| Revision as of 17:27, 19 September 2005 editMaurreen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,724 edits Ed Poor case -- respect, wasting time, etc.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,319 edits →Egad: new section Is there a clerk aroundTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 20 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| Archives: ], ], ], ], ], ] ] | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Ed Poor case == | |||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| I noticed that the ArbCom just closed the ]. I had barely created my ], and I was just in the process of adding to it when I discovered the case had been closed. It now seems like something of a wasted effort. In the ], it says that "24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close", but while the first motion to close occurred at 18:30 today (september 13th as I write this), the fourth support occurred at 22:59, and the case was closed one minute later. This all seems a bit rushed to me. Did anyone even had time to read and consider my evidence? What kind of time frame is usually allowed, for the gathering and the presentation of evidence? And for the consideration of that evidence? Did other users specifically ] who brought the case or ] who had expressed an interest in taking over the case, had ample time to add evidence of their own? Have all the arbitrators had a chance to weight in? Was there a need to proceed so quickly? In my view this can only add to certain negative perceptions already exacerbated by these events. ] ] 00:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :About not waiting the 24 hours - mea culpa, that was my mistake (it had the 4 votes to close but I forgot about the 24 hour wait). However, in terms of the issues involved, they were discussed at length several weeks ago (before I went on vacation), at which point 3 of the 4 original requestors had dropped out of the case and UC said he was unsure about continuing. Discussion continued on the mailing list since . The rest was considered moot since all of the misconduct allegations (to which Ed had already pled guilty) centered on his misues of developer/bureacrat powers. ] 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well I haven't been privy to the mailing list discussions. But I didn't see anywhere that UC had dropped the case, and I also saw that ] was willing to take the case over if UC did decide to drop it. I might have been willing to take on the case as well. I don't remember seeing ''any'' allegations of abuse of developer/bureacrat powers, in for example the lengthy evidence I provided (did you get a chance to read it by the way?). All the allegations of abuse that I saw had to do with his misuse of ''admin'' power i.e. deleting VfD. Are we talking about the same case? ] ] 00:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::UC did not drop the case, however when asked (in an IRC discussion between him, Ed Poor, and several arbitrators) he was unsure about whether or not it should proceed. | |||
| :::As to the allegations against Ed - the primary complaints against Ed were (1) that he had misused his Op powers in deleting the RFC for VFD (2) and in deleting the RFC on himself (note - his deletion of VFD was specifically excluded from the complaint in underlined text- ''It is our opinion that, in his attempt to delete VfD, he nonetheless had a genuine belief that his actions were for the benefit of the community - however, it is not this particular action that we take issue with'' - ) (3) his threatening to "veto" lucky's request for adminship, and (4) the use of his (now removed) developer access some months back to desysop 4 or so admins with whom he was in a disagreement. Since then, he also (5) forcibly renamed another user against policy. | |||
| :::I personally consider 1 & 2 as "small fries" compared to 3, 4, and 5 (3 and 5 are, incidentally, related to his bureacrat powers). As such, (and while I don't want to presume to speak for the others on the committee, I'm fairly sure they'll agree with me) we felt our solution addressed the most compelling problems in the complaint. And while some people are sure to claim that we are being too light on him, I'd like to point out that this is quite a bit heavier punishment that we give others during their first arbcom cases. ] 01:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Did you read my ]? ] ] 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I have read your evidence (and as I side note, I think it is remarkably well written, which is very rare for arbcom evidence). With that said, while I think what Ed was a very bad idea that led to a lot of unnecessary bickering and recrimination, I also happen to agree with UninvitedCompany/NicholasT/et al in that Ed's VFD-deletion was a situation where Be-Bold and ignore-all-rules applied . Therefore, I don't think it was an abuse of power. And, as I said above, it was spefifically excluded from the arbcom complaint, which frankly means we shouldn't be commenting on it. ] 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I hoped the case would close, but am a little disappointed that it has closed so suddenly, as I wanted to write a statement in support of Ed with regard to his mediation in the Terri Schiavo case. One of the editors from that article, who had been blocked by Ed for personal attacks, maintained that Ed had failed to show neutrality. There was absolutely no occasion on which Ed tried to protect the page in his preferred version, or on which he blocked people whose POV was different from his – actually, I don't know what his POV was – while overlooking similar behaviour from editors who shared his POV. I could add a lot more, but since the case has closed, I suppose I shouldn't. ] ] 08:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Raul wrote: ''UC did not drop the case, however when asked (in an IRC discussion between him, Ed Poor, and several arbitrators) he was unsure about whether or not it should proceed.'' While this may be true, it is not a complete summary of the carefully nuanced view I hold. If I recall correctly, I was asked in IRC whether I was going forward with the case. My answer was that (a) it wasn't solely my decision whether the case should go forward or not, but rather a decision belonging to the AC and the community, (b) that I recognized that my judgement was badly clouded in trying to figure out the best way to handle this matter overall, and (c) in light of a&b, I neither wished to withdraw the case nor make an affirmative effort to move it forward. ] Co., ] 16:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging {{ping|Chess|Selfstudier}} who's discussion made me think of this. ] (]) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''Ed Poor has offered to resign as a Misplaced Pages Bureaucrat. He remains a Misplaced Pages Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Misplaced Pages community. The case is closed without further comment.'' To actually rule on whether Ed broke policy would be too controversial, I suppose. That he could have broken policy and still be considered a "valued member" is apparently not possible. The impression given seems to be that admins and others given power at wikipedia must maintain a facade of perfection, rather than be human, admit mistakes were made, deal with it, and move on. The mentality would seem to boil down to "you're in, or you're out" and there is no inbetween, which would reflect similar attitudes in a "club" that evolved from thirteen year olds more than a cabal that has been designed. "Lord of the Flies" rather than "1984". Well, at least now we know. ] 17:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What we have communicated to Ed Poor is that he is not an exception who will be permitted, based on bureaucrat status, to break rules with impunity. ] 19:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| :Telling Ed "you're not above policy" is good, but the "without further comment" basically means no one's going to make a determination as to whether or not Ed actually ''broke'' policy. I'm not entirely familiar with the case history of arbcom, but the few arbitration rulings I've skimmed through were pretty thorough on arbcom declaring what did and did not happen as far as they were concerned. ] 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is implied that Ed broke policy in a number of instances, despite absence of specific findings. We simply don't want to paint him as a disreputable scoundrel just to bring him down a notch. In other words we don't want to overdo it. The evidence you folks added contributed significantly to our decisions despite the absence of findings of fact. Ed knew he had gotten carried away and responded appropriately. ] 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't want to label Ed as a "disreputable scoundrel". I wanted a fair and neutral resolution over actions I believe Ed took that broke policy. Either a "no, Ed didn't break policy" or a "yes, Ed broke policy here and here but not here and this is what we're going to do as a result". The "paint him as a disreputable scoundrel" idea sounds like the very "you're either in, or you're out, and there's no in between" attitude I was talking about above. All or nothing. It should be possible to acknowledge someone broke policy, have them make appropriate ammends, bring them back into wikipedia, and consider them a "valued member". Otherwise, the alternative is to require perfect, rather than human, editors, which is only a setup for failure. ] 05:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Imo, per the principle of ], no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fualwagon - Please tell us why we need an FOF when there aren't any facts that are under dispute, seeing as how Ed pled "guilty as charged". ] 22:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then maybe this plea should be noted in the area. It wasn't clear to me that that is what happened. ] 06:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| You are correct on one point: {{User|Ed Poor}} is '''IN'''. We are not in the habit of running off people who have contributed substantially to Misplaced Pages over a period of years. ] 14:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, saying someone broke policy is not the same as "running off" the person. And whether or not an editor has "contributed substantially" or "been around for a long time" should have nothing to do with whether or not he broke policy. As far as I know, Ed offered to plead guilty on a talk page a while ago and arbcom never commented on it either way. If arbcom accepted that, then it should be noted in the "final decision" section. Did arbcom accept Ed's guilty plea? Or was the point to close the case as quickly as possible "without further comment". ] 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::FuelWagon, ''please''! Can you not just drop it now. This is just getting embarrassing. Ed broke policy. He's now no longer a bureaucrat. Surely we don't have to keep going after him now. After you were unblocked, you started posting things on your user and talk pages about how if someone bumps you, you keep moving, and you expect others to do the same. Everyone reading this page can see that Ed did not get away with what he did. Why is it so necessary for you that there should be an formal statement of how naughty he was. You were welcomed back, as a member in good standing, after you had filled the talk page with the most revolting and aggressive language. It was the end of the matter. Nobody demanded a formal statement about your behaviour. ''You remained a Misplaced Pages editor "in good standing and a valued member of the Misplaced Pages community. The case closed without further comment."'' Why shouldn't it be the same for Ed. Let go and move on. Please. ] ] 16:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::''"Everyone reading this page can see that Ed did not get away with what he did."'' What did he do? What policies did he violate? Why must that remain unspoken? This is starting to feel like the "Emporer's New Clothes", where no one can state what "everyone can see". I broke NPA policy, and there's an entry in the block log that says so. Why must there be no record of what policies Ed violated or pleaded guilty to violating? ] 16:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| This dead horse is being beaten so severely that it is in danger of turning into a horse smoothie. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 17:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Anyone who is not foolish and unworthy will clearly see that the horse is dead and should not be beaten. ] 17:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reason we list FOfs on the desicion pages is as a justification for the measures we impose. In this case we didn't impose any measures. Ed ''offered'' to resign and we accepted the offer. ] ] 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::So if Ed offered to plea "guilty as charged" and arbcom accepted that plea, then why can't that be explained in the "final ruling"? ] 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :As the person who started this "Request for clarification", I plead guilty to the charge of "not dropping this" and take full responsibility for the consequences. And while I want to distance myself from FuelWagon's inflammatory rhetoric, I think, respectfully, he has a point. ] ] 18:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with ]. This was handled inappropriately. ] ] 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Outside opinion by McClenon=== | |||
