Case clerk: Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Jclemens ( Talk) & Coren ( 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.
Active:
- Casliber
- Coren
- David Fuchs
- Elen of the Roads
- Jclemens
- John Vandenberg
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mailer diablo
- Newyorkbrad
- PhilKnight
- Roger Davies
- SirFozzie
Inactive:
- Cool Hand Luke
Recused
- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
- Risker
- Xeno
I'd like an opinion from the editors "in the trenches" of that particular dispute. Without addressing the wider problem of how to handle politically volatile subjects in general (which Jclemens is looking into), how would everyone feel about a solution similar to that which we put forth with naming in Ireland?
I.e.: construct some community process where a guided binding content decision is taken, and then enforce that decision for a period of time. In other words, a forcible truce that – while certain to not make anyone completely happy – would defuse the problem for a period of time and allow everyone to stop wasting so much energy and goodwill on that aspect to the detriment of everything else? — Coren (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that a binding content decision is required. I have expressed my opinions on the method to do so in Workshop, but I don't feel another drawn out RFC is what this dispute or the community really needs, and alternative methods should be explored.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- An enforced truce sounds like a great idea. I'd like to move on. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- If this is refering to the two articles Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion, then I think not. I have come to the view that neither of these articles have a place on Wikipedia. The problem is that you cannot substantially change the title of an article once an article has been written, without re-writing the article entirely from scratch. However I'm not familiar (in the trenches as you put it) with the history of these articles, and unsure whether they have been split from other articles or what titles they have had before their current ones. Discussion on the matter cannot take place without familiarity with and consideration of those aspects. DMSBel ( talk) 16:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I am curious to know whether WP:NPA applies to accusations made during this case. Are accusers invited to exclude all exculpatory information, and to slant their accusations in the most misleading manner possible, or should allegations instead be provided with a neutral explanation? These questions apply to both this page, the Evidence page, and all other pages in this proceeding. If allegations should be made in a way that is neutral and informative, does ArbCom ever do anything to enforce that principle when it is obviously violated? It seems unfair to put the burden entirely on the accused to use up his/her limited voice by trying to provide information that was deliberately omitted in order to demonize the accused.
I could give dozens of examples from this case, but maybe one will illustrate the point. I've been accused of having been blocked numerous times at abortion articles, but the allegation omitted that the last such block occurred four years ago this month. Is it really acceptable to allow misleading accusations that attack editors by excluding obviously relevant exculpatory evidence?
If ArbCom really wants to allow unlimited non-neutral attacks like this, then we will continue to have snow jobs consisting of rapid-fire out-of-context accusations that no editor could possibly rebut with arguments that are as concise as the accusations themselves. I have been subject to Arbitration Enforcement for several years now, and I must say that a beautiful thing about that process is that individual accusations are carefully evaluated individually rather than inquisitorially. But even at AE, people making frivolous, biased, or otherwise baseless charges rarely face any consequences. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a rule, we allow a great deal of leeway during arbitration; more, I suppose, that would be allowable anywhere else. That said, we also pay attention to behaviour during arbitration and it factors significantly when comes the time to put evidence in context. —
Coren
(talk) 01:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably the Arbitrators are capable of weighing evidence and coming to their own conclusions. In the specific case in point, I prominently linked Anythingyouwant's block log in my evidence, so that the Arbitrators could evaluate it and assign it whatever weight they think it warrants. I don't think that linking someone's block log, with an entirely accurate summary of it, constitutes a personal attack. Is it a "personal attack" to fail to spin someone's block log the way they'd prefer? If so, please let me know.
