This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
It would have been nice to get notice that I was about to become an Arbcom-sanctioned user and asked for my input prior to being given a notice informing me that I had already been transformed into one. I get that Arbcom wanted to stop the fighting, but I've got to say I don't much appreciate how wide a net you've cast by restricting an extremely large number of completely-uninvolved-in-the-admin-warring editors. Could you truly not stop the four or five people involved in the case with anything other than blanket-sanctioning more than 100 people? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 02:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ETA: A vanishingly small percentage of the people you've sanctioned with this injunction did anything that could be taken to even resemble tool misuse, disruption, personal involvement, wheel warring, or anything that that would render them involved in the actual dispute here. Arbcom appears to be applying a very different standard for "involved enough to need to be explicitly kept away" than any other time I've seen it used, and B raises some good questions about just how far you intend to push this definition of "involvement" now that we're out in territory that wouldn't normally be anywhere near it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 02:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Although I appreciate B's explanation of what they think "initiate" means, it would be helpful if we could get answers from the Committee rather than have to guess (see my question). Some parts of my quesions are now moot, but not all.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@ALL: The purpose of this injunction is to make people stop and think a bit before they do anything else regarding the individuals who are parties to this case. There has been enough well-intentioned but slightly (and not so slightly) out-of-process activity over the past few days to last a lifetime. As has been mentioned above: It is not intended to reflect negatively on any individual temporarily restricted in such a matter. Sure this motion has trod on a few toes, and, yes, it could have been more diplomatically phrased, but it would have been much more abrasive, much more draconian, and much more widely-cast, if a couple of my colleagues had had their way. My personal apologies to you if you have been offended. In mitigation, I was dog-tired when I drafted it and we had to do something urgently to stop further disruption. Roger Davies talk 06:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hatting spiralling comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Regarding this being sent to non-administrators, the interpretation above is correct - nobody subject to the motion make take or request administrative action against any party to the case (including starting or closing AE requests) until the end of the case. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I interpreted "reports of alleged breaches may be made only by email to arbcom" as meaning they want to avoid drama over minor or unintentional breaches that won't need any action, or that can be handled by having a brief private "please don't do that" discussion with the breacher. So I'm not too worried. On the theory that closing a discussion with no action is itself an admin action (one of the questions this case is supposed to answer), it's possible someone reported me below for saying I think this case shouldn't sanction anyone. If anything happens with such a report, there is no common sense left on Wikipedia and we may as well go home.
Roger's idea of an amnesty sounds good to me. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The clear wording (noting that I was specifically notified as being affected by the ill=constructed "injunction" is that no editor at all who has used AE or AN or commented on this or any related ArbCom case can make any comment about any other named person affected by the "injunction." Where a person is specifically enjoined (given notice) then it is not limited to those "listed directly as parties to the case" nor is it limited to "administrators". In point of fact, I would note my comments did not deal in any way with having any made any judgments on the facts - but noting the
zugzwang problem has been discussed in the past. Cheers. And would someone just post on my UT page that the "injunction" is not intended to apply to me? If it is intended to apply to me then we have yet another example of
Kill them all; let God sort them out. Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I trust that the plain reading of this mean all the arbs who posted on the case request page ( Seraphimblade, Salvio giuliano, Thryduulf, Courcelles, LFaraone, AGK, Roger Davies, Doug Weller, DGG, DeltaQuad) are also to be subject to this injunction. -- KTC ( talk) 15:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
|
I remembered there was an earlier ARCA here (January 2015) where some of the same issues in this case came up. Arbcom responded to the request basically saying AE admins should use common sense instead of acting mechanistically. I've noticed (with approval; others may feel differently) saner and more thoughtful decisions coming out of AE since then, even though I haven't agreed with all of them. This February 2014 remark of Neotarf was also memorable, describing the DS regime operating at that time: [2]
I think the AE admins are and were more astute observers than Neotarf gave them credit for, but that the "disconnect based on ideology" is real, and the ARCA above helped move away from that rigid approach. IMHO it documents a recognition by Arbcom of the current more flexible approach as a best practice. It supports Dennis Brown's statement (where he says discretion is always possible), contra those calling for bot-like responses. Sandstein is a good administrator but I'm glad he has switched from AE to other areas.
Anyway I'd oppose sanctioning anyone in this case. People did their best and made some mistakes, which happens. The case request comments from non-parties seem to have not been saved, but I remember liking Jehochman's in particular. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 05:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I received a massive double message about the fact that arbcom will now sit about the consequences of confusing rules and rulings made by arbcom. I mentioned in the request that the theme of Bach's cantata for yesterday is mercy. It's derived from the parable about the Mote and the Beam with the fundamental "dangers of judging others". I hope - but can only hope and need A LOT of good faith - that nobody will be sanctioned for misunderstanding confusing rules, and that the rules will be changed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Archiving.
