Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:11, 22 July 2012

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth closed

Original announcement

I seriously don't get this. I got desysopped because I restored an admin decision that was reverted without discussion? The idea was so ludicrous that I'd forgotten the motion was even being discussed. It seemed uncontroversial: we don't go around reverting admin decisions that we disagree with, and arbcom found that the revert was inappropriate. (And I didn't continue when it was repeated.) So what gives? — kwami (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed uncontroversial to you to breach admin policy (by wheel warring) in a situation which was clearly not urgent and where you were involved? And what about the pattern of edit-warring or move-warring - do you also think it seems uncontroversial for administrators to engage in such conduct (and that too, while being party to an arbitration case)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And the admin who started the wheel warring, against an RfM decision? That's acceptable? When have I ever done such a thing? — kwami (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The first reversal is not wheel warring; wheel-warring is where a reversed action is reinstated. In order for admins to avoid wheelwarring, policy says very clearly in bold "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing." It then says "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents". What prevented you from discussing the matter with the other administrator first? In fact, why was it that you needed to intervene and not one of the many other uninvolved admins available? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw an abuse and I corrected it. Wouldn't an uninvolved admin also have been punished for wheel-warring? — kwami (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Involved or uninvolved, there is an accountability provision in admin policy. Admins who wish to reinstate the action would have been expected to discuss the matter with the admin who reversed the action before intervening; a failure to do so amounts to poor judgment. The poor judgment is compounded where the admin is clearly involved. This is because involved admins have (or at least are seen to have) a conflict of interest. Also, what involved admins see, and the judgment they exercise in response to what they see, can be clouded by their strong feelings in relation to the topic, and this can significantly affect the quality of their judgment. These are among the reasons why the community enacted the requirement in admin policy that involved admins should refrain from intervening, and leave it to uninvolved admins. If on top of that already poor judgment, there is either evidence of that admin's poor conduct or that admin not appearing to be learning from experience, that might suggest that an individual should not have access to their admin privileges for at least a period of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Was Kwami's editing history a factor in the decision to desysop him? The only reference to such a history is Ncmvocalist's above reference to Kwami's "pattern of edit-warring or move-warring." Because Kwami's past isn't mentioned elsewhere, it seems like it's the one instance of admin tool misuse alone that prompted the desysopping, which would be excessive. If the contextualization of his behavior was a factor in the decision, it might be fair to be overt about this pattern at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. — Ƶ§œš¹ 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me note that kwami is currently under a 24 hr block arising from a separate matter, hence may not be able to respond here for a while. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I was defending kwami on the talk page for the proposed decision until he move-warred at Animal rights movement. At that point, I could no longer argue that this was an isolated incident. And at least one arbitrator said this influenced her to vote the way she did. The fact that kwami has now unrelatedly gotten an edit warring block makes me think this desysopping was pretty much inevitable at some point and might as well have happened now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The case was going on for over a month. The first arb voted for a desysop about 12 days ago. There was plenty of time to put up your defense. If you couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on an Arb Case regarding your use of tools, you don't have a lot of room to complain post close.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In reading through the ArbCom, kwami's name is rarely mentioned either one way or the other. There was clearly a lot of concern over every other admin's use and misuse of tools and kwami was not even the last admin to wheel war over this. So either desysop all the admins who wheel-warred or slap the wrists of all. My concern over the process is that only one admin who misused their tools was desysoped, and that with very little discussion during the ArbCom. The overall impression that many editors who have commented seem to have been left with is a great disparity in punishments where the "crime" seems to have been very similar. It's not a question of the severity of punishment if all the involved admins are treated similarly, but a question of equality across the board--similar punishments for similar infractions. I was not involved in any way in the issue at Perth or in the ArbCom, but this is my opinion looking at the evidence presented in the ArbCom. --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How can you say his name wasn't mentioned, he's mentioned on the evidence page, the workshop page, and the proposed decision page. You can argue your point, I've got no desire to be some sort of arbcom apologist, but the time to argue it was in the 2 weeks that the voting was ongoing, if not before. Not one post or comment from Kwami during the entire process. He had his time to argue, and he apparently ignored it.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But he's not mentioned a whole lot at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth, which I think is what Taivo was referring to. Looking through the various discussion pages for the case, it seems like Kwami was desysopped for a pattern of behavior, rather than the individual act described at the ArbCom page, which makes the main case page itself misleading. — Ƶ§œš¹ 23:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said. He was a named party to the case. (Notified on both initiation of request and case acceptance). Evidence was presented. Actions discussed at workshop. Remedies proposed. Remedies voted on. Time elapsed over 1 month. All apparently ignored, and now that it's over he wants to complain. I'm not talking about right or wrong, i'm talking about the fact that you can't ignore the entire process and then after it's over complain that you don't like the result.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's because you're focusing on Kwami's aside that he'd forgotten about the ArbCom and ignoring the core of the issue. The decision, as it is stated, is so absurd that two other editors (myself and Taivo) have come here to agree with Kwami that desysopping for a single admintool misuse is excessive (and capricious, given the treatment of other participants). After some hunting, I found that the stated reason for desysopping that drew us here in the first place ("for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision") is not the reason he was desysopped. Instead, per the discussions here, here, and here, it was a pattern of behavior that prompted people to vote for desysopping.

Please understand, I'm not making the case that Kwami shouldn't have been desysopped. I'm saying that the reasoning was not made clear; Kwami's pattern of behavior is not mentioned anywhere at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth and doesn't appear to be a factor considered until one does some digging. I see a number of problems with this kind of opacity in arbitration decisions, one of which is the very confusion that brought us here. — Ƶ§œš¹ 02:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cube lurker, I'm not addressing this at the request of kwami or any other editor. This is a concern I have, as Aeusoes1 has clearly stated, based solely on the decision document produced for the Perth arbitration. I shouldn't have to read ten other documents in order to clearly determine why kwami was desysopped and no other admin got more than a slap on the wrist. Kwami is hardly mentioned in the decision document, but his punishment is the most severe and based solely on the decision document, totally out of line with the punishments meted out to the other admins, whose behavior is far more seriously discussed. If you're going to desysop someone based on an Arbitration decision (and only slap the wrists of others), then you must spell out the reasoning on the final decision document and not just assume that editors are going to hunt down the relevant discussion on a page that isn't even linked to. As it is, the decision document fails to make any kind of a case against kwami to justify desysopping when every other involved admin just got a slap on the wrist (actually not even that much, just "admonishments"). --Taivo (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to read ten other documents in order to clearly determine why kwami was desysopped—That's just how arb cases are written up, though, I guess; I'm not sure how this could be improved much. The main page says Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.—ie, wheel warring, which wp:WHEEL notes can lead to "desysopping, even for first time incidents". And while involved; administrative action while involved is kind of a big deal. You can dig around on the workshop/proposed decision pages to find out more. There's a not-very-convincing section in the evidence page about Kwami's past edit-warring. There's a note at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision#Kwamikagami_desysopped by one of the voters pointing to the animal-rights wheel war while the vote was ongoing; so you can see that this second wheel-warring incident while the vote about the first one was ongoing was obviously a factor. You can also see there and in the discussion that a huge community appeal for clemency had some sway; more so in Gnangarra's case, who despite being involved was at least not wheel warring again while the vote was going on, as far as I know. So anyway, with a little trouble you can find the details. Again, I can't imagine how this could be done better; ideas? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the simplest solution is mentioning Kwami's history of contentious editing or the Animal rights movement issue at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. — Ƶ§œš¹ 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, one very simple solution is to have an uninvolved editor read the final decision to see if it makes sense. The Perth decision reads like this:

• Editors A, B, C, D, E engaged in this bad behavior
• Discussion of editors A, B, D, E and their behavior--accusation, defense and counter-defense
• Editor C says, "This is what I did. I thought it was the right thing to do. When the 'war' kept on going, I didn't do anything else."
• Judgment: Editors A, B, D, E get admonished
• Judgment: Editor C gets hammered with a major punishment

That's exactly how the final decision reads, without any justification whatsoever for the major penalty that Kwami suffered when everyone else simply got admonished (not even temporary suspensions of their admin privileges). Use your supposedly superior admin skills, guys and girls, and think about what you are presenting to the editorship at large. You cannot expect people to read multiple pages in order to understand your ruling. It must all be there on the final decision page. If you don't justify a given penalty on the decision page, then you are unjustified in meting out that penalty. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that editors A,B,D and E didn't have a previous history of edit and move warring, including a couple of blocks. It's mentioned on the decision page, and referenced heavily on the Evidence page, which is one click away. It's not as if it's on a collection of completely unrelated pages. However, this now appears to be moot since Kwami appears to have retired. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If by "decision page" you mean Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth, which lays out the "final decision" then it's simply false that Kwami's history was mentioned. The main case page is very explicit about everything else and, without mention of Kwami's past troubles with admin tools, makes desysopping him seem capricious. Let me be clear: it's not just that one has to do some hunting to find greater details with the case, it's that the final decision gives a false reason for desysopping him.

Also, we shouldn't use Kwami's apparent resignation as a reason to ignore the problems of transparency under discussion. I hope people can understand the notion of larger principles being at stake. — Ƶ§œš¹ 19:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite, it is absolutely false that Kwami's history was mentioned at all on the decision page (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth). Everything an editor needs to know about the decision needs to be summarized on the decision page, without requiring an editor to 1) find the right link to the "Evidence" page and 2) pore through pages of argumentation. The final decision page must be a summary of the decision as well as a summary of the justification for that decision. In this case the decision page reflects very, very poorly on the Arbitration committee because its decision concerning Kwami looks capricious and unfair. It's that simple, Black Kite. You simply can't excuse the appearance of an unfair judgment simply by saying "it's just a click away". An uninvolved editor reading that decision page will not "click", but will look at that decision and say, "What the heck? That's not right." The decision page says that Kwami engaged in behavior that every other admin on that page engaged in, but was punished ten times more severely than any other involved admin. There is simply not one single word of explanation why his punishment was more severe. It reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages and poorly on Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution processes. Whether Kwami was treated fairly or not in an absolute sense isn't the question. The decision page clearly shows that he was not fairly treated and was singled out for excessive punishment. If you want to leave the opposite impression, then I suggest you rework that decision page and the processes by which decision pages are prepared. --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his history was mentioned on the decision page, because at least two of the arbs involved clearly stated that they voted for a desysop because of his previous history, and I wouldn't be surprised if others did too (compare the voting on Gnagarra). Whether that was the correct decision is another issue; personally I would have gone for a last chance type deal because of his positive content contribution, but that's something that you'd have to discuss with the arbs. I would also suggest that Kwami's complete refusal to engage with the case didn't help his cause - saying "I did this because I thought it was right, and I'm not saying anything else" is unhelpful. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Black Kite, you are wrong. You show me where on this page that any admin mentions Kwami's past actions as being a basis for his unfair treatment. You can't. I just reread it and there is not a single, solitary statement concerning why he got a punishment ten times worse than any other admin who engaged in exactly the same activity. You are imagining it. And what is wrong if Kwami said, "This is what I did and I thought it was the right thing to do. That's all I have to say about it"? Do you want him to say that 50 times over and over? Indeed, Kwami is mentioned only very rarely on that page, including this from one of the admonished admins: "I do feel bad for Kwamikagami, who clearly felt he was trying to halt a wheel war instead of participating in one." There is not a single, solitary word on that whole page justifying crucifying Kwami and just "admonishing" the other admins, all of whom seem to have been much more involved in the problem. --Taivo (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a summary page, just as it is for every ArbCom case. Reasoning is given in the evidence and proposed decision pages. You need this page. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it was the correct decision, but to say it wasn't discussed is clearly wrong. And if you're involved in such a case, not engaging with that case is unlikely to help you; you need to provide more justification than a single sentence. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved in ArbComs before so I know the process, but I'm saying that the only page the majority of editors are ever going to look at is the final summary page. THAT page must contain a summary of why five editors were only admonished and one editor was crucified. And the crucified editor was the one who seemed to be the least involved. Don't try to justify a lousy summary page that doesn't explain the full decision. You can see with this conversation how many editors think that Kwami got the shaft just because of the non-summary summary page that everyone is going to read. I'm also not saying that it wasn't discussed, but the summary page gives the wrong reason why Kwami was singled out. It names three other admins who misused their tools (by your definition), but doesn't offer a single, solitary word why only one of those admins was desysopped. Not one word. That's the problem. Your summary page simply makes the Arb Committee look capricious and arbitrary. --Taivo (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that would be a good idea. I'm not going to argue that point; the summary page is somewhat lacking in detail. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Lacking in detail" is quite the euphemism. It's basically misstating the rationale given in the discussion fora. Either way, mention of Kwami's history in the decision page wouldn't require a significant addition to the decision page to fix the problem. — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but how would you change this? Exactly what should change? The verbiage on the main page, eg Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship. is word-for-word what was voted on at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed_decision. The wording of these gets tweaked, alternatives with slightly different connotations are proposed, etc, etc, ad nauseum until one passes a vote. I suppose for this one I've quoted there is probably a significant chunk of thought and rationale for several arbitrators missing (the part about Kwami's alleged past behavior) and you could go complain to the drafting arbs about it, or maybe to eg. Risker for not insisting that her reason for voting be mentioned in the decision. (However, for some arbitrators I get the feeling that wheel warring while involved was reason enough for desysopping.) But other than that what could be done differently by the process? What exactly are you asking for here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If one person gets "admonished" for something, and another person gets "desysopped" for exactly the same thing, then there is clearly information missing. It's clear that the second person must be being desysopped for that plus something else (otherwise why the different treatment?), so that "something else" needs to be spelt out explicitly and supported by evidence. But see my comments below; the whole process, and the actions taken as a result, are fundamentally misconceived. Victor Yus (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've restated the problem again. How do we fix it? (well, this problem, not the one you mentioned below) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Next time, any decisions imposing similar sanctions should state in much more detail what the sanctions are being imposed for, or more generally, the full reasoning behind them. Victor Yus (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I'm not entirely sure that providing further detail in the desysop wording would be beneficial for a desysopped admin, as it could significantly limit the possibility of regaining tools in the future - whether or not each person thinks this is a benefit/detriment to the project is subject to interpretation I'm sure you'd appreciate. Whether or not he sees it now, he has an opportunity to work on the issues raised during this case (explicit or not in the final page) and apply for adminship after a period of time, if he wishes to regain his tools. At the time of such a RFA, there is no doubt that some reference will be made to this case by the Community, but I think there is a chance that other issues would not be mentioned unless the pattern has continued or he has not worked on those issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the move of Animal rights movement, after appeal by several editors to his talk page and notification at AN/I, he reversed the move. Esp since that particular move was just the addition of a hyphen, I don't think it was a very serious issue, and I don't think it should be a factor in this particular discussion. It bothered me a bit at the time, but I don't think I was aware that an ARBCOM case was pending, and certainly didn't mean to influence that case via my relatively minor request for admin help. As to the issues above, while I'm not an admin I do agree that de-sysoping for this one particular incident is overdone, especially since it was a single wheel war (and not a long-term pattern or long set of disruptive edits).--KarlB (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Esp since that particular move was just the addition of a hyphen, I don't think it was a very serious issue—You must be new here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally new. And wait until someone tries to replace a dash with a hyphen. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I wasn't even notified of that ANI. I self-reverted because someone gave an intelligent reason why we might not want to apply the MOS in that case. I didn't learn there was an ANI until ErikHaugen emailed me. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I did notify you of the ANI shortly after it was posted: .--KarlB (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For those who did not follow it, this case was pending for several weeks and was intensely debated by the arbitrators and by other members of the community as well. There were proposals made by my colleagues to desysop three administrators for their roles in the Perth move dispute ("wheel war"). I opposed all of these proposed desysoppings as being disproportionate and excessive. There was also quite a bit of community opposition to the proposed desysoppings expressed on the talkpage. Ultimately, two of the proposed desysoppings were voted down in favor of milder remedies (although Gnangarra's was a very close call), while this one passed, regrettably in my personal opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This case just shows again how stupid the current arbitration setup is. Instead of taking those in dispute and bringing them together, we've taken two quite trivial incidents, created masses of drama over them, and ended up removing an experienced and productive (though clearly fallible) administrator from the pool, apparently for no reason except that the crowd demanded at least some blood, and this one was chosen pretty much at random, or as a punishment for disrespectfully getting on with working on Misplaced Pages while all this was going on rather than wasting his time engaging in this petty and pointless process. (It might also be noted that moving pages over redirects is only barely an administrative action anyway, and in at least one of the two "incidents" it was just a normal editing action.) What should have been done was for a couple of arbs to take all these admins to one side for a firm but friendly chat, reminding them about the relevant standards of conduct and obtaining assurances that they understand and will try to avoid similar errors in future. If any dispute remained unsettled about what the titles of these articles ought to be, based on discussion to date, then ArbCom could have usefully arbitrated that - but it seems that ArbCom currently never actually arbitrate anything as such, just hand out counterproductive and fairly arbitrary punishments (or in WikiSpeak that should probably be !punishments).Victor Yus (talk)

I should note that I was pleased that a couple of arbitrators withdrew their votes to desysop Gnangarra, thereby ensuring that this proposal didn't pass, and I hope that the lack of support for this proposal on the proposed decision's talk page influenced them. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this whole voting thing is the wrong approach as well. This was a case of handbags where the required action was a quiet firm word to all involved, not an escalation of a trivial matter into a major dispute. Victor Yus (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following the edit-warring noticeboard over the past couple of years is aware of how frequently Kwami's name appears there as a participant in disputes. Edit warring and move warring are certainly part of the same issue. It is unfortunate that the present sanction risks the loss of Kwami's contributions, but it does fit with Arbcom's recent pattern of sanctions for administrators. In former times they would sometimes choose to suspend adminship for a period rather than lift it completely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would have been a somewhat better option, I suppose. If a volunteer is generally productive but has their faults, you've got to engage with them and show them how to reform. "Sanctions" should be a last resort, since as you say, they risk (or entail) the loss of the person's contributions. Unfortunately, ArbCom seems capable of doing very little except impose sanctions, and thus isn't really assisting the project in the way that it could. Victor Yus (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Victor, is the "required action" ever to desysop? Do you think this process is reasonable for those cases? This committee decides whether to take cases or whether other dispute resolution fora are more appropriate; do you really disagree with this structure or is your point more that the committee never should have taken this case? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess yes, there must be a point where the last resort is reached (or there have been really serious breaches) and desysopping is appropriate. In that case the present process is reasonable in principle (though it could be handled a bit differently, without the battleground atmosphere). I guess the committee might have referred the case to a more appropriate DR forum, but there probably isn't one - in such circumstances the committee should have a different way of proceeding, perhaps based on providing one or two of its members as mediators "with teeth", to talk to those involved and hammer out a solution with them (which in this case would mostly involve making sure they understand what they did wrong and accept that they should not do similar things in future). Sorry if this all seems too girly-touchy-feely, but Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a cooperative volunteer project, not a fight club. Victor Yus (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A 'quiet firm word' (Victor Yus's phrase) can be used by individual admins, but it is not clear how Arbcom could do that. And what about restrictions. Can you imagine the idea of putting an admin under a WP:1RR restriction? Any admin who needs that probably shouldn't be one any more. Admins are supposed to have the judgment needed to *enforce* 1RRs. The kinds of measures that are reasonable for Arbcom to use have to be very dramatic and not susceptible to nuance. This suggests to me that admins who edit-war most likely should be promptly blocked like anyone else, so that things don't escalate to Arbcom in the first place. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What I envisage is that aribtrators could give admins a "quiet firm word" in much the same way (but with a somewhat greater degree of formality) that admins give other editors quiet firm words. Explicit restrictions like 1RR should not be necessary, provided the admin gets what the problem is (and if he really doesn't, then the next step will be to take the matter to full ArbCom as is done now). I totally disagree that Arbcom should only be allowed to do dramatic things - that seems part of the problem at the moment, far too much drama, not enough constructive solution-finding. And most people who edit war every day are not blocked or sanctioned or anything; if an admin is doing it then it's a problem that certainly should be escalated to somewhere, and ArbCom is the only real possibility - the only place where there are people who carry greater authority (or perhaps "clout") than an ordinary admin - but once it gets there, there should first be an attempt to solve the problem constructively, before resorting to more "dramatic" measures. Victor Yus (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your point that this is a storm in a teacup is one that I have some sympathy with. However, given the restrictions on wheel-warring I don't think the Committee had much choice other than to take the Case on once it was nominated. Indeed, your complaint might be better addressed to the nominator for ensuring that an annoying spat turned into a full scale drama - although he was clearly within his rights. The law is indeed an ass. Talking of which, it is not so very long ago that there were various complaints that Arbcom was not taking sysop misdemeanours seriously enough. It isn't possible to please everyone (and I don't personally support every decision taken in this judgement) but erring in the direction of holding admins to a high standard is, in my view, preferable to allowing them to misbehave with impunity. Ben MacDui 09:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree; I just think the methods used to achieve that high standard (and also to resolve other types of problems that come to ArbCom) need to be subtler and much more constructive, as befits a community of volunteers working together on a project. Victor Yus (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Noting here for the record that kwami has replaced his userpage with what looks like a departure essay (though see also his user talk page). The basic argument used (which as others have said he should have raised during the case, not now) seems to be that he was enforcing the original close (the 'consensus name'). The idea being that an edit war or move war has a 'right' and a 'wrong' side. Which kind of misses the point about the restrictions on edit warring and move warring. It doesn't matter who is 'right'. It matters that the warring stops with a step-change to a discussion. The idea being that you point out to the admin that consensus exists for the move, and then get an extra consensus on top of that, rather than just enforcing the original (presumably disputed) consensus. That seems to be the basic misunderstanding here.

On whether the noticeboard summary and the final decision page lack the detail needed for those looking at this case for the first time, I've re-read them and I agree that it would have been better to flesh out why kwami was being desysopped and Gnangarra wasn't. The reasoning can be seen on the proposed decision page and the proposed decision talk page, but that is not really sufficient. Also, the noticeboard summary only links to Perth article and not to the users who were sanctioned, which seems different to how such decisions are normally summarised. I'll mention at the clerks noticeboard in case none are following this thread. Are any arbs willing to comment on whether the final decision should have been fleshed out more? Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but I agree with the ArbCom's decision to desysop Kwami. There've just been too many instances of abrasiveness on his part, both in his editing patterns and interactions with other users, for me to feel confident in him continuing to hold administrator status. I'm sorry, Kwami. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but if that was the reason, then that should have been made clearer in the proposed decision. The more I think about it, the more I think those commenting above are right, that the current final decision is not clear enough. This seems to be a genuine case where a request for clarification might actually help. I've also raised procedural points here and here, the first on the minor point about adding username links that I mentioned above, the second on whether more notification is needed during case. Somewhat to my surprise, given the number of people calling for leniency on their behalf, I've realised that neither kwami nor Gnangarra commented at the proposed decision talk page (Deacon did) and it seems that none of the parties were formally notified during the case that sanctions had been proposed against them (there seems to be a presumption that parties drop everything and follow cases from the moment of notification, they should at least be able to request notification of the proposed decision). I've not yet looked into how much the parties commented during the earlier case stages, but I do think that arbitrators have a duty of care to ensure that no matter how many other people are commenting at case pages, that lines of communication remain open to the parties to a case (i.e. those facing sanctions or redress), and that it is ensured first that the parties are having their say, or have been notified, and only then do you turn to address what others are saying (even if they are speaking 'on behalf' of others). I may file a request for clarification on the desysop disparity later tonight depending on any further comments made here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I completely agree, Carcharoth. From what I can tell, after the initial notification that "his name had come up in reference to an ArbCom action", there was no further contact with Kwami until he was summarily desysopped. --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Well, that's not entirely correct. After the original "you are involved" message, they were informed that the case had been opened; that latter message provided links to all pages related to the case, including a link to the guide for the process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    Well yeah, for the sake of clarity, it's always best to elaborate on everything factored into a decision as serious as a desysop. So I do agree with you guys there as well. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

    While I agree that it would be good practice to notify the parties when the proposed decision is posted, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that these editors (and especially those who are admins) would keep an eye on the case, and comment where necessary - we expect that editors will watchlist pages of interest to them, and arbitration cases in which they're a named party obviously falls into this category. I note that ArbCom has in the past sanctioned parties for not engaging with cases (for instance, Thumperward at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Final decision); whether this is a good idea or not, it's not new. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    Carcharoth—it's difficult to say for sure why Kwami was desysopped, since the proposal for desysopping for wheel warring while involved got 11 different support votes, all by people probably thinking slightly different things. At least 2 voted for that proposal despite saying their real reasons for supporting had to do with other alleged bad behavior—do you think those arbitrators (and the other 3 that didn't support Gnangarra's desysop, so presumably wouldn't just desysop anyone for wheel warring while involved) ought to have made another proposal with verbiage like "and for a history of edit warring" before supporting? Does that normally happen, in your experience, Carcharoth? If so, getting arbs to do that might be the answer to the complaints above about the unsatisfying lack of detail in the final decision page. I'll note that it might be reasonable to guess that most of the arbs supporting Kwami's desysop—although probably not the 7 required for majority—did so simply for wheel warring while involved as the decision says. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    • I would also note that kwami is still contributing in spite of what Carcharoth has noted. While it might be well-intentioned for someone else to seek clarification or amendment (due to questions in the interim), I think this would be better treated as one of those situations where it is left to kwami to decide whether he wants it clarified on that page, or if he prefers to work on the issues and seek re-election with the wording as it currently stands. The latter is less complicated because if he seeks reelection without working on those issues, others will raise those issues during such RFA. Obviously, if the intention is to make it more complicated, then only the first sentence of this comment would stand and the rest might as well be ignored. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

      That is a good point (that kwami is still contributing). I agree it is best left to kwami to decide on whether clarification is needed or desired (I won't point this out to him myself, but if others reading this do so I'd appreciate being told if any clarification request is filed). I have said more (a bit tl;dr) here. To reply here to ErikHaugen, yes, in my experience when there is a clear disparity in sanctions between two users and it is not clear from the proposed decision why there is that disparity, the arbitrators are normally willing to add principles and findings to make things clearer. The only people that can answer why that wasn't done in this case are the arbs themselves that were active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually think Kwami's involvement isn't that relevant to addressing this issue. An important factor here is the larger principle of the summary page having an adequate summary. We don't want to set (or reinforce, I'm not normally involved in ArbComs) the precedent that grossly inadequate rationales for ArbCom decisions are appropriate. More importantly, we don't want to give future clerks et al. a misleading impression that giving different punishments to different participants for the same action in the same ArbCom is appropriate. That sort of thing wouldn't be appropriate (I know that's not what happened here, but the summary gives that impression, which is what I think is wrong). — Ƶ§œš¹ 15:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Re: Carcharoth: Lord Roem is a trainee, so it's possible that he didn't know. I shall inform him. - Penwhale | 06:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice it says on the proposed decision page that Kwami "participated in the request for move discussion, and reinstated the original decision by moving the pages at 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) without discussing the matter first", however if you look at the actual page, there is quite a bit of discussion and perhaps even agreement over the next course of action. On Gnangarra's section, it was noted "He had been discussing the matter" and diffs given, but not on Kwami's section. Neotarf (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, that's incorrect, from the time of JHunterJ's initial move, through to Kwami's reversal, Kwami didn't discuss the matter. I've copied the relevant edits into the collapsed section below:

PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the move logs you quoted there just prove my point about the failure of arbitrators to actually engage with the parties to this case. kwami clearly said there in the move log: "please don't wheel war. take move request to ANI if need be". That by itself should make it obvious that he (rightly or wrongly) didn't see himself as wheel-warring and was asking people to stop and discuss the matter. Now, he may have been wrong to do that, and he may have been wrong to 'communicate by move log summary' instead of telling the admin directly, but then the question arises, why did no arbitrator make the effort to go to kwami's talk page and ask him directly what he meant by his move log summary and why he didn't think that it was wheel-warring? (If going to someone's talk page feels wrong, post a formal question in the section provided for that and ask a clerk to notify the party). That is the logical thing to do when trying to sort out such a case. If you expect administrators to go to other people's talk pages and discuss things with them, surely the same should be expected of arbitrators, or is is a case of being summoned to answer a case and having to go there? If so, the case notifications should make that clear. Though it seems if you don't turn up to a case, the arbitrators won't actually notice anyway. Drafting and voting on proposals seems to be more important than actually talking to the parties facing sanctions. About the log for that period, you can replace the above with this link. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a very clear case of the Arbitration Committee imposing a judgment on kwami that is totally out of line based on the facts of this case. Kwami was clearly trying to help the situation rather than continue a wheel war. He said as much in his defense, "I thought I was doing the right thing." Misplaced Pages is becoming less and less like the cooperative encyclopedic endeavor that it once was and is becoming more and more focused on breeding a generation of wikilawyers who do nothing but find ways to use its policies as hammers. While Newyorkbrad was a welcome voice of reason in this particular arbitration, I can't say that about any of the other arbitrators involved. Has absolute power corrupted? When I first started asking questions here, I was willing to give the Arbitration Committee the benefit of the doubt, but the more I've read, the more I'm convinced that kwami's punishment was more of an abuse of too much power without a sufficient process to constrain that power. Who is watching the watchers? --Taivo (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami wheel warred while involved, and my first preference was to admonish him, and my second preference to desyop. I honestly don't consider that to be totally out of line or an abuse of power. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment, since someone just told me this was still going on:

I thought I was helping by enforcing the RfM decision. Although I had voted some time earlier, that wasn't my reason for restoring the move, which was simply that when an admin closes a RfM, they shouldn't be reverted arbitrarily. Arbcom agreed with me on this point. This wasn't a case of an admin making a WP:BOLD move out of the blue, being reverted with a coherent objection, and then me redoing the move because I liked it, but of the closure of a RfM after extended discussion being reverted because someone disagreed. We can't have a functional RfM system if anyone who disagrees with the closing decision can just revert it: In a case like this, which has seen multiple page moves, isn't that what an RfM is designed to resolve? 

I was asked here why I didn't let an uninvolved admin handle it. Well, after being reverted, that's what I did.

As for not defending myself on these pages, the initial Arbcom proposal looked like a case of several people being trouted for not discussing things properly. I didn't see much point in expending a lot of verbiage justifying my actions. I see too much of that: the "squid defense", as Stephen Jay Gould once put it: hiding behind a cloud of ink. I figured that people could judge for themselves from the page histories; my talking wouldn't change the facts, and therefore shouldn't effect that. If I got trouted, fine, I'd learn that I shouldn't interfere in such cases; or Arbcom might agree with me, since (I thought) I was defending the integrity of WP. So I expected to eventually be told what they'd decided, either to be trouted for inappropriate (but minor) action, told that I went about it the wrong way, etc. Whatever the decision, I'd have a better idea what to do in such cases in the future, and I had no problem with Arbcom making that call. Since I wasn't engaged in further discussion, I had no idea that the originally minor case had escalated to this extent. Evidently I wasn't notified. I was taken by surprise when I was told I was desysopped, and at first I thought it was a prank. Then I came here and was told that to some extent it was my fault I got desysopped for, in essence, not wikilawyering my case, that I should have been making these arguments all along when I was perfectly willing to let Arbcom decide on the facts instead, and to notify me of what if anything I had done wrong.

— kwami (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

Original announcement

I tried to write this out several times while the case was in the proposed decision phase and each time it just came out as a bitter rant. Here's hoping this will be better. The most disappointing thing about this case for me was that we've lost Ohconfucius as an editor and in entirely avoidable circumstances, even if it was necessary to ban him from Falun Gong-related articles. Looking at the diffs provided in the finding of fact, I agree with Risker that they do not show an anti-Falun Gong POV, but rather an attempt to conform to NPOV. However, the real problem is that even if he made anti-Falun Gong edits, it is absolutely ridiculous to label him a pro-PRC POV pusher – as anyone who has ever collaborated with Ohconfucius can tell you, his personal opinion of the PRC government is definitely not "pro" and he has regularly added content that is critical of the PRC. IMO, the reason we've lost this fantastic contributor is because, if the arbs who supported this FoF so obviously haven't done any significant research before being happy to make such an accusation, why should anyone believe that any of the other findings of fact, remedies, principles, etc. have been thoroughly researched? Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ closed

Original announcement

• I note that all of Fae's previous accounts and socks are not blocked. Seems like it would be appropriate for an Arb to block them all. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  I've blocked all of the accounts that were listed in finding of fact 2, which I omitted to do when blocking the primary account. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, arbitrators, for issuing such a carefully weighed decision in this case, and for enacting remedies which are both justified by and proportionate to the infractions of the three non-filing parties. I am hopeful that this decision will allow the community to move on from what was probably the most toxic interpersonal dispute I witnessed during my time on Misplaced Pages, and perhaps the worst to reach the Arbitration Committee since C68-FM-SV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And thank YOU for taking the time to recognize us for the time and investment that we make into seeking appropriate and proportionate balance. The encouragements seem few and far between compared to the loud and unhappy voices at times. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)