In the meantime, it's a bit galling to see someone who irresponsibly flings around accusations of "appalling dishonesty" without even the most basic due diligence present themselves as a victim of personal attacks, but whatever. MastCell Talk 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- As you know MastCell, I made an error in that instance, and I crossed out the words you quote, and I explicitly apologized for the error. And yet you quote those crossed-out words now without the slightest statement that they were later crossed out and that you received an apology. This is typical of your extremely misleading style: present evidence that is technically accurate, and exclude mentioning any and all evidence that fails to suit your agenda. You should not leave it to arbitrators to discover for themselves that you have mischaracterized diffs by summarizing only the parts that help you wikilawyer against your targets.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't consider
this an apology in any sincere or meaningful sense; it's more just another set of accusations, insultingly phrased pro forma as a non-apology apology. But if you think it portrays you in a better light, then OK; I've linked it.
MastCell
Talk 06:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't make insincere apologies. However, feel free to denigrate my apology if you wish. In any event, I think you owe me quite a few more than I owe you. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't consider
this an apology in any sincere or meaningful sense; it's more just another set of accusations, insultingly phrased pro forma as a non-apology apology. But if you think it portrays you in a better light, then OK; I've linked it.
MastCell
Talk 06:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- As you know MastCell, I made an error in that instance, and I crossed out the words you quote, and I explicitly apologized for the error. And yet you quote those crossed-out words now without the slightest statement that they were later crossed out and that you received an apology. This is typical of your extremely misleading style: present evidence that is technically accurate, and exclude mentioning any and all evidence that fails to suit your agenda. You should not leave it to arbitrators to discover for themselves that you have mischaracterized diffs by summarizing only the parts that help you wikilawyer against your targets.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably the Arbitrators are capable of weighing evidence and coming to their own conclusions. In the specific case in point, I prominently linked Anythingyouwant's block log in my evidence, so that the Arbitrators could evaluate it and assign it whatever weight they think it warrants. I don't think that linking someone's block log, with an entirely accurate summary of it, constitutes a personal attack. Is it a "personal attack" to fail to spin someone's block log the way they'd prefer? If so, please let me know.
I'm wondering about the status of this case. Are we waiting for people to respond to Jclemens' candidate findings of fact? From my end, I've already posted evidence and workshop findings addressing what I think are the key aspects of the case - should I repeat these in the relevant candidate FoFs? I haven't posted there (except in regard to the candidate FoF's about me) because I don't want to be repetitive, but I'm not sure where this case is, or whether you (the Committee) are waiting on us. MastCell Talk 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I had prepared a similar question about 12 hours ago; here it is.
- About two weeks ago, Jclemens added sections on the workshop page soliciting evidence/diffs for a long list of parties. There has been almost no response since then. Could arbitrators please clarify what exactly is going on? Thanks,
Mathsci (
talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I hit my 500-word evidence limit a long time ago, so I'm not planning to add more. That said, there's no rush as far as I'm concerned. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Any updates?
NW (
Talk) 18:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to try and post something, but I doubt a proposed decision will herald much of a quick resolution. Rather, it will just make the differences of opinion among the committee public as we try and hammer out supportable measures. Not to blame this all on our internal discussions, however--my own lack of time has been greatly to blame as well.
Jclemens (
talk) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Public disagreement can be healthy :)
And I certainly don't blame you for real life getting in the way; it happens to all of us (or it should). Maybe it's time to modify this whole "everyone wants for the drafting arbitrator" thing though... NW ( Talk) 21:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have to agree with NW here, it's better for us to see that something is being done, or to see where the general ideas of the committee are at present, and go from there. We've had little updates in the last few weeks so something is better than nothing.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 21:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry all, we're lumbering into motion now. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- We've been disagreeing on a few things in slow motion, and trying to find a common ground for everything without actual success. So, we're probably going to hash the disputed bits out on-wiki shortly. Jclemens ( talk) 05:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Public disagreement can be healthy :)
- I'm going to try and post something, but I doubt a proposed decision will herald much of a quick resolution. Rather, it will just make the differences of opinion among the committee public as we try and hammer out supportable measures. Not to blame this all on our internal discussions, however--my own lack of time has been greatly to blame as well.
