Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 14 January 2009

Comments on outside views

Comments on view by Ryan Postlethwaite

• I'm not endorsing this summary, but I want to make a point of order, Ryan. Your comment "For the past few months we've seen the usual suspects pop up to make snide remarks towards FT2 to carry on their tirade against the Arbitration Committee". You are a clerk for ArbCom. This coveted position requires that you have "more caution than typically encouraged on Misplaced Pages". I believe that you should consider your position, and the imperative to be a neutral operative for ArbCom, before voicing your own opinion on such matters—whether in support of ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or any other related matter. Your position requires you to be seen as NPOV, even though there are provisions for recusal. It would be preferable if an Arbitrator themselves expressed their opinions, rather than your taking on that role as an impartial "civil servant", as it were. Tony (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  I'm saying this as a normal editor, not as an arbitration clerk or administrator. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm merely voicing mine on something that's a user conduct issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I noted that discrepancy in the rules on the Clerks' page! (IMO, it should be modified.) All the same, I think your language might have been more measured, given the position of trust you occupy. Tony (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  He's a clerk - he doesn't make any rulings, or have any impact on the outcome of an arbitration case. Avruch 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think your comments in the latter half of this outside view are inflammatory and unhelpful. With the comments you made, you cast aspersions on all who have dared question FT2'sd behavior across many issues. This is incredibly unfair. SDJ 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this was the effect; it was not intended that way. I also have nothing against Ryan. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned and conservative about the need to protect oneself against CoI, and thus for those in official roles to be cautious. I meant no harm. Tony (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I think SD was referring to Ryan's comments and not your own. Avruch 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Sorry for the confusion, Tony. SDJ 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, people who have legitimate concerns have raised them in a collegial manner, a few users have used this however to bully FT2 and simply troll - if my language appears inflammatory it's because they deserve it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments in your initial post drew no distinctions between the groups you now delineate. That's why I consider them inflammatory and unhelpful. Lumping all of us who have attempted to see FT2 removed from the Arbcom together as you did is patently unfair. SDJ 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You belong squarely to the bully group. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You rarely understand any issue you comment upon, so why should this one be any different. I've yet to see you make a helpful addition to a discussion, and this addition did not change that track record. What were you trying to accomplish here, other than trolling for an argument? SDJ 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

SD, I think your talking about someone else. I for one often appreciate Apoc's comments and think they're insightful. But on these matters we will have to agree to disagree.:) Sticky Parkin 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "insightful." I fail to see how calling me a bully is insightful in any way, or in any way actually reflects my conduct here. And I've seen him make similarly unconstructive additions to other discussions in which I've been involved. Care to explain where his comment above fits into your claim of his wonderful insights? SDJ 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on view by TS

• To Doc: I really wish you guys would cut this kind of thing out. It's really not helpful for you to broad brush those of us who think FT2 is unfit for the committee. Check my contributions. Wannabekate me. I think it would be a hard assertion to support that I'm "more interested in wikipolitics than anything else." And telling those who happen to disagree with you to "get a grip" is particularly unhelpful as well. How would you expect us to respond to that? "Oh, okay, Doc's told me to get a grip, so I guess I'll change my views on the matter"? There's a lot of attacking going on here, but most of it is aimed at those of us who happen to agree with the premise of this RfC. SDJ 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is handwaving nonsense. It's got a nice emotional appeal, but there's nothing of any substance in it. These kinds of responses are very predictable, but never helpful. There's an actual problem here that FT2 has repeatedly failed to solve. "Stop hounding" can in this case be directly translated to "let him continue doing his job incompetently". Sorry, but competence matters. Friday (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, my comment is a completely accurate statement of what has happened. It also reflects my opinion: that the baseless and shameful attacks must stop. If there are actual substantive issues of competence, they can be addressed outside this dog and pony show. --TS 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, where ever those issues are being addressed, that venue will be derided as a "dog and pony show" also. Anyone who's been around a while has seen this strategy used many times before. It's still just handwaving nonsense. Friday (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of an RfC is not for its outside participants to argue, bicker and otherwise accuse each other. Its like kindergarten: use "I" statements. Tony has every right to his opinion as you do to yours - and attacking eachother's points of view is counter productive. --Tznkai (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course- everyone has an opinion. People are allowed to give them. Anyone who thinks a particular view is without merit is allowed to say that, too. I don't see a problem here. Friday (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty counter-productive is the problem. Imagine this RfC with a "support" and "Oppose" section under each outside view. I can't see that going anywhere. You two disagree - and that is patently obvious from the two views put forward - no reason to argue about it, no one's mind is being changed.--Tznkai (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's an RfC, and it doesn't require that people not "comment" on the views of others. I was under the assumption that this talkpage was for exactly that purpose. SDJ 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed. That said, my experience is that the most constructive way to respond to TS is simply to ignore him. I urge that method on others. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  This is sage counsel. I sometimes forget how constructive that approach is when dealing with Sidaway. SDJ 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Doc's comment that "I don't think FT2 has handled this wisely", I think that's one of those comments that I would file under the heading "all hindsight is 20-20." He has been evasive and prevaricated. On the other hand this is a completely private matter and should never have been raised in the first place. There is no suggestion that FT2 has done anything other than express a sensible and protective approach to his own private affairs, though there seem to be those who are determined to imply, by innuendo, that he has,or that it is wrong to be concerned about one's privacy. --TS 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on view by Sticky Parkin

Comments on view by Jehochman

Comments on view by Fritzpoll

• I think it is reasonable for FT2, and indeed any editor, to have the desire to defend themselves, protect their reputation, self image, and otherwise act like anyone else accused of being the "bad guy." We've certainly tolerated it from a lot of other people as a "natural response." Whether or not it is helpful is something else entirely. I further agree that the focus should be on the functioning of the Committee. Like it or not, ArbCom has become a major part of How Misplaced Pages Works, and the better ArbCom works the more disruptive disputes are isolated, quarantined, and (hopefully) solved - and the less ArbCom disrupts Misplaced Pages's main business of article building/maintenance in the process. I don't feel its appropriate at this juncture to state publicly how I feel further - I'm not convinced I should be writing this either, but I think my points could help the discussion move forward in a useful direction. Hope so anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on view by Avruch

Avruch, if you really think FT2 deserves an RfC on other grounds, perhaps you should request one. I can say this: I have been involved in a couple of major conflicts in which FT2 has stepped forward and involved himself, to some degree. I sometimes found his efforts clumsy, but they seemed earnestly well-intentioned; he never did anything that made me angry. I do not say this in order to make any kind of comment on the other cases you mention. I cannot nor do I wish to speak for any of the other editors you mention, maybe they do have grounds for requesting a comment, maybe they don't, if they haven't filed an RfC themselves, well, let's assume there is a good reason for that. But Misplaced Pages is so full of situations that prompt anger, I really would think twice about proposing an RfC based solely on things anyone has done made others angry. It is all too easy to take something personally; we should resist this whenever it is possible and the same goes for making things personal. In this case, SV has stuck closely to policy and some basic principles concerning ArbCom and ArbCom members. If people really find her grounds for request trivial or unsupported, they should say so, but I don't think anyone should encourage RfCs on other grounds (especially something vague like x has pissed many people off) unless (1) it is a conflict that has not been resolved through other means and (2) they think they have a strong case supported by policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I could have mentioned other matters, such as the OrangeMarlin secret-trial case, which angered a lot of people, or FT2's attempt to become finance director of Wikimedia UK without telling people he was FT2, which similarly caused some anger. There are a number of other issues too. However, I felt that appearing to have deliberately misled the entire community about the oversighting, by claiming he didn't know about it, when all the evidence indicates that he did, was serious enough to warrant a request for his resignation, so I decided to focus on that issue alone. SlimVirgin 19:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the issue du jour, it isn't the reason that people are calling for FT2 to resign. It is that simple. I don't doubt that people who are inclined to distrust FT2 are suspicious of his explanations for the course of events around the oversighted edit. But it simply isn't credible for them to suggest that he should resign for this, and that they aren't motivated by any other history to ask for such a thing. In comparison to what his critics have previously accused him of, this is minor. So my suggestion is that they begin an RfC on what really bothers them. As to "sticks closely to policy" - I can't figure where you got that from. What policy applies? Avruch 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite a sad day when people think that an arbitrator apparently having lied onwiki isn't a big enough deal for him to resign over. SlimVirgin 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You assume he's lying because you believe his explanation is implausible - i.e., he lied then because he's lying now about lying then. Before he explained, you assumed he was lying because... it was a conclusion that supported popular negative views of FT2. I have to say, SV, your role has certainly changed a great deal in the last six months or year or so. Far from being the chief detractor of Misplaced Pages Review, you've now expressed disbelief that a sitting arbitrator was unaware of something because it was discussed on WR. You've adopted a position chiefly promoted and developed at WR, based on evidence that no one in the community can verify. Should we all accept that FT2 lied, because you and Thatcher tell us its unlikely he didn't? Or should we give him the benefit of doubt because his explanation is plausible? Avruch 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Avruch's position that this is the 'issue du jour'. I think the lack of trust that stems from this STILL ONGOING incident is in fact a big deal. Everything I know of users direct problems with FT2 stem from this incident. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on view by Friday

Comments on view by Giano

Comments on view by Scott MacDonald

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds to me like it says "Yes, FT2 is an incompetent arbitrator. But, this doesn't matter very much, because other people have done bad things." If other people have done bad things, go ahead and troutslap them or whatever is appropriate. This doesn't mean an incompetent arbitrator who's lost the trust of the community shouldn't be ousted. Those are two separate issues. Mixing them together this way doesn't seem useful to me. Friday (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are asking me to ignore the elephant in the room. FT2 hasn't done himself any favours granted, but he was responding (or not responding) to disruptive and disgraceful provocation that was deliberately designed to smear and "get him". One cannot seperate his trivial lack of judgement from the motives and tone of those pursuing him. I didn't mix this, it was mixed in the beginning. I see no evidence of significant incompetence, and have no wish to reward nastiness by allowing it to claim a scalp. That would not be useful, as it just encourages the paranoid tendency who like to use wikipedia as a political battleground to continue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Solidarity, esprit de corps, whatever you call it, it all boils down to telling the knockers when to get off. --TS 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there's some political battling going on. I wouldn't really know- I ignore that stuff. Battles aside, there are also just regular editors who want competence and accountability from their arbcom. I don't find a lack of good judgement at all "trivial"- from arbitrators, I expect better than that. You should too. Friday (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No one's judgement is infallible. So, it is a matter of degrees. I don't see a lack of judgement the level you may do. I see FAR more danger to wikipedia in the things you are "ignoring", and taken together, I'd call for at least one desysopping and several bannings before I'd call for an arb to resign here. Friday, I'd encourage you to step back and look at this in the round. If you acquaint yourself with the things you currently say you don't know about you might well find yourself with a different view here. (Perhaps not, but I'd still ask you to look that you might understand where I'm coming from.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on view by Sarcasticidealist

• If there's an ace in his hole, it should have been played already. Do you expect this yet-to-be-produced evidence to exonerate rather than further damn him, Steve? Sounds more like a filibuster to me. — CharlotteWebb 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no particular expectations. My trust in FT2 is not high presently. But my trust for Arb Comm as a whole is high enough that when other Arbs say things like "There are multiple options being considered and we need to permit enough time for all of the arbitrators to have a chance to see, review and contribute to the discussion...I'd please ask for a minimal amount of patience.", "I anticipate that there will be further developments in the reasonably near term regarding the underlying situation.", and "I would prefer for us to agree a suitable way of inquiring independently into the oversights.", I'm inclined to give them the time they're asking for. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on view by David Gerard

The oversighted edit should have been single-revision deleted.

• Why --Duk 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC) moved to front page, since that's where DG was replying --Duk 21:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• If it can be explained so easily, why has FT2 not done so? Verbal chat 21:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

David, you should know that I have never considered seriously the argument that you tried to "fix" the election. Once I was informed that you had admitted your mistake and apologized, I considered the matter closed, at least with respect to your involvement. Although I think that a brief on-wiki acknowledgment, perhaps after the elections were closed, would have helped put matters right, but there is no precedent for that sort of thing when oversight is involved. And thank you for posting independent confirmation that you met FT2 before the oversights. That makes FT2's continued denial that he knew you before the election, at best, a legalism. I do ask you to answer two additional questions.

1. Did FT2 ask you for help dealing with the defamatory blog post? If so, did he ask specifically for oversight?
2. Did you ever tell FT2, after removing the edits, that you had done so? (It would seem odd, after going out on a limb to help someone in trouble, if you did not at least drop him a note saying, "I tried to help you by doing X, let me know if you need anything else.") Thatcher 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

David, you've confirmed that you did tell FT2 that you'd oversighted the edits. Roughly when did you make him aware of it? SlimVirgin 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(answering you both) We'd met once; I wouldn't count that as "know." We know each other in person now, but I wouldn't say we did then. (Though I'm sure that won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists.) FT2 asked me (and maybe others, I have no idea) what to do about this; such troll magnets have generally been deleted or in extreme cases oversighted. This wasn't an oversight-worthy example, as I've acknowledged. I let him know it was gone soon after I zapped it, as I recall. I'm not dredging through my email archives right this moment, though - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• A correction on the statement that FT2 and Giano exchanged emails. FT2 has stated in emails to me that Giano commented on the oversighted diffs and found them "factual and harmless." This seems to refer to on-wiki comments, not to private email between FT2 and Giano, and Giano denies saying it. David's confusion is understandable since FT2 has made this claim in email many times. Someone should check Giano's contributions for the time period; if Giano did not this on-wiki but in a private email to FT2, and Giano now denies it, FT2 and Giano need to work that out. Thatcher 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Sounds entirely plausible, yes. So say "communications" then, whatever. I didn't actually see a denial from Giano - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)