| I agree with both ] and ]. The whole ] case has been handled very sloppily from beginning to end. While ] should tone down his rhetoric, he is right that this case does not maintain the appearance of justice. I think that justice has been done, but the appearance of justice has not been served. | |||
| The original RfAr was, in my opinion, badly written in that it left no indication as to what remedy was requested. I first criticized the original RfAr as prematurely filed, because previous steps such as an RfC had been skipped, and because it appeared that what had happened was that Ed had made a mistake and had apologized. I was told that there had been ample discussion throughout the Misplaced Pages community that took the place of an RfC, and was willing to agree with that. However, there was no statement as to what relief was requested. Normally it is clear enough from the charges in an RfAr that the relief requested is that the user be banned. In the ] case, it was clear enough that the relief requested was removing his admin privileges that he is accused of misusing. It was never clear what privilege the filers were requesting be taken away from Ed. I for instance suggested that he give up his admin privilege but retain his bureaucrat privilege, which is the opposite of what has happened. | |||
| The ArbCom then accepted the case. Ed Poor offered to plead guilty to all charges and accept whatever punishment was requested, but the charges had never been defined, and the punishment was not specified. Then two editors offered evidence. Then the case seemed to disappear. This did not seem right. It did not seem to have been closed by agreement. It seemed to have disappeared. | |||
| It is commonly said that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Most of Misplaced Pages is informal. The ArbCom should act with a certain regard for due process. Substantive due process was probably done, although that is not clear. Procedural due process was not done. The ArbCom should be more attentive in the future to maintaining not only justice but also the appearance of justice via procedural due process. | |||
| Can the case at least now be closed with a statement as to what action was taken by agreement? Can the ArbCom realize that the appearance of justice is also important? ] 19:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Outside view by Oleg Alexandrov === | |||
| I will agree with the posters before me. Nobody doubts that the ArbCom meant well. However, I think it was inappropriate to have a lot of the disussion on the mailing list rather than on Misplaced Pages. The process was not transparent. ] 19:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :In addition to a private mailing list, we also have a private irc channel which we use for confidential discussions of our decisions. Public discussions are often found on /Workshop pages and on the talk pages of /Proposed decision. ] 15:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| === Outside view by Nandesuka === | |||
| I concur with the above, particularly Oleg. I know that Arbcom was acting in the community's best interests, but if there was more transparency this wouldn't even be an issue. ] and all that. ] 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :On the contrary, no matter what conclusion we came to, no matter how many detailed findings of fact regarding what Ed Poor did and no matter how detailed the community's knowledge of the details this is a controversial matter and would result in significant controversy. If someone accepts a fair offer to settle a difficult detailed matter we will honor that agreement. ] 15:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Respect, wasting time, etc.=== | |||
| I'm sorry if I seem combative, but if the arbitration committee or its members did not want to handle the case in the normal manner, it would have been at least courteous to tell people not to bother working on evidence, and then they would have known and at least not wasted their time or have been as surprised. In my view, the handling of this case is larger than anything about Ed Poor. | |||
| In my view, the way this was handled was dismissive and disrespectful. My understanding is that the essence (not the mechanics)of the complaint against Ed was that he put himself above the community. | |||
| The arbitration's handling of the case (the procedurs, or lack) is so far from handling other cases that it appears to confirm the original complaint. | |||
| Although we have ], that is supposed to be tempered. My understanding of our general principles for community and consensus is that if significant opposition is raised, people should reconsider their actions. Given the opposition to how this case was handled, will anyone on the committee reconsider their actions? ] ] 17:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024
| Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration | Shortcuts |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Motion 2b
Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging @Chess and Selfstudier: who's discussion made me think of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- HJM seems to think so. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect?
There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chess Imo, per the principle of ex post facto, no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Egad
Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)