Jclemens (
talk) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This case has been my first-ever exposure to Arbitration. Is this typical, in terms of time to settle? Mind you, I'd rather have a slow process than a flawed one. I'm just curious. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 05:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- ArbCom is rarely fast, but this is particularly slow. A month in the workshop with almost no movement from the Arbs only happens once or twice a year. It's a sign that either a bunch of Arbs are really busy, or as stated above, they're deadlocked behind the scene (and have decided not to tell the waiting parties that they're going to need more time).
Sven Manguard
Wha? 08:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Husky, expect a token apology from ArbCom somewhere in the final resolutions. When it gets this bad, the one thing that all the Arbs can agree on is that they took too long.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 08:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, the slowness of this case has been noted in the Signpost. It's not helped by the amount of current amendment requests, clarifications etc. Not much we can do except wait.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the behaviors at issue (e.g. stonewalling, or consistently selective use of sources) are very hard to crystallize into a concise explanation, and even harder to demonstrate in diff-based evidence. I think the best approach would be for a group of several Arbs to assume new account names and try to edit these articles incognito, interacting with the case parties over several months. I think that would tell you all you need to know, assuming it doesn't drive you bonkers first.
MastCell
Talk 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, they might be surprised to find out who is disruptive and who is not. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the behaviors at issue (e.g. stonewalling, or consistently selective use of sources) are very hard to crystallize into a concise explanation, and even harder to demonstrate in diff-based evidence. I think the best approach would be for a group of several Arbs to assume new account names and try to edit these articles incognito, interacting with the case parties over several months. I think that would tell you all you need to know, assuming it doesn't drive you bonkers first.
MastCell
Talk 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, the slowness of this case has been noted in the Signpost. It's not helped by the amount of current amendment requests, clarifications etc. Not much we can do except wait.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Husky, expect a token apology from ArbCom somewhere in the final resolutions. When it gets this bad, the one thing that all the Arbs can agree on is that they took too long.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 08:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's an update for the public on where we are.
1. Most of the principles and background findings-of-fact are hammered out appropriately. There aren't going to be any big surprises, but nor will everything proposed in the workshop make it into the final decision... or if it is put in, some of it won't pass.
2. There is a paucity of specific diffs detailing poor, sanctionable behavior on behalf of a number of participants. This needs your help. Saying "he was blocked a lot before" or the like doesn't cut it. I want to propose topic-bans for all the worst participants, regardless of side, who have contributed to the toxic atmosphere. But when I go to do so... there simply isn't enough evidence (read: specific diffs) for me to write a finding of fact on editor conduct that supports a topic ban. I'm tempted to post a proposed decision without this... and I would if it were the only deficit.
3. How to handle long-term topic management. In these areas, the committee is not of one mind. We're still working through this, but may end up posting multiple proposed solutions to e.g. the article naming controversy.
My apologies that this has taken so long. If there is any additional relevant evidence that anyone wants to submit, or any personal clarification of the above statements that are desired, please feel free to "email this user" me. Jclemens ( talk) 19:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't mind if the PD is put up with few remedies or editor-specific findings of fact. I would like to see something, so that I know how I have to tailor any further evidence gathering. Could something please be put up, on the workshop at the very least?
NW (
Talk) 01:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- What is the threshold for sanctions? I can't really imagine a clearer case for topic bans than those I've presented for a couple of editors here. If an editor consistently promotes one side of a contentious issue, and has racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring or other such behaviors in service of their POV, we should be strongly considering topic bans. If someone's been blocked five times for edit-warring to advance one side of a single controversial topic, then there's a very serious problem. I can't think of clearer evidence that an editor's commitment to advancing their POV outweighs their commitment to this site's policies and behavioral expectations. But based on the existing state of the workshop, those behaviors are completely ignored, whereas reverting a banned editor with the Committee's explicit approval earned me a lecture. Am I taking crazy pills here? MastCell Talk 04:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and on the subject of diffs,
DMSBel (
talk ·
contribs) just violated the 1RR restriction on
abortion. Again. (
04:18, 9 November 2011;
05:07, 9 November 2011;
05:25, 9 November 2011). And
it's everyone else's fault.
