| Revision as of 17:18, 3 March 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Tony Sidaway on administrative 1RR: my engagement on the userbox issue in policy making has been constant, a fact of which the Committee is well aware← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:32, 22 August 2007 edit undoMelsaranAWB (talk | contribs)393 editsm subst:'ing, Replaced: {{courtesy blanking}} → {{subst:courtesy blanking}} using AWB |
| (39 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
== Transparency == |
|
|
Where was the discussion that led to these items being placed here? - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've just been (quietly I suppose) reading the evidence and watching the workshop, and decided to move over the obvious/relevant ones. If you have any objections, you can still say so (though principle shouldn't usally be very controversial). There wasn't any private mailing list/IRC/cabal smoke signal discussion that led to it. ]·] 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Aww, how am I meant to rage against the machine when you give sensible and prompt answers? Are you trying to spoil my fun? ;P |
|
|
::*I'd say that the "jimbo makes the rules" and "Assume good faith" are both in the category of "unarguable but no consensus that they are relevent". Both are ambiguious, and to my mind distract from the issues under examination. I don't think that either if these are in question enough that we ''need'' them in as proposed decisions. Back to workshop? |
|
|
::*The "disruption" one seems to have popped fully formed from the head of minerva. Could this be removed and taken to the workshop page? Quite a bit of the meat of this is about what ''contitutes'' disruption, and how to handle it. For example, could another admin have blocked Tony for disruption the third time he deleted ACoW? And NDk the third time he restored it? |
|
|
::Thanks for being responsive. I'm really pleased to see that there is involvement in this discussion by the arbitrators. If I don't have to have the decoder ring to know, what's the "voting starts now" threshold and will we get some warning to get our rows into the duck? <br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*I find the Jimbo as a policymaker principle relevant with regards to T1, and the disregard some have shown to it (disagreement is fine, but until it is overturned, violation is not). While I'm sure some part/most of the disagreement may be over interpretation, this is still valid. As to assume good faith: I think it's relevant to all sectors of this conflict, both in the way some have been treating others, and in the wheel warring (which I think in large part develops from lack of AGF, ie: one admin decides to reverse another admin's decision without discussion or outside consensus-seeking, often because they assume the other is wrong without giving them the benefit of discretion and trust in good judgment the community has awarded them.). |
|
|
:::*Disruption: There was a WP:POINT proposal, but the "to make a point" part was rightly challenged. This kind of wording on general disruption is a common one, and the first clause is based on ], and just common practice. It could apply to any of the parties here who were disruptive, and there was certainly some disruption (but I haven't made a finding of fact saying any particular one was disruptive yet!). Sure "what is disruption" is an issue, but it is in any case; those blocks are controversial and usually require discussion, so I cant really say right now if either should have been blocked ''then'' now, and if it's an arbcom action due to disruption we are talking about, it will be based upon a finding of fact as well. You are welcome to list this on the workshop as well to solicit comment. |
|
|
:::Voting starts as soon as all the arbitrators' proposals are made and they begin to vote (er...), though proposals are frequently made afterwards, too. Basically, when it looks done. You can watch ] to see when it's moved to voting. ]·] 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This was a masterful example of saying "no" to everything while appearing to address my concerns! Seriously though, thanks again for the prompt reply. I've added the template to my watchlist, and I'll move "disruption" to the workshop page for er, workshopping. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree with Aaron on this point. Perhaps he would like to backport that one to the workshop and we can discuss it there. I don't see where it fits into this case because obviously nobody has been blocked and that whole administrator discretion thing is just wrong when applied to blocking anything other than vandals. If I block someone you'll most likely read about it on ] where I will typically spend anything from 5-20 minutes explaining why this person who could be making good edits on Misplaced Pages is currently unable to do so, and I don't think that's unreasonable. --] 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox" |
|
== Odd proposals == |
|
|
|
| This page has been ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
What happens when someone puts something, umm, odd on the proposed page? Suppose I proposed a remedy ''"Brenneman banned from running for ArbCom next year"''. Would it just be ignored, or would it get lots of "oppose" votes that later would allow me to say "I've got support in my running for ArbCom from the standing members"? - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Only arbitrators and (unrecused) clerks may edit that page. --] 00:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> Suppose I '''insist''' on the workshop page for an odd or unlikely decision. Suppose a clerk then decided, since I was insisting, to add it to the page... now insert question above. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 00:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually, only arbitrators edit this page for non-janitorial reasons. A clerk never makes any proposals that the arbitrators vote on. So, yes, an arbitrator can propose something, but if it is odd like that, expect it to fail (unless you think that's the kind of people we are, in which case, expect it not to, I guess :) ]·] 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thank you. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 01:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Yes, basically if a clerk added silly stuff to a proposals page he wouldn't be much of a clerk. The arbitrators decide what they want to vote on, and (unless he's a former arbitrator) a clerk know no more about their private discussions than any other editor. --] 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 3.2.6 Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, but upset others == |