AGK
[•] 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
|
I'm curious, who decides who is and isn't a party to a case? I assumed it would be arbs but perhaps I'm wrong. I ask because Kevin Gorman added RGloucester to the involved parties over a disagreement about Reaper's close at the AN thread. Kevin Gorman claims that the original close is invalid because it's at odds with AE policy. It's my understanding that such a positive claim can't be made given that this case is about clarifying the ambiguities in that policy. As far as I can tell RGloucester had literally no other involvement in the events that lead to this case at all. Seems silly to me to drag a completely uninvolved editor into this as a party. Capeo ( talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Who is a party to a case is at the absolute discretion of the drafters once a case has opened. If anyone feels they or someone else who is a party should be, or if they are and feel they should not be, they should comment to this effect. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This case is going to have a non-standard timetable:
Regarding the change of schedule, specifically the change of the closing of the evidence phase from July 13 to July 5, was it taken into account thzt this weekend is the Fourth of July weekend here in the States, so that many people will be basically inaccessible from July 3rd to the 5th? BMK ( talk) 11:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I initially recused from this case when it principally discussed GorillaWarfare ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s actions. Since that time, the scope of the case has expanded significantly. As Bencherlite brought up on my talk page, if I feel there is an actual or perceived inability for me to act objectively with regards to a specific party, it is difficult to decide with the appearance of fairness on the conduct of another party when their conduct was in response to the conduct of the aforementioned. My interest in this case is mostly one of the general policy and process; I intend to not participate in any findings or remedies regarding the actors or their conduct in the matter that precipitated this case. For clarity, that includes the AE and AN discussions. L Faraone 21:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have some more clarification on the recusals? I get why GorillaWarfare has recused (she is a party to the case), and Lfaraone has clarified his partial recusal above, but it is not totally clear why Courcelles and Euryalus recused.
Am I correct to assume that they recused because they took part in the discussion at Adjwilley's talk page here? Or are there other reasons? I'm asking because as far as I can tell, Euryalus recused after being included in the injunction (that is causing such angst in various places) - the response of Euryalus to the injunction can be seen here. If Euryalus recused because of being caught up in the injunction, the question then arises whether the same applies to Salvio giuliano, who was also served with the injunction? The question also arises whether the arbs voting on the injunction intended it to apply to Salvio and Euryalus (or were even aware that they had included two arbs in that injunction).
As Salvio is a drafter of the case (and is discussing proposals on the proposed decision page to remove or modify the injunction), I am presuming that the injunction wasn't intended to apply to arbs, and the more reasonable reason for recusal is the one I suggested above (the participation at Adjwilley's talk page), which applies to Courcelles and Euryalus, but not Salvio. Would that be correct? Carcharoth ( talk) 06:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I too felt the need to interpret the injunction broadly having never before been under an arbcom restriction. I appreciate that you felt similarly burdened by this overly broad injunction, it makes me feel a little less slighted. I always assumed if I was to be put under an arbcom restriction it would be because of something I did. Frankly a literal interpretation of the wording would require all arbs to recuse(unless they gave explicit permission to each other for each action). I think the sooner this injunction is suspended the better. I believe I heard rumblings of removing or replacing it, I do wish they used some of the haste used in creating the injunction to repair it. Chillum 02:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this affair actually needs an arbitration case, so to avoid the unnecessary palaver I'll make my case in a few words to be absorbed or ignored by the arbitrators as it suits them.