MastCell
Talk 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like DMSBel is flagrantly violating the 1RR limitation on reverts, while MastCell is flagrantly violating the 500-word limitation on evidence. Something there must be block-worthy. Maybe the best thing would be to simply report the 1RR violation at the appropriate noticeboard.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 06:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Then he'll be blocked for edit-warring, again. And then he'll start up, again. And when it's suggested that there might be a serious behavioral issue here, we'll be told that just "being blocked a lot before" doesn't cut it.
MastCell
Talk 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JClemens that just "being blocked a lot before" is insufficient to necessitate ArbCom action, at least if there is no showing that the blocks are ongoing instead of ancient. Same goes for ancient ArbCom sanctions, BTW. As for current and ongoing transgression of evidence policy, I'm not sure what the best solution is.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of
my evidence, the blocks are part of a pattern, rather than the sole grounds for sanction (with the exception of
Haymaker (
talk ·
contribs), whose abortion-related block log is exceptionally egregious). I've cited other behaviors, like editing policy pages to favor one's position in a content dispute, sockpuppetry, soapboxing, and talk-page abuse. If these aren't grounds for a topic ban, then my understanding diverges so far from ArbCom's that a few more diffs aren't going to change anything.
MastCell
Talk 07:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, MastCell, suppose that an editor makes a good-faith policy edit based on experience at an article, without any intention to use or mention that policy change at that article. Is that editor forbidden to ever mention that policy change at that article, or is there a finite lapse of time that you would find acceptable? Let's also assume that the policy edits were reviewed and approved by at least one other neutral editor. I believe that you previously suggested that the problem arises if "less than a month" has elapsed. Does that "month" standard come from anywhere in particular? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of
my evidence, the blocks are part of a pattern, rather than the sole grounds for sanction (with the exception of
Haymaker (
talk ·
contribs), whose abortion-related block log is exceptionally egregious). I've cited other behaviors, like editing policy pages to favor one's position in a content dispute, sockpuppetry, soapboxing, and talk-page abuse. If these aren't grounds for a topic ban, then my understanding diverges so far from ArbCom's that a few more diffs aren't going to change anything.
MastCell
Talk 07:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JClemens that just "being blocked a lot before" is insufficient to necessitate ArbCom action, at least if there is no showing that the blocks are ongoing instead of ancient. Same goes for ancient ArbCom sanctions, BTW. As for current and ongoing transgression of evidence policy, I'm not sure what the best solution is.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Then he'll be blocked for edit-warring, again. And then he'll start up, again. And when it's suggested that there might be a serious behavioral issue here, we'll be told that just "being blocked a lot before" doesn't cut it.
MastCell
Talk 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like DMSBel is flagrantly violating the 1RR limitation on reverts, while MastCell is flagrantly violating the 500-word limitation on evidence. Something there must be block-worthy. Maybe the best thing would be to simply report the 1RR violation at the appropriate noticeboard.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 06:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Per Jclemens' request for additional diffs, I've added a short evidence section. (I declined to email it, since I don't see any reason it can't be presented on-wiki). Whether it details sanctionable behavior or not, I don't know, but it illustrates one aspect of an ongoing concern I have with the way editors select and promote sources in this topic area. MastCell Talk 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the 500-word limit on evidence has not been waived, which is why I stopped at 500 words. If there is additional evidence, it can be presented by the thousands of editors who have not yet hit 500 words. Or the limit can be waived. A few disadvantages in waiving the limit would be (1) that ArbCom might have to further delay its decision in order to review additional matters, and (2) editors who are sick and tired of defending themselves for years and years will feel obliged to spend lots more time identifying and submitting further evidence, and (3) the sources of the total evidence received by ArbCom will be heavily weighted toward only the few editors who choose to devote every waking hour to this proceeding. If I am wrong about the limit not having been waived, I hope ArbCom will correct me. In the mean time, I intend to follow the rules as I understand them. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Case clerk: Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Jclemens ( Talk) & Coren ( 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.