|
|
|
|
|
This seems a bit of a stretch. Clearly there are ''some'' reasons to doubt Tony's good faith, or otherwise rational people wouldn't be doing so. I'd think that the quasi-RfC alone would have been enough: "Hey, in order to forestall an RfC I'll say this." "Hey, I never said that." Could we get this changed to something less hand-wavy? - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I guess it's impossible to say there's no reason at all, considering where we are, but I don't think there's a ''good'' one. I changed the wording to say "no substantial reason", though ths probably isn't what you had in mind. Also note that not everything that was a part of the RFC(s) has become a part of this arbitration, notably civility; and this wording is only supposed to refer to those actions which were presented in evidence. ]·] 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, and the evidence page isn't really complete. Thanks largely to the unholy amount of verbage on the workshop page, I haven't put much into that page. We're not in any rush, so why can't we hold off voting for a few days at least? - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Honestly, I don't foresee any plausibly different set of proposals, even with additional evidence. The major issues have been addressed, and I can't imagine any evidence that would make me want to retract any of these proposals. Conversely, I don't see any other issues that rise to the level of inclusion in arbitration. Sure there ''are'' other issues and an infinitely wide potential scope, but I think the current scope fits the case best, and if passed, will solve the pressing issues in both of the editors involved. Of course, keep in mind that the "voting" process is fluid and many if not most cases are modified and see additional proposals while voting. Especially because it doesn't close until the motion passes, so an arbitrator can stop closure until all issues are addressed. I don't actually know how others will vote, so wrangling frequently occurs when things pop up; this isn't like an end to the evidence/workshop arenas. ]·] 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for that. Mu only other experiance with this, the voting stage seemed very fast. I just wanted to make sure I had time to adress the ''existing'' proposals in my evidence. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Remember, it's only a finding of fact - i.e., what the arbcom decides (through voting) is or is not a fact important to this case. It's not a principle, which is more like a fact whether ''anyone'' agrees or not. Mind you, maybe I'm just not sure I see what's "hand-wavy" about it. ]<sup>(])</sup> 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed Remedies == |
|
|
Just wondering...Croatlus' Userbox remedy has no duration (his general probation is indefinite), and Tony's remedy has no duration, or enforcement measures (blocks, bans, so forth). While a duration qualifier may not be necessary (I would assume "indefinite" is implied), shouldn't Tony's remedy at least have enforcement measures in place before too much voting goes on? ]<sup>(])</sup> 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Er, a good point, and one that will require a bit more pondering before I <small>(''or some other arbitrator, please!'')</small> put it up. :-) ]·] 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tony Sidaway on administrative 1RR == |
|
|
''Tony Sidaway is prohibited from reversing any administrative action more than once. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation in the appropriate venue, including especially a listing at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review in the case of a disputed deletion.''<br/> |
|
|
::Ok, does this mean ''both'' if someone else deletes something and Tony restores it ''and'' if someone else restores something and Tony deletes it? - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: It seems unambiguous to me: "any administrative action." ] 03:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Indeed, that means both. (And the examples of wheel warring include both deletions and undeletions, so it follows.) ]·] 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This one's kind of confusing, and to add on to Aaron's question, is ] the place to go in both disputes (where an item has been restores, as is currently there, and where an item is deleted and currently not there)? (And Aaron, I'd say the answer to yours is "yes"...as worded, it would apply to any administrative action, including blocks, possibly reverts...it's open ended) ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::P.S., I point this out not to be difficult, but to hopefully avoid trouble down the road. From what I've seen in this case, there have been disagreements in the past as to what the appropriate venue is for disputed deletions/restorations (AFD or DRV). ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Restoring an item that has been deleted by another admin constitutes a contested deletion, and under normal circumstances (barring obvious exceptions), it does indeed make sense to take it to DRV for review and consensus-seeking. Deleting an item that has been restored by another admin constitutes a contested deletion, and under normal circumstances (barring obvious exceptions), it also does indeed make sense to take it to DRV for review and consensus-seeking. This is just good sense. ]·] 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: This is my interpretation: |
|
|
|
|
|
: For deletions, it means that I should follow the same practice I set up in the case of userbox deletions, where I would delete some userboxes and take them to DRV, giving a fully itemized description of the reason for deletion . Effectively it's endorsing this procedure (which I didn't always follow as fully) as good practise, and requiring me in particular to follow it where the deletion involves reversing an undeletion made by another administrator. |
|
|
|
|
|
: For undeletions of bad speedies, it would mean notifying the original administrator as . For undeletions of articles listed on ], it would mean writing up the undeletion on that forum as I did . For undeletions of articles wrongly speedied while at AfD (it does happen), it would mean writing up the undeletion on the AfD discussion or its talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
