitrator above. Quite frankly this concerns me. At the risk of being accused of not assuming good faith I am seeing a clear case of an unjust and excessive penalty being issued in this quite minor infraction for what appears to be the sole reason of - "Well - we promised more desysopping - and here is an opportunity to do so - so lets do it" regardless of its appropriateness in this case. Setting precedents and getting tough is all very well but not where it leads to grossly disproportionate results.
I would urge the arbitrators to assess this case on its merits and not attempt to use it as an opportunity to demonstrate their toughness and zeal and not stick rigidly to "campaign promises" where this leads to a result where the encyclopedia is worse off. Ask yourself this question: Is the encyclopedia better off if ArbCom desysops 3 administrators with impeccable records over a regrettable but largely trivial event? -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 05:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that some votes are being cast based on something that is, or was, going on at another page instead of what is in the evidence here, that is, an apparent revert war. If anyone hasn't looked at it lately, it ended by itself, when an uninvolved admin left a message on the appropriate talk page and the other admin self-reverted. This is standard procedure for edit warring, and there is even a special template to place on someone's talk page when they go over the 3RR limit, so that they can revert themselves and avoid any actions. [27] (I have no idea if these editors being reviewed here are good admins or not, and have never interacted with them. ) FWIW, I checked the New Admin School page, [28] and it doesn't have any comment on wheel warring. Neotarf ( talk) 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
does it matter if ... the reverting admin is uninvolved?...—You're right, it is not a bright line, and so as all these kinds of things are taken into account, the result may be hard to predict: see aggravating circumstance. Gnangarra was the 4th mover after !voting on the RM—a shocking thing to do, in my opinion, although ultimately obviously not cataclysmic—and was almost desysopped; presumably if Gnangarra hadn't weighed in on the RM there would have been far fewer votes for desysopping here. But on another day, who knows, Gnangarra might have been desysopped for something much more benign, like fixing too many spelling mistakes. Similarly, Kwami was found to have a rap sheet that was thought to be in a sense "aggravating", hence the desysop, although as you note some of those episodes weren't really all that problematic, if at all. Given that they were used in this way, it's too bad those weren't more carefully examined during the evidence and workshop phases.
Or do you start informing people?—I am pretty sure that most admins know what wheel warring is. I think ultimately the "why" boils down to the same reason why edit warring is bad. It raises tension, doesn't foster understanding or consensus the way a discussion would, etc. Wheel warring is worse because for most of the participants it is all so arbitrary, I think. In the Brandt case you mentioned, Jimbo says "Some of the people involved were trying to calm things down. Others were merely trying to cause more disruption and fighting by engaging in inflammatory actions designed to outrage the other side. It is hard to sort it all out. This is why wheel warring is so bad." I agree that it might be good to have more guideline verbiage about why wheel warring is a problem, but I think the fact remains that it is pretty ridiculous to contemplate an admin that doesn't know what wheel warring is and that it should be avoided (especially when you're involved—just wow! or especially while you're losing a desysopping vote for wheel warring—just wow again!) "Assume ignorance" applies more to new folks or really obscure stuff; I think administrators knowing not to wheel war is pretty firmly not what it is about. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering.
Why is deacon being admonished, but the other 2 are being desysopped?
Is it merely because the wording included "involved" in his case, which several disagreed upon?
In other words, as much of that section of the page has been a work in progress while the "voting" was commencing, is the bureaucracy of the page (the phrasing of the proposed actions) allowing this to "slip through the cracks", as it were, or is this really the intent of the arbs?
Except for ongoing concerns about Jhunterj's RM closes in general, I'm neutral to all this. I'm just looking for clarification. - jc37 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I have already given my views above (that the desysop proposals are either because of previous revert warring, or because of late entry into an escalating wheel war, and that none of the desysops are permanent, so if people feel that the decisions are harsh, they can vote the tools back), however, NYB has recommended that we look again at this talkpage before voting to close the case. Looking through what people say, I am broadly in agreement. I haven't seen anything in Gnangarra's history that has given me cause for concern, and feel that an admonishment is enough. I would support Gnangarra in a RfA, and would encourage him to go for one as soon as he feels confident enough as I don't expect he would have problems. I would not, however, ask the other Committee members to change their mind in their vote to desysop him. One of the strengths of the Committee is that it is composed of individuals who make their decisions individually, and are not subjected to peer pressure. I may hold different views now and again than some (or all) of my colleagues, but I respect their decisions, and that they are making them honestly and with due consideration. The decision to desysop Kwamikagami is almost unanimous. This is the only admin I voted to desysop, and this is due to his history of revert warring and because of concerns that have been raised by the community about his revert warring. Indications above are that, unlike Gnangarra, there is a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of Kwamikagami's desysopping. I am not sure that Kwamikagami would have a trouble free RfA, though he would be entitled to try again as soon as he feels confident enough. After reading the above discussion again, and the new comments - including concern regarding Kwamikagami, and more support for Gnangarra, I feel my votes have been placed in the appropriate columns. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As things stand now, only Kwami looks likely to be desysopped. The rationales given for desyspping Kwami, the third reverter, while only admonishing the fourth reverter, revolve entirely around Kwami's editing history.
As I stated above, answering ErikHaugen, "there has been no finding about Kwami's previous controversies that would point to a rationale for harsher treatment as the 3rd reverter as opposed to the 4th reverter in this case. I know nothing whatsoever about Kwami, to my knowledge we have never interacted anywhere, but based on what has been said here, I expected to find something like Darth Vader, someone defiant, or at least hotheaded. Someone you get yourself dirty by defending too strongly. But the more I dig into the diffs given in the evidence section, the more I see someone who is careful about reliable sources, respectful towards policy, clear and calm during a disagreement, and careful about seeking consensus in the proper forums, even while not shrinking back from advocating for what is best for the project."
I have started looking at the diffs that were presented about Kwami's history, and while I have not finished looking at everything, this one seems worth further attention. (I just focused on the block since the other ones are accusations, perhaps unjustified, or perhaps not, but it doesn't look like anyone has taken time to consider them.)
First of all, the block was for edit warring, not wheel warring.
The block was related to a discussion at Dwarf Planet. [30] It is clear here that Kwami is editing to protect the integrity of a Featured Article, which I understand has more leeway for aggressive editing than ordinary articles. Also the person reporting the 3RR violation is someone with multiple blocks for edit warring. At the time, Kwami was actively participating in discussions to bring about a consensus. Finally at the end of discussion, someone notes: "Hmmm. At the time of the block, kwami hadn't edited the article for almost 30 hours. It doesn't look like there was any imminent danger necessitating a block."
Much has been said about the possibility of another RfA after a desysop; it is also possible for people to remarry their ex after a divorce. People have indeed done it, without bitterness and loss of good will. But why not take time to examine this situation thoroughly and with fairness, before such a decision is finalized. Neotarf ( talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Kwami and Gnang have both disappeared apparently. <sarcasm>Awesome result all around really. well done. Great to see such a proportionate responses to their misdemeanours. </sarcasm> Can someone supporting the actions taken (and almost taken in Gnang's case) explain how all this has helped wikipedia. I see the opposite result, and significantly so. --
Merbabu (
talk)
09:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Case clerk: Lord Roem ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: PhilKnight ( Talk) & Jclemens ( 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.
Inactive:
Recused:
No doubt continuing what is perceived as my argumentative approach, but: my responses were calm. If they were discourteous, they were such to a level that intentionally paralleled the comments I was responding to, for rhetorical effect, although those commenters do not as yet have similar advice proposed. I will avoid paralleling them for rhetorical effect and instead simply point out the discourtesy next time, although pointing it out might also be painted as discourteous. As far as I am aware, the discourteousness is only being taken on behalf of Deacon, not by Deacon himself. This bear trap of a move request had no good exit in which everyone was going to feel acceptably "courteoused", although the several extensive appropriately courteous discussions did result in the desired improvement to the encyclopedia navigation. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad says: "A key issue here is that as far as I am aware, at the time Deacon of Pndapetzim reversed the closure, there was no well-recognized venue for contesting the closure of a move request.
" While true, it certainly doesn't take much imagination to think of a good place to discuss the closure. Non-admins have been dealing with this problem quite successfully for a long time now. One suggestion is to open another RM or RfC right there below the problematic RM closure.
ErikHaugen (
talk |
contribs)
17:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There's little benefit in pointing the finger at the Community when the process is clearly in development stage, and moreover, it does seem like you are recommending the Community to make policy for one thing and against the other - that's not your role. Yes, the move review process is official in so far as setting up a separate venue for appeal, and much of the structure of how the discussion is conducted. But there are some aspects of the current procedure which do need to be ironed out before it is ready to be publicized further, hopefully with the support of an official guideline or policy. Currently, there is dispute over which version of those elements should stay, and which should change. If you are happy with the elements as they currently stand, that doesn't mean you should be giving a view via this case. In fact, I don't see the need to bring this case into view (individual cases make for bad policy in any event), or why the Committee should be interfering with the Community processes (yes, we already have that power, so you aren't giving us more, as such). Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a proposed finding of fact, and a corresponding advisement, that my responses were problematic and that I should be more doormatish when accused of closing things with partiality. There's a subsequent proposed finding that Deacon has appearances of being involved. Can someone explain the difference between me saying so in response to an implication of my own involvement and the committee saying so? Thanks. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Risker noted: "The patent assumption of bad faith in these comments (assuming that membership in such a broad wiki-project as Wikiproject Scotland would necessarily taint the actions of another editor/administrator) raises this to the level of a finding, in my opinion." This seems to be continuing, although repeating my clarification might be seen as argumentative or badgering. Deacon implied that my close "sounds too little like an impartial close", with no justification whatsoever (the assumption of bad faith). I replied that my close was indeed impartial. I echoed P.T. Aufrette's observation that Deacon's project membership made his reversal look partial instead [1], and I was too brief in my restatement of it, but there is no patent assumption of bad faith in my rebuttal of his implication. The second diff for this finding [2] has even less to be mistaken for an assumption of bad faith. Compare to the earlier note's "No admin with any impartiality or experience could seriously claim that this discussion had consensus". -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to endorse NYB's comment that to desysop this admin would be "completely disproportionate and excessive", and NYB's noting of the value of this admin to the project. Heavens, Kwami seems to have been caught up in the inappropriate behaviour of other editors. A warning seems appropriate. Tony (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am quite horrified to see what is being said about me on the proposed decision page. I feel a number of comments made in my regard have been grossly unfair or matter-of-factly inaccurate (@ 17:02 July 9 2012).
Could ask please all the arbs in question to read these comments with a fair and open mind; and that other parties to this case refrain from posting.
Deacon of Pndapetzim was involved in the topic by having previously given his views on the matter [3], (SilkTork)
While this would indeed be rather harsh for an isolated mistake, it is considerably less so in view of Deacon's history of poor conduct. (Kirill Lokhsin)
The question for me is how many times do we admonish someone before stepping up the sanction. And Deacon of Pndapetzim has himself stepped up the level of revert warring from edit warring to page move and wheel warring. (SilkTork)
As a reality check, the decision was no-more controversial than many I have seen on Wikipedia every day. Of course that does not condone anything, but this does feel a bit like being prison-sentences being handed out for swearing. If I believed it was going to be a valuable precedent (like it would be in an actual court) that might be one thing; but ArbCom doesn't do things that way (almost never analysing or citing precedent) and in my experience varies its treament from case to case depending on how many and what friends/enemies a user has, and how much pressure they exert. What's worse, I am almost certain that if I were to bring each similar future action of comparable note to ArbCom's attention, you would dismiss them as WP:POINTy and label me "problematic".
It has been said by two users (one an admin), that I somehow "began" this affair. The implication here is that I am somehow responsible for other admins wheel-warring. This surely carries a pretty drastic implication, that one admin will be treated according to how others act; and is besides outside the realm of verifiable fact, since my decision was the 2nd of 4 decisions in this process (and of course preceded all wheelwarring!). I acted within existing processes and with the best intentions, if others after me choose to do certain things that is up to them. I've always tried to stay well clear of any dramatic wheelwarring. The measures being proposed against myself and others are well outside and beyond the rules and precedents known to me and exceed the measures justified by this activity (and I am referring to some of the measures against Kwami and Gnangarra as well as to myself). There is also btw no preventative function in changing rules as we go along, so such measures would be entirely punitive as received. All of us involved in this case are exceedingly unlucky that such an incident ever got this far, and any preventative ambitions any of you have for these matters are surely as close to guaranteed fulfilment as they ever could be by events as they have already transpired. But I digress ...
Most importanly, to Kiril and others, please reconsider putting on the record such comments about me. They are unfair and unjustified, yet they will almost certainly carry weight in future if not retracted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement among the arbitrators about when or if prior discussion is "required" before reversing an administrative action.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision#Reversal_of_administrative_actions—This proposal borrows language from Wikipedia:ADMIN#Reversing_another_administrator.27s_action, a section of policy dealing with the "2nd mover". Here, Kirill seems (I could be wrong?) to interpret the "courtesy discussion" clause as meaning discussion prior to the reversal, which doesn't seem to be how JClemens views it—see the response to the proposal that Deacon be advised not to reverse administrative actions unless there is a discussion or an emergency: "This risks making discussion before the first reversal normative". I agree that the "courtesy discussion" doesn't mean discussion prior to the reversal; I think it means perhaps a note letting the 1st admin know that the action was reversed and why. (Deacon did exactly this, of course). However, I disagree with JClemens that discussion before reverting oughtn't be expected in cases where there is no emergency. Immediately overriding an administrative action, in this case a move closure, is very disruptive, confusing, and frustrating for those involved. The theme of WP:TOOLMISUSE and its advice on reverting administrative action seems to be discuss first: "Resolve admin disputes by discussing", "disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling", "Seek constructive discussion", etc. However, I suppose it could be argued that the wording there does imply that for the 2nd mover, prior discussion is totally optional if you have a good reason and leave a nice note on the 1st mover's talk page. This describes what Deacon did. (involvement issues aside!)
I would appreciate some clarity here on whether discussion before the 2nd move in non-emergency situations should be normative, as JClemens puts it. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If we think that it's the best practice for an administrator to consult before overturning another's administrator action, unless there is some urgency (such as with clearly bad blocks), we should say so.—Does this imply that you think the phrase "courtesy discussion" in the proposal means that discussion ought to take place before reversing in non-emergency situations? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 22:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I only made preliminary comments (preserved on the main case talkpage, along with other comments from non-parties to the case). I am surprised and dismayed at how things have progressed. Regrettable, that the scope of the case has been less than clear. Several editors here and elsewhere have been unhappy with editing and closures by JHunterJ. If I had suspected for a moment that the consequences of one high-handed RM closure might include removal of three admins' rights, I would have participated in this case with hard evidence, proposed findings of fact, and proposed remedies concerning JHunterJ. As things stand, an RFCU is overdue for him, and that course of action remains open regardless of anything that has been deliberated on here (as he seems to agree).
Of the three admins [sic!] under threat as I write, I am familiar only with Kwami. If his record of achievements is echoed in the Wikipedian careers of the others, I must urge the Arbitrators to be lenient with all three. Kwami has done a prodigious job in enhancing Wikipedia's linguistic offerings, with rare expertise and energy – often through effective use of tools available to admins only. I know his work best at one crucial interface: where development of Wikipedia's style guidelines cries out for linguistic expertise. Kwami's help was invaluable last year when WP:DASH was reformed under ArbCom direction and supervision. This unparalleled community consultation on a style issue settled things for a great number of RMs, and lent stability that could not be achieved in any other way. (I could point to a contrast with JHunterJ's unilateral reversal of a MOS guideline, during the course of this ArbCom case. The resulting chaos is still consuming editors' time.)
I ask Arbitrators who have not yet voted to consider the larger picture, and the losses that they can help bring about – or help prevent.
I ask Arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider. We all make mistakes; the more active admins are, the more exposed they are to slip-ups. Some errors are more visible; some that are far more damaging to the Project are less obvious, and more protected behind a mask of policy that is still hotly disputed since the last case like this (affecting WP:TITLE and WP:MOSCAPS) – still interpreted according to the "supervoting" preferences of some closing admins.
The three admins under threat all acted incautiously, but with intent to keep good order; none did serious harm, and all deserve another chance to continue their good work for Wikipedia. We cannot afford to lose such talent, and such a wealth of experience.
Noetica Tea? 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Refactored, partly because the (accidental?) null heading "== ==" was disrupting markup on the page.–Noetica Tea? 07:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Not unintentional, I was at a loss for words and still am. As with grief, there is no label, no punctuation, no markup, that fits. If non-breaking space or somesuch is impractical, then leave as is, as a blunt reaction. Neotarf ( talk) 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This is getting ugly.
I'm still trying to figure out what anybody did wrong. Editors are told to be bold, then if there is disagreement, to discuss. We have here four, and now five bold editors, who were all chosen because their judgment was valued, who took the actions they were chosen to take, but where is the discussion? Unlike some of the stuff I've seen admins do on the talk pages, whatever has done here can easily be undone. In fact it has been undone — four times so far. So what harm has been done?
Anyone who is thinking of RfA should be taken to this thread to see the blood on the floor. Neotarf ( talk) 01:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom used to be overly deferential to admins but now they're getting far too punitive. We're practically at the point where arbcom is desysopping more admins than RFA is creating! 169.231.121.57 ( talk) 18:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result."
"The English Wikipedia Manual of Style has been built from a number of pre-existing Manuals from numerous fields. The best practices from these have been combined to create a single, unique MOS that applies to articles on the English Wikipedia."
"A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus."
"... a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes."
On this talkpage I count these editors taking these stands:
[I exclude Arbitrators and involved parties.]
The updated count is 18 against desysopping, and 0 for desysopping.
Let others add their names to one or other list if they want to. And with respect, let Arbitrators take their time, and take note of the weight of community opinion as we see it expressed here.
Noetica Tea? 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Views from the community can be useful and are taken on board by the Committee, so this discussion is valid and helpful. It is worth pointing out, though, that in the opinions expressed above people are stressing that this was a single incident done in the heat of a confused moment. The desysopping proposals on the case page are for those admins who have a history of revert warring and have been blocked or sanctioned for it, or who entered into the matter at a point where it was clear that a revert war was taking place. As I write, two of the desysopping proposals are passing, and one is not, and there is a spread of opinion among the Committee members. It is worth noting that in all cases the users will be able to regain their tools from the community, and it will be their decision if they choose to do that. We are not discussing banning the users, nor making an irreversible decision. I think most of the Committee at the start of this case would not have felt that desysopping was going to happen (worth reading our comments on accepting the case), but on examining the evidence and the history of the admins, it has been felt that a desysopping should be discussed, and carried out if that is the consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm further disappointed that so few of the arbs supporting these measures are bothering to justify them here, even when they lack support from even one non-arb. This exactly the sort of thing that increases the sense of ArbCom pitted against editors. And particularly concerning is that two arbs have voted to close this case without discussing with us here. "Yup, this deal is done. Give a care what the proles on talk think? Never!"
My thanks to SirFozzie and Jclemens for giving reasons for their votes, even if I cannot agree with them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
An appalling state of affairs. Can someone please explain why these measures are a good thing and how wikipedia will benefit from them? I've had a lot to do with Gnangarra over the years, and seen his contributions across much of wikipedia. IMO, he's about a good an asset as Wikipedia is going to get. I would tend to say the same about Kwamikagami, except my experience with this editor is to a lesser extent than Gnang. I'm just a lowly editor of articles (quaint huh?), and maybe important people might think I'm talking out of turn, etc. But it's got to asked - what is wrong with you? And indeed, I note that none of those supporting the measures are particularly active in defending them. -- Merbabu ( talk) 11:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This case has clearly divided opinions on how hardline ArbCom should be in such cases. It may be the case (probably very likely) that much of the wider 'community' are not aware of this case. It will be interesting to see the reaction once the case has closed and more people become aware of the stance ArbCom are taking/have taken here. There is also a clear onus being put on the voting community at RfA (if any of the admins are desysopped and choose to run again in the near future) to weigh in the balance the good work done by the admins and the (with hindsight) silly wheel-warring that took place. It is possible that an admin with a good record desysopped over this may be resysopped if they: (a) apologise fully and frankly for their role in what happened here; (b) say that ArbCom did the right thing in desysopping; and (c) lay out their 'good record' in full and ask to be allowed to continue that work (I would also add that asking one of their supporters here to nominate them may or may not be best). Point (b) is important. Any knee-jerk new RFA done with comments that are critical of ArbCom (both by any desysopped admins or their supporters) may succeed, but will be unnecessarily divisive.
It should be possible for desysoppings and resysoppings to be routine, not a cause of great angst and drum-beating. Some insist that adminship is a big deal. The only way to roll that back is to lay down a marker and insist that it is not a big deal. We may eventually end up in a place where a desyopping and resyopping are not a big deal (though second and third and more desysoppings may be more concerning). That may eventually lead those !voting at RFA to be more willing to sysop those who have (infamously) failed RFAs and then react by being harsh critics of admins and the system (as clearly any system that fails to accept them is rotten to the core - that last bit said with more than a hint of sarcasm).
Having said that, this may have been a case where time-limited desyoppings may be a better option. Just remove the tools for six months and then restore them, and provide the admins with the option of being resyopped by the community before those six months are up (or indeed an immediate reconfirmation RFA if they choose that option). Carcharoth ( talk) 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the standard procedure for contesting a closure — can it be brought to review after it has been unilaterally reversed? That is, can it be reversed AND reviewed, or should it be reversed OR reviewed? Where is the proper place for any discussion prior to requesting RMV? Neotarf ( talk) 00:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Perth to ask that the original closure be restored, and then any editor who wishes can take the issue to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. I believe the latter is the standard procedure for contesting a closure, rather than unilaterally reversing it."
"I restored the move. If it is was badly done, of if JHunterJ has a COI, there are channels to deal with that. Wheel warring over a controversial article is not a constructive approach. And given how long this debate has been going on, the time it would take to go through channels is not significant."
Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action...try these alternatives:...For example: move the issue to WP:ANI ....
Maybe there's a different way to solve that problem. Right now, if the closure outcome is "move", the move is always done immediately by the closing admin. Maybe there should be a slight delay.
For example, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, there is a 48-hour waiting period to allow for objections to be raised. Perhaps there could be a similar waiting period after a "move" closure outcome: only do the actual rename 48 hours later (if no move review was started), or wait for the "move" closure to be endorsed (if a move review was started). That should prevent move-and-revert wars from ever starting.
This means the article remains at the original title for either 48 hours or until a move review is completed. However, that's OK, because the initial move is never an emergency: the article has been at the original title for many months or even years, so it can easily wait one more week.
The 48 hours would also allow an "attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page", as per WP:MRV. — P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Continuation of a dispute between Noetica and JHunterJ, largely off-topic. | ||
---|---|---|
JHunterJ thinks "sweeps in" is just spin? When I posted a comment here about JHunterJ's Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions [12] at (23:44, 13 June 2012), thirty-seven minutes later, he went to an RM I was participating in and closed it, [13] (at 00:11, 14 June 2012), cutting off a discussion that was in progress less than 2 hours after the last posting. When I asked for clarification of his administrative actions, instead of engaging in discussion, his response was defensive, accusatory, and insulting. [14] The RM backlog was absolutely huge; what are the odds that we would both be on the same one, especially after I had just stated that I stopped participating in RMs that involve primary topic because of several unpleasant exchanges with him. I'm not saying JHunterJ intentionally used his admin powers to close off my participation in the RM in retaliation for me questioning his actions, but from where I sit, it sure does look like "sweeping in". Neotarf ( talk) 13:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Neotarf ( talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
If JHunterJ doesn't understand my objections, then I will try to explain what I find to be problematical about his editing, first in the pattern of incivility and personal remarks that seems to be his trademark response to any concerns raised about his actions, and second with regard to policy and the particular RM closed by JHunterJ that I referred to RMV. JHunterJ's behaviorThis is the first instance of incivility that I spoke up about. Here JHunterJ is suggesting I didn't accept his math because it "doesn't support my argument", implying that my motivation for posting page view statistics was because I was going in with preconceived opinions. [16] He declares that I should refrain from bad faith or not to pretend someone is making ad hominem remarks, however there is no evidence that this behavior is going on. [17] An unsupported accusation. Here, I was accused of having an "edit-history" with another editor. I'm not sure exactly what this means, or what is the purpose of this remark. Why should it be an issue where I edit and who agrees or disagrees with me? [18] He has seen fit to discuss my edit history in detail: which talk pages I have been editing, and turns up his nose at the quantity of activity. [19] Quite frankly, I find this a little stalkerish. What does this have to do with anything? Here he is misrepresenting my position -- claiming I agreed with another editor when I disagreed. [20] Then, rather than consider my points on their own merits, dismissed them by claiming ulterior motives. When I questioned him about an RM he had changed the title of without discussion, he impugned my judgment and claiming I had "personal disdain" for him, rather than responding to my valid concerns. [21] The first time JHunterJ started in with these personal remarks, I let it pass; anyone can have a bad day. This last one I probably would not have thought twice about either, but for the weight of the ones that went before it. Why am I referred to so dismissively, and by name, on the original arbitration request page? [22] I have expressed my objections to this pattern of incivility and explained exactly what I felt was uncivil, [23] [24] but my concerns were dismissed as "bad faith". I no longer participate in RMs.