Active:
- Casliber
- Coren
- David Fuchs
- Elen of the Roads
- Jclemens
- John Vandenberg
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mailer diablo
- Newyorkbrad
- PhilKnight
- Roger Davies
- SirFozzie
Inactive:
- Cool Hand Luke
Recused
- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
- Risker
- Xeno
I'd like an opinion from the editors "in the trenches" of that particular dispute. Without addressing the wider problem of how to handle politically volatile subjects in general (which Jclemens is looking into), how would everyone feel about a solution similar to that which we put forth with naming in Ireland?
I.e.: construct some community process where a guided binding content decision is taken, and then enforce that decision for a period of time. In other words, a forcible truce that – while certain to not make anyone completely happy – would defuse the problem for a period of time and allow everyone to stop wasting so much energy and goodwill on that aspect to the detriment of everything else? — Coren (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that a binding content decision is required. I have expressed my opinions on the method to do so in Workshop, but I don't feel another drawn out RFC is what this dispute or the community really needs, and alternative methods should be explored.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- An enforced truce sounds like a great idea. I'd like to move on. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- If this is refering to the two articles Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to the legalization of abortion, then I think not. I have come to the view that neither of these articles have a place on Wikipedia. The problem is that you cannot substantially change the title of an article once an article has been written, without re-writing the article entirely from scratch. However I'm not familiar (in the trenches as you put it) with the history of these articles, and unsure whether they have been split from other articles or what titles they have had before their current ones. Discussion on the matter cannot take place without familiarity with and consideration of those aspects. DMSBel ( talk) 16:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I am curious to know whether WP:NPA applies to accusations made during this case. Are accusers invited to exclude all exculpatory information, and to slant their accusations in the most misleading manner possible, or should allegations instead be provided with a neutral explanation? These questions apply to both this page, the Evidence page, and all other pages in this proceeding. If allegations should be made in a way that is neutral and informative, does ArbCom ever do anything to enforce that principle when it is obviously violated? It seems unfair to put the burden entirely on the accused to use up his/her limited voice by trying to provide information that was deliberately omitted in order to demonize the accused.
I could give dozens of examples from this case, but maybe one will illustrate the point. I've been accused of having been blocked numerous times at abortion articles, but the allegation omitted that the last such block occurred four years ago this month. Is it really acceptable to allow misleading accusations that attack editors by excluding obviously relevant exculpatory evidence?
If ArbCom really wants to allow unlimited non-neutral attacks like this, then we will continue to have snow jobs consisting of rapid-fire out-of-context accusations that no editor could possibly rebut with arguments that are as concise as the accusations themselves. I have been subject to Arbitration Enforcement for several years now, and I must say that a beautiful thing about that process is that individual accusations are carefully evaluated individually rather than inquisitorially. But even at AE, people making frivolous, biased, or otherwise baseless charges rarely face any consequences. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a rule, we allow a great deal of leeway during arbitration; more, I suppose, that would be allowable anywhere else. That said, we also pay attention to behaviour during arbitration and it factors significantly when comes the time to put evidence in context. —
Coren
(talk) 01:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably the Arbitrators are capable of weighing evidence and coming to their own conclusions. In the specific case in point, I prominently linked Anythingyouwant's block log in my evidence, so that the Arbitrators could evaluate it and assign it whatever weight they think it warrants. I don't think that linking someone's block log, with an entirely accurate summary of it, constitutes a personal attack. Is it a "personal attack" to fail to spin someone's block log the way they'd prefer? If so, please let me know.
In the meantime, it's a bit galling to see someone who irresponsibly flings around accusations of "appalling dishonesty" without even the most basic due diligence present themselves as a victim of personal attacks, but whatever. MastCell Talk 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- As you know MastCell, I made an error in that instance, and I crossed out the words you quote, and I explicitly apologized for the error. And yet you quote those crossed-out words now without the slightest statement that they were later crossed out and that you received an apology. This is typical of your extremely misleading style: present evidence that is technically accurate, and exclude mentioning any and all evidence that fails to suit your agenda. You should not leave it to arbitrators to discover for themselves that you have mischaracterized diffs by summarizing only the parts that help you wikilawyer against your targets.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't consider
this an apology in any sincere or meaningful sense; it's more just another set of accusations, insultingly phrased pro forma as a non-apology apology. But if you think it portrays you in a better light, then OK; I've linked it.
MastCell
Talk 06:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't make insincere apologies. However, feel free to denigrate my apology if you wish. In any event, I think you owe me quite a few more than I owe you. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't consider
this an apology in any sincere or meaningful sense; it's more just another set of accusations, insultingly phrased pro forma as a non-apology apology. But if you think it portrays you in a better light, then OK; I've linked it.
MastCell
Talk 06:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- As you know MastCell, I made an error in that instance, and I crossed out the words you quote, and I explicitly apologized for the error. And yet you quote those crossed-out words now without the slightest statement that they were later crossed out and that you received an apology. This is typical of your extremely misleading style: present evidence that is technically accurate, and exclude mentioning any and all evidence that fails to suit your agenda. You should not leave it to arbitrators to discover for themselves that you have mischaracterized diffs by summarizing only the parts that help you wikilawyer against your targets.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably the Arbitrators are capable of weighing evidence and coming to their own conclusions. In the specific case in point, I prominently linked Anythingyouwant's block log in my evidence, so that the Arbitrators could evaluate it and assign it whatever weight they think it warrants. I don't think that linking someone's block log, with an entirely accurate summary of it, constitutes a personal attack. Is it a "personal attack" to fail to spin someone's block log the way they'd prefer? If so, please let me know.
I'm wondering about the status of this case. Are we waiting for people to respond to Jclemens' candidate findings of fact? From my end, I've already posted evidence and workshop findings addressing what I think are the key aspects of the case - should I repeat these in the relevant candidate FoFs? I haven't posted there (except in regard to the candidate FoF's about me) because I don't want to be repetitive, but I'm not sure where this case is, or whether you (the Committee) are waiting on us. MastCell Talk 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I had prepared a similar question about 12 hours ago; here it is.
- About two weeks ago, Jclemens added sections on the workshop page soliciting evidence/diffs for a long list of parties. There has been almost no response since then. Could arbitrators please clarify what exactly is going on? Thanks,
Mathsci (
talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I hit my 500-word evidence limit a long time ago, so I'm not planning to add more. That said, there's no rush as far as I'm concerned. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Any updates?
NW (
Talk) 18:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to try and post something, but I doubt a proposed decision will herald much of a quick resolution. Rather, it will just make the differences of opinion among the committee public as we try and hammer out supportable measures. Not to blame this all on our internal discussions, however--my own lack of time has been greatly to blame as well.
Jclemens (
talk) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Public disagreement can be healthy :)
And I certainly don't blame you for real life getting in the way; it happens to all of us (or it should). Maybe it's time to modify this whole "everyone wants for the drafting arbitrator" thing though... NW ( Talk) 21:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have to agree with NW here, it's better for us to see that something is being done, or to see where the general ideas of the committee are at present, and go from there. We've had little updates in the last few weeks so something is better than nothing.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 21:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry all, we're lumbering into motion now. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- We've been disagreeing on a few things in slow motion, and trying to find a common ground for everything without actual success. So, we're probably going to hash the disputed bits out on-wiki shortly. Jclemens ( talk) 05:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Public disagreement can be healthy :)
- I'm going to try and post something, but I doubt a proposed decision will herald much of a quick resolution. Rather, it will just make the differences of opinion among the committee public as we try and hammer out supportable measures. Not to blame this all on our internal discussions, however--my own lack of time has been greatly to blame as well.
Jclemens (
talk) 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This case has been my first-ever exposure to Arbitration. Is this typical, in terms of time to settle? Mind you, I'd rather have a slow process than a flawed one. I'm just curious. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 05:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- ArbCom is rarely fast, but this is particularly slow. A month in the workshop with almost no movement from the Arbs only happens once or twice a year. It's a sign that either a bunch of Arbs are really busy, or as stated above, they're deadlocked behind the scene (and have decided not to tell the waiting parties that they're going to need more time).
Sven Manguard
Wha? 08:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Husky, expect a token apology from ArbCom somewhere in the final resolutions. When it gets this bad, the one thing that all the Arbs can agree on is that they took too long.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 08:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, the slowness of this case has been noted in the Signpost. It's not helped by the amount of current amendment requests, clarifications etc. Not much we can do except wait.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the behaviors at issue (e.g. stonewalling, or consistently selective use of sources) are very hard to crystallize into a concise explanation, and even harder to demonstrate in diff-based evidence. I think the best approach would be for a group of several Arbs to assume new account names and try to edit these articles incognito, interacting with the case parties over several months. I think that would tell you all you need to know, assuming it doesn't drive you bonkers first.
MastCell
Talk 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, they might be surprised to find out who is disruptive and who is not. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the behaviors at issue (e.g. stonewalling, or consistently selective use of sources) are very hard to crystallize into a concise explanation, and even harder to demonstrate in diff-based evidence. I think the best approach would be for a group of several Arbs to assume new account names and try to edit these articles incognito, interacting with the case parties over several months. I think that would tell you all you need to know, assuming it doesn't drive you bonkers first.
MastCell
Talk 22:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, the slowness of this case has been noted in the Signpost. It's not helped by the amount of current amendment requests, clarifications etc. Not much we can do except wait.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Husky, expect a token apology from ArbCom somewhere in the final resolutions. When it gets this bad, the one thing that all the Arbs can agree on is that they took too long.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 08:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's an update for the public on where we are.
1. Most of the principles and background findings-of-fact are hammered out appropriately. There aren't going to be any big surprises, but nor will everything proposed in the workshop make it into the final decision... or if it is put in, some of it won't pass.
2. There is a paucity of specific diffs detailing poor, sanctionable behavior on behalf of a number of participants. This needs your help. Saying "he was blocked a lot before" or the like doesn't cut it. I want to propose topic-bans for all the worst participants, regardless of side, who have contributed to the toxic atmosphere. But when I go to do so... there simply isn't enough evidence (read: specific diffs) for me to write a finding of fact on editor conduct that supports a topic ban. I'm tempted to post a proposed decision without this... and I would if it were the only deficit.
3. How to handle long-term topic management. In these areas, the committee is not of one mind. We're still working through this, but may end up posting multiple proposed solutions to e.g. the article naming controversy.
My apologies that this has taken so long. If there is any additional relevant evidence that anyone wants to submit, or any personal clarification of the above statements that are desired, please feel free to "email this user" me. Jclemens ( talk) 19:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't mind if the PD is put up with few remedies or editor-specific findings of fact. I would like to see something, so that I know how I have to tailor any further evidence gathering. Could something please be put up, on the workshop at the very least?
NW (
Talk) 01:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- What is the threshold for sanctions? I can't really imagine a clearer case for topic bans than those I've presented for a couple of editors here. If an editor consistently promotes one side of a contentious issue, and has racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring or other such behaviors in service of their POV, we should be strongly considering topic bans. If someone's been blocked five times for edit-warring to advance one side of a single controversial topic, then there's a very serious problem. I can't think of clearer evidence that an editor's commitment to advancing their POV outweighs their commitment to this site's policies and behavioral expectations. But based on the existing state of the workshop, those behaviors are completely ignored, whereas reverting a banned editor with the Committee's explicit approval earned me a lecture. Am I taking crazy pills here? MastCell Talk 04:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and on the subject of diffs,
DMSBel (
talk ·
contribs) just violated the 1RR restriction on
abortion. Again. (
04:18, 9 November 2011;
05:07, 9 November 2011;
05:25, 9 November 2011). And
it's everyone else's fault.
MastCell
Talk 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like DMSBel is flagrantly violating the 1RR limitation on reverts, while MastCell is flagrantly violating the 500-word limitation on evidence. Something there must be block-worthy. Maybe the best thing would be to simply report the 1RR violation at the appropriate noticeboard.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 06:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Then he'll be blocked for edit-warring, again. And then he'll start up, again. And when it's suggested that there might be a serious behavioral issue here, we'll be told that just "being blocked a lot before" doesn't cut it.
MastCell
Talk 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JClemens that just "being blocked a lot before" is insufficient to necessitate ArbCom action, at least if there is no showing that the blocks are ongoing instead of ancient. Same goes for ancient ArbCom sanctions, BTW. As for current and ongoing transgression of evidence policy, I'm not sure what the best solution is.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of
my evidence, the blocks are part of a pattern, rather than the sole grounds for sanction (with the exception of
Haymaker (
talk ·
contribs), whose abortion-related block log is exceptionally egregious). I've cited other behaviors, like editing policy pages to favor one's position in a content dispute, sockpuppetry, soapboxing, and talk-page abuse. If these aren't grounds for a topic ban, then my understanding diverges so far from ArbCom's that a few more diffs aren't going to change anything.
MastCell
Talk 07:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, MastCell, suppose that an editor makes a good-faith policy edit based on experience at an article, without any intention to use or mention that policy change at that article. Is that editor forbidden to ever mention that policy change at that article, or is there a finite lapse of time that you would find acceptable? Let's also assume that the policy edits were reviewed and approved by at least one other neutral editor. I believe that you previously suggested that the problem arises if "less than a month" has elapsed. Does that "month" standard come from anywhere in particular? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of
my evidence, the blocks are part of a pattern, rather than the sole grounds for sanction (with the exception of
Haymaker (
talk ·
contribs), whose abortion-related block log is exceptionally egregious). I've cited other behaviors, like editing policy pages to favor one's position in a content dispute, sockpuppetry, soapboxing, and talk-page abuse. If these aren't grounds for a topic ban, then my understanding diverges so far from ArbCom's that a few more diffs aren't going to change anything.
MastCell
Talk 07:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with JClemens that just "being blocked a lot before" is insufficient to necessitate ArbCom action, at least if there is no showing that the blocks are ongoing instead of ancient. Same goes for ancient ArbCom sanctions, BTW. As for current and ongoing transgression of evidence policy, I'm not sure what the best solution is.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Then he'll be blocked for edit-warring, again. And then he'll start up, again. And when it's suggested that there might be a serious behavioral issue here, we'll be told that just "being blocked a lot before" doesn't cut it.
MastCell
Talk 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like DMSBel is flagrantly violating the 1RR limitation on reverts, while MastCell is flagrantly violating the 500-word limitation on evidence. Something there must be block-worthy. Maybe the best thing would be to simply report the 1RR violation at the appropriate noticeboard.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 06:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Per Jclemens' request for additional diffs, I've added a short evidence section. (I declined to email it, since I don't see any reason it can't be presented on-wiki). Whether it details sanctionable behavior or not, I don't know, but it illustrates one aspect of an ongoing concern I have with the way editors select and promote sources in this topic area. MastCell Talk 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the 500-word limit on evidence has not been waived, which is why I stopped at 500 words. If there is additional evidence, it can be presented by the thousands of editors who have not yet hit 500 words. Or the limit can be waived. A few disadvantages in waiving the limit would be (1) that ArbCom might have to further delay its decision in order to review additional matters, and (2) editors who are sick and tired of defending themselves for years and years will feel obliged to spend lots more time identifying and submitting further evidence, and (3) the sources of the total evidence received by ArbCom will be heavily weighted toward only the few editors who choose to devote every waking hour to this proceeding. If I am wrong about the limit not having been waived, I hope ArbCom will correct me. In the mean time, I intend to follow the rules as I understand them. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)