: For reversals of blocks or unblocks, it would mean writing it up on ] or whereever else the discussion was being held, already my current practise as and . |
|
|
|
|
|
: Protections and unprotections are ''intended'' to by manually expired so if this proposed remedy is adopted I'll ask the Committee to clarify, but I don't expect my normal practice of expiring vandal protections without comment after three days or more to be a problem. Nor my regular unprotections and restorations of semiprotection on ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
: For general admin practise, it's saying what we all know: in the light of the pedophile userbox case, none of us gets away with multiple admin reversals, and I (as the person who has made the most use of admin reversals) would be ''required'' to do it just once. --] 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: On frequency, I'd expect it to apply as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
:* Once per article to deletions and undeletions, history undeletions and temporary undeletions exempted. |
|
|
:* Once per protection cycle on article protections |
|
|
:* Once per blocking incident on blockings. |
|
|
:** if X gets blocked and I modify the block (cf the Nicodemus block above) I would be on 1RR for that period. A week or so down the line the same user is blocked in a different case, it doesn't make sense to lump that in with the original. |
|
|
:** AlthoughI haven't done so, I'm empowered as a mentor to modify or anull blocks on Cool Cat. I would expect actions taken in this capacity to be exempt. As a matter of good practise and encouraging community involvement, I always write up Cool Cat mentorship actions both on ] and his mentorship page. There have only been two such actions so far. --] 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::While I agree with the spirit of this, some quibbles: |
|
|
::*I've heard this from others as well and think it needs clarification. It's not "in the light of the pedophile userbox case" that none of us gets away with multiple admin reversals, but in light of the same principles of consensus and dispute resolution that led us before that incident, and led us to that ruling (which, I might point out, imposed real restrictions on wheel warriors, and ''wasn't'' in light of the pedophile userbox case). |
|
|
::*This 1RR, like the general 3RR, is emphatically ''not'' an entitlement to one reversal. I will stress that you are still strongly encouraged (except in the case of obvious exceptions) to discuss an admin's contested action and seek consensus/dispute resolution ''before'' any reversal at all. You aren't applying the 1RR by making one reversal and stopping there, rather you would be ''bound'' by the 1RR by not making more than ine reversal. So, while you are within bounds to unspeedy and tehn notify the speedier, I still wouldn't necessarily recommend that method. |
|
|
::*(not a quibble) What you say about protection is commonsensical, and I don't expect admins to try to enforce this against ''ordinary'' protections or unprotections. ]·] 09:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Tony writes: |
|
|
::::::''"For deletions, it means that I should follow the same practice I set up in the case of userbox deletions '''ffectively it's endorsing this procedure.'''"'' <small> Emphasis mine. </small> |
|
|
::::I'd like it to be made explicit that this is ''not'' an edorsement of this method. Tony, like all other admins, should be expected to follow existing policies. If there are chages to the speedy deletion critria he'd like to see, he should propose and discuss those policies. |
|
|
::::]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I don't think anyone sees this as endorsing any particular speedy delete policy, just the ''implementation'' of it. If the arbcom wants to address userbox speedies, they will. Otherwise, this is neither an endorsement nor a rejection of that policy. ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to DmcDevit, I take on board that 1RR isn't a statement of entitlement. I'd be a fool to walk away from this arbitration case, should this proposed remedy pass, with the intention of engaging in numerous singleton reversals of the actions of other sysops. My comment "in the light of the pedophile userbox case" refers specifically to the reaction of all sysops to the findings in that case. The dampening effect on wheel warring was immediate and seems likely to be sustained. As I've said before, arbcom has changed the playing field and it is no longer likely that admins will engage in deletions in order to hamper straightforward undeletions of bad speedies or to prevent them being taken to AfD. For instance Geogre would not have risked wheel warring in the ], ] and ] cases, and the AfDs, all of which had strong keep votes, would have been straightforward and unhampered by administrator interference with the process of consensus-formation. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would expect administrators, if this remedy passed, to adopt a commonsense attitude, and would be quick to bring abuses of it to the Committee's attention. It should never be used to hamper normal sysop activities such as temporary undeletions and history undeletions (which should always be clearly identified as such) routine protections, unprotections and the like, where one is necessarily, for a short period, changing a state previously set by another administrator. |
|
|
|
|
|
In response to Aaron Brenneman, the issue here is what a sysop is to do when there is ''no'' clear policy. I firmly believe that sitting on one's hands and talking about the problem is the wrong way to go. Administrators should be trusted to use their commonsense. This doesn't mean that the administrator does not have to discuss his actions (I've certainly done enough of that) but it does mean that he's entitled to a bit of latitude when faced with a serious problem for which previous events have not prepared the community. In the case I'm talking about, he seems to be unaware that at the same time I was performing test speedies to be reviewed at deletion review, I was also discussing an attack speedy criterion on ], and there was substantial agreement on that proposed policy. Indeed my engagement on the userbox issue in policy making has been constant, a fact of which the Committee is well aware. |
|
|
|
|
|
The documentation clause is very much in line with my own practices, as I indicate with specific examples in every single case in my first response here. --] 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|