JHunterJ's policy explanationsIn this Move Review, it was proposed to move First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) to First Battle of the Jordan. The reason given for opposing the move was "The current title is recognisable, it clearly, concisely and precisely describes this military attack by the EEF. The title is consistent with two other articles which also deal with military operations in the area across the Jordan River. The year has been added to avoid confusion and locate all three articles within World War I." [25] JHunterJ closed the review without any comment. But instead of abiding by the consensus, he then moved it to First Transjordan attack on Amman without discussion. When I question his action, the response was " WP:PRECISION for the consensus to avoid unnecessary precision." and he added a derogatory remark about my judgment [26] If you look at WP:TITLE, the WP:CRITERIA are that a title should be 1)recognisable 2)concise 3)precisely describe the scope of the article and 4)consistent (follows the same pattern as those of similar articles) in the series. How is it "unnecessary precision" to give the piece a title that is unrecognizable, confusing, does not describe the article or the historical period, and differs from similar articles? What is this "unnecessary precision" that we must scuttle the rest of the article policy title for, and how does it differ from "necessary precision"? And why doesn't he explain it instead of just hurling insults. If there isn't any better explanation for this than "WP:PRECISION", followed by an attack on my judgment, then it's not a very good title choice. Since when does the technical requirement for a unique IP mean you have to have a title that doesn't serve the reader? As far as boldly changing the title without consensus, I don't see any provision for that in the policy. WP:TITLE states clearly, "There will often be two or more possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus." I don't expect JHunterJ to be very happy about me questioning his actions here; he has not reacted well to this in the past. But I would not even bother if I did not think he was making a valuable contribution to the project, and believed that he was capable of something more positive. I can appreciate that he does what he can to keep up with the backlog of RMs, but he seems to be a techie sort of person, and sometimes those kind of people are too focused only on task results, and need to step back and look at process. Maybe he needs to take a little more time with explanations, and with the people who are involved in the process with him. If he would spend a little more time on rationales, it would move the conversation forward, and he probably wouldn't have to spend so much time reading lengthy responses on forums like this. Due to time zone and connectivity issues, I probably won't be able to post a response to any answer that might be given before this discussion gets archived. I certainly hope that any exchanges we might have in the future will be civil and reasonable. Neotarf ( talk) 03:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
|
(outdent) This discussion between Noetica and JHunterJ is important, but it's not directly relevant to the proposed decision. I suggest that it be continued elsewhere—perhaps in the context of a comprehensive RfC on how disputed pagemoves should be addressed that was proposed above. (If such an RfC or continued discussion takes place, though, could someone please post a link to it here.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
More disputation between Noetica and JHunterJ, largely off-topic. |
---|
|
This current ANI thread may be of interest to both arbitrators and interested parties. WP:ANI#Help_with_page_move.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I see a reference above to a "campaign promise" to undertake more desysops by an an arbitrator above. Quite frankly this concerns me. At the risk of being accused of not assuming good faith I am seeing a clear case of an unjust and excessive penalty being issued in this quite minor infraction for what appears to be the sole reason of - "Well - we promised more desysopping - and here is an opportunity to do so - so lets do it" regardless of its appropriateness in this case. Setting precedents and getting tough is all very well but not where it leads to grossly disproportionate results.
I would urge the arbitrators to assess this case on its merits and not attempt to use it as an opportunity to demonstrate their toughness and zeal and not stick rigidly to "campaign promises" where this leads to a result where the encyclopedia is worse off. Ask yourself this question: Is the encyclopedia better off if ArbCom desysops 3 administrators with impeccable records over a regrettable but largely trivial event? -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 05:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that some votes are being cast based on something that is, or was, going on at another page instead of what is in the evidence here, that is, an apparent revert war. If anyone hasn't looked at it lately, it ended by itself, when an uninvolved admin left a message on the appropriate talk page and the other admin self-reverted. This is standard procedure for edit warring, and there is even a special template to place on someone's talk page when they go over the 3RR limit, so that they can revert themselves and avoid any actions. [27] (I have no idea if these editors being reviewed here are good admins or not, and have never interacted with them. ) FWIW, I checked the New Admin School page, [28] and it doesn't have any comment on wheel warring. Neotarf ( talk) 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
does it matter if ... the reverting admin is uninvolved?...—You're right, it is not a bright line, and so as all these kinds of things are taken into account, the result may be hard to predict: see aggravating circumstance. Gnangarra was the 4th mover after !voting on the RM—a shocking thing to do, in my opinion, although ultimately obviously not cataclysmic—and was almost desysopped; presumably if Gnangarra hadn't weighed in on the RM there would have been far fewer votes for desysopping here. But on another day, who knows, Gnangarra might have been desysopped for something much more benign, like fixing too many spelling mistakes. Similarly, Kwami was found to have a rap sheet that was thought to be in a sense "aggravating", hence the desysop, although as you note some of those episodes weren't really all that problematic, if at all. Given that they were used in this way, it's too bad those weren't more carefully examined during the evidence and workshop phases.
Or do you start informing people?—I am pretty sure that most admins know what wheel warring is. I think ultimately the "why" boils down to the same reason why edit warring is bad. It raises tension, doesn't foster understanding or consensus the way a discussion would, etc. Wheel warring is worse because for most of the participants it is all so arbitrary, I think. In the Brandt case you mentioned, Jimbo says "Some of the people involved were trying to calm things down. Others were merely trying to cause more disruption and fighting by engaging in inflammatory actions designed to outrage the other side. It is hard to sort it all out. This is why wheel warring is so bad." I agree that it might be good to have more guideline verbiage about why wheel warring is a problem, but I think the fact remains that it is pretty ridiculous to contemplate an admin that doesn't know what wheel warring is and that it should be avoided (especially when you're involved—just wow! or especially while you're losing a desysopping vote for wheel warring—just wow again!) "Assume ignorance" applies more to new folks or really obscure stuff; I think administrators knowing not to wheel war is pretty firmly not what it is about. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering.
Why is deacon being admonished, but the other 2 are being desysopped?
Is it merely because the wording included "involved" in his case, which several disagreed upon?
In other words, as much of that section of the page has been a work in progress while the "voting" was commencing, is the bureaucracy of the page (the phrasing of the proposed actions) allowing this to "slip through the cracks", as it were, or is this really the intent of the arbs?
Except for ongoing concerns about Jhunterj's RM closes in general, I'm neutral to all this. I'm just looking for clarification. - jc37 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I have already given my views above (that the desysop proposals are either because of previous revert warring, or because of late entry into an escalating wheel war, and that none of the desysops are permanent, so if people feel that the decisions are harsh, they can vote the tools back), however, NYB has recommended that we look again at this talkpage before voting to close the case. Looking through what people say, I am broadly in agreement. I haven't seen anything in Gnangarra's history that has given me cause for concern, and feel that an admonishment is enough. I would support Gnangarra in a RfA, and would encourage him to go for one as soon as he feels confident enough as I don't expect he would have problems. I would not, however, ask the other Committee members to change their mind in their vote to desysop him. One of the strengths of the Committee is that it is composed of individuals who make their decisions individually, and are not subjected to peer pressure. I may hold different views now and again than some (or all) of my colleagues, but I respect their decisions, and that they are making them honestly and with due consideration. The decision to desysop Kwamikagami is almost unanimous. This is the only admin I voted to desysop, and this is due to his history of revert warring and because of concerns that have been raised by the community about his revert warring. Indications above are that, unlike Gnangarra, there is a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of Kwamikagami's desysopping. I am not sure that Kwamikagami would have a trouble free RfA, though he would be entitled to try again as soon as he feels confident enough. After reading the above discussion again, and the new comments - including concern regarding Kwamikagami, and more support for Gnangarra, I feel my votes have been placed in the appropriate columns. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As things stand now, only Kwami looks likely to be desysopped. The rationales given for desyspping Kwami, the third reverter, while only admonishing the fourth reverter, revolve entirely around Kwami's editing history.
As I stated above, answering ErikHaugen, "there has been no finding about Kwami's previous controversies that would point to a rationale for harsher treatment as the 3rd reverter as opposed to the 4th reverter in this case. I know nothing whatsoever about Kwami, to my knowledge we have never interacted anywhere, but based on what has been said here, I expected to find something like Darth Vader, someone defiant, or at least hotheaded. Someone you get yourself dirty by defending too strongly. But the more I dig into the diffs given in the evidence section, the more I see someone who is careful about reliable sources, respectful towards policy, clear and calm during a disagreement, and careful about seeking consensus in the proper forums, even while not shrinking back from advocating for what is best for the project."
I have started looking at the diffs that were presented about Kwami's history, and while I have not finished looking at everything, this one seems worth further attention. (I just focused on the block since the other ones are accusations, perhaps unjustified, or perhaps not, but it doesn't look like anyone has taken time to consider them.)
First of all, the block was for edit warring, not wheel warring.
The block was related to a discussion at Dwarf Planet. [30] It is clear here that Kwami is editing to protect the integrity of a Featured Article, which I understand has more leeway for aggressive editing than ordinary articles. Also the person reporting the 3RR violation is someone with multiple blocks for edit warring. At the time, Kwami was actively participating in discussions to bring about a consensus. Finally at the end of discussion, someone notes: "Hmmm. At the time of the block, kwami hadn't edited the article for almost 30 hours. It doesn't look like there was any imminent danger necessitating a block."
Much has been said about the possibility of another RfA after a desysop; it is also possible for people to remarry their ex after a divorce. People have indeed done it, without bitterness and loss of good will. But why not take time to examine this situation thoroughly and with fairness, before such a decision is finalized. Neotarf ( talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Kwami and Gnang have both disappeared apparently. <sarcasm>Awesome result all around really. well done. Great to see such a proportionate responses to their misdemeanours. </sarcasm> Can someone supporting the actions taken (and almost taken in Gnang's case) explain how all this has helped wikipedia. I see the opposite result, and significantly so. --
Merbabu (
talk)
09:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)