The arbitration committee relies on administrators to enforce its rulings, but over time the active administrator corps has declined in numbers if not in quality. This is the pressing problem for Wikipedia in this case. To make things worse, over time process creep has turned WP:AE into a talking shop where remedies that are plainly intended to endow individual administrators with the powers they need to sort out problems are turned into endurance marathons sometimes going on for weeks. In short, you've got emboldened trolls and a demoralised and timid administration corps. The trolls aren't going to enforce your arbitration rulings.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't want this situation to continue. Therefore: you need to give all administrators a solid vote of confidence and encourage them to take what action they need to as authorised by you. Remind them that they don't need a long silly discussion to justify actions already explicitly authorised by you. That's all you need to do in this case. The rest is up to the admins. -- TS 01:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the results would have been extremely different if a current arb wasn't part of the issue. By trying to face save the committee looks a lot more nepotistic/cabalish then I even imagined. I'm extremely disgusted by the private nature of this case. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 13:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming that whatever decision is reached at this Arbcom case, it will effect all editors who are (or will be) under any sanctions. GoodDay ( talk) 13:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
For the amnesty. It's good to see a common sense approach taken. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Jim Carter ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK ( Talk) & Salvio giuliano ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
It would have been nice to get notice that I was about to become an Arbcom-sanctioned user and asked for my input prior to being given a notice informing me that I had already been transformed into one. I get that Arbcom wanted to stop the fighting, but I've got to say I don't much appreciate how wide a net you've cast by restricting an extremely large number of completely-uninvolved-in-the-admin-warring editors. Could you truly not stop the four or five people involved in the case with anything other than blanket-sanctioning more than 100 people? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 02:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ETA: A vanishingly small percentage of the people you've sanctioned with this injunction did anything that could be taken to even resemble tool misuse, disruption, personal involvement, wheel warring, or anything that that would render them involved in the actual dispute here. Arbcom appears to be applying a very different standard for "involved enough to need to be explicitly kept away" than any other time I've seen it used, and B raises some good questions about just how far you intend to push this definition of "involvement" now that we're out in territory that wouldn't normally be anywhere near it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 02:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Although I appreciate B's explanation of what they think "initiate" means, it would be helpful if we could get answers from the Committee rather than have to guess (see my question). Some parts of my quesions are now moot, but not all.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@ALL: The purpose of this injunction is to make people stop and think a bit before they do anything else regarding the individuals who are parties to this case. There has been enough well-intentioned but slightly (and not so slightly) out-of-process activity over the past few days to last a lifetime. As has been mentioned above: It is not intended to reflect negatively on any individual temporarily restricted in such a matter. Sure this motion has trod on a few toes, and, yes, it could have been more diplomatically phrased, but it would have been much more abrasive, much more draconian, and much more widely-cast, if a couple of my colleagues had had their way. My personal apologies to you if you have been offended. In mitigation, I was dog-tired when I drafted it and we had to do something urgently to stop further disruption. Roger Davies talk 06:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hatting spiralling comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Regarding this being sent to non-administrators, the interpretation above is correct - nobody subject to the motion make take or request administrative action against any party to the case (including starting or closing AE requests) until the end of the case. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I interpreted "reports of alleged breaches may be made only by email to arbcom" as meaning they want to avoid drama over minor or unintentional breaches that won't need any action, or that can be handled by having a brief private "please don't do that" discussion with the breacher. So I'm not too worried. On the theory that closing a discussion with no action is itself an admin action (one of the questions this case is supposed to answer), it's possible someone reported me below for saying I think this case shouldn't sanction anyone. If anything happens with such a report, there is no common sense left on Wikipedia and we may as well go home.
Roger's idea of an amnesty sounds good to me. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The clear wording (noting that I was specifically notified as being affected by the ill=constructed "injunction" is that no editor at all who has used AE or AN or commented on this or any related ArbCom case can make any comment about any other named person affected by the "injunction." Where a person is specifically enjoined (given notice) then it is not limited to those "listed directly as parties to the case" nor is it limited to "administrators". In point of fact, I would note my comments did not deal in any way with having any made any judgments on the facts - but noting the
zugzwang problem has been discussed in the past. Cheers. And would someone just post on my UT page that the "injunction" is not intended to apply to me? If it is intended to apply to me then we have yet another example of
Kill them all; let God sort them out. Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I trust that the plain reading of this mean all the arbs who posted on the case request page ( Seraphimblade, Salvio giuliano, Thryduulf, Courcelles, LFaraone, AGK, Roger Davies, Doug Weller, DGG, DeltaQuad) are also to be subject to this injunction. -- KTC ( talk) 15:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
|
I remembered there was an earlier ARCA here (January 2015) where some of the same issues in this case came up. Arbcom responded to the request basically saying AE admins should use common sense instead of acting mechanistically. I've noticed (with approval; others may feel differently) saner and more thoughtful decisions coming out of AE since then, even though I haven't agreed with all of them. This February 2014 remark of Neotarf was also memorable, describing the DS regime operating at that time: [2]
I think the AE admins are and were more astute observers than Neotarf gave them credit for, but that the "disconnect based on ideology" is real, and the ARCA above helped move away from that rigid approach. IMHO it documents a recognition by Arbcom of the current more flexible approach as a best practice. It supports Dennis Brown's statement (where he says discretion is always possible), contra those calling for bot-like responses. Sandstein is a good administrator but I'm glad he has switched from AE to other areas.
Anyway I'd oppose sanctioning anyone in this case. People did their best and made some mistakes, which happens. The case request comments from non-parties seem to have not been saved, but I remember liking Jehochman's in particular. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 05:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I received a massive double message about the fact that arbcom will now sit about the consequences of confusing rules and rulings made by arbcom. I mentioned in the request that the theme of Bach's cantata for yesterday is mercy. It's derived from the parable about the Mote and the Beam with the fundamental "dangers of judging others". I hope - but can only hope and need A LOT of good faith - that nobody will be sanctioned for misunderstanding confusing rules, and that the rules will be changed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Archiving.
AGK
[•] 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
|
I'm curious, who decides who is and isn't a party to a case? I assumed it would be arbs but perhaps I'm wrong. I ask because Kevin Gorman added RGloucester to the involved parties over a disagreement about Reaper's close at the AN thread. Kevin Gorman claims that the original close is invalid because it's at odds with AE policy. It's my understanding that such a positive claim can't be made given that this case is about clarifying the ambiguities in that policy. As far as I can tell RGloucester had literally no other involvement in the events that lead to this case at all. Seems silly to me to drag a completely uninvolved editor into this as a party. Capeo ( talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Who is a party to a case is at the absolute discretion of the drafters once a case has opened. If anyone feels they or someone else who is a party should be, or if they are and feel they should not be, they should comment to this effect. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This case is going to have a non-standard timetable:
Regarding the change of schedule, specifically the change of the closing of the evidence phase from July 13 to July 5, was it taken into account thzt this weekend is the Fourth of July weekend here in the States, so that many people will be basically inaccessible from July 3rd to the 5th? BMK ( talk) 11:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I initially recused from this case when it principally discussed GorillaWarfare ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s actions. Since that time, the scope of the case has expanded significantly. As Bencherlite brought up on my talk page, if I feel there is an actual or perceived inability for me to act objectively with regards to a specific party, it is difficult to decide with the appearance of fairness on the conduct of another party when their conduct was in response to the conduct of the aforementioned. My interest in this case is mostly one of the general policy and process; I intend to not participate in any findings or remedies regarding the actors or their conduct in the matter that precipitated this case. For clarity, that includes the AE and AN discussions. L Faraone 21:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have some more clarification on the recusals? I get why GorillaWarfare has recused (she is a party to the case), and Lfaraone has clarified his partial recusal above, but it is not totally clear why Courcelles and Euryalus recused.
Am I correct to assume that they recused because they took part in the discussion at Adjwilley's talk page here? Or are there other reasons? I'm asking because as far as I can tell, Euryalus recused after being included in the injunction (that is causing such angst in various places) - the response of Euryalus to the injunction can be seen here. If Euryalus recused because of being caught up in the injunction, the question then arises whether the same applies to Salvio giuliano, who was also served with the injunction? The question also arises whether the arbs voting on the injunction intended it to apply to Salvio and Euryalus (or were even aware that they had included two arbs in that injunction).
As Salvio is a drafter of the case (and is discussing proposals on the proposed decision page to remove or modify the injunction), I am presuming that the injunction wasn't intended to apply to arbs, and the more reasonable reason for recusal is the one I suggested above (the participation at Adjwilley's talk page), which applies to Courcelles and Euryalus, but not Salvio. Would that be correct? Carcharoth ( talk) 06:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I too felt the need to interpret the injunction broadly having never before been under an arbcom restriction. I appreciate that you felt similarly burdened by this overly broad injunction, it makes me feel a little less slighted. I always assumed if I was to be put under an arbcom restriction it would be because of something I did. Frankly a literal interpretation of the wording would require all arbs to recuse(unless they gave explicit permission to each other for each action). I think the sooner this injunction is suspended the better. I believe I heard rumblings of removing or replacing it, I do wish they used some of the haste used in creating the injunction to repair it. Chillum 02:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this affair actually needs an arbitration case, so to avoid the unnecessary palaver I'll make my case in a few words to be absorbed or ignored by the arbitrators as it suits them.
The arbitration committee relies on administrators to enforce its rulings, but over time the active administrator corps has declined in numbers if not in quality. This is the pressing problem for Wikipedia in this case. To make things worse, over time process creep has turned WP:AE into a talking shop where remedies that are plainly intended to endow individual administrators with the powers they need to sort out problems are turned into endurance marathons sometimes going on for weeks. In short, you've got emboldened trolls and a demoralised and timid administration corps. The trolls aren't going to enforce your arbitration rulings.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't want this situation to continue. Therefore: you need to give all administrators a solid vote of confidence and encourage them to take what action they need to as authorised by you. Remind them that they don't need a long silly discussion to justify actions already explicitly authorised by you. That's all you need to do in this case. The rest is up to the admins. -- TS 01:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the results would have been extremely different if a current arb wasn't part of the issue. By trying to face save the committee looks a lot more nepotistic/cabalish then I even imagined. I'm extremely disgusted by the private nature of this case. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 13:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming that whatever decision is reached at this Arbcom case, it will effect all editors who are (or will be) under any sanctions. GoodDay ( talk) 13:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
For the amnesty. It's good to see a common sense approach taken. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC).