Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 6 January 2008

Arbitrators hearing this case

Per longstanding policy, members of the Arbitration committee whose terms expire on 31 December 2007 may participate in this case at their discretion. Newly appointed members are considered recused from any case accepted before their appointment began, but may activate themselves on any open case. Thatcher 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Newyorkbrad's obiter dictum

Without getting into the specifics of the case your comment:"it has never really been settled whether a single reversal of another administrator's action is sanctionable" is highly questionable - and will strengthen the misapprehension that admins can reverse an admin actions without prior discussion. Actually, it has been settled: "undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable" Arbcom:Feb 2006 12-0

Are people now to be allowed to undo admin actions if they believe the previous action to be "itself dubious"? Dangerous precedent.

Less importantly: on the specifics:

1. I understood you were never to use admin tools on a page where you were involved in a dispute, let alone compounding this by reversing another admin without discussion. How isn't this disruptive?
2. David Gerard's protection was, in fact, unnecessary, as the page had ALREADY been protected "licitly" by TWO uninvolved admins , so it was not simply a case of unprotecting an article dubiously protected. It was unprotecting an article to allow the very much involved unprotector to continue in an edit war. How isn't that disruptive?
3. I'll not be too hard on Geogre for reversing my deletion (which was a light hearted attempt at the Christmas spirit). I'll call him a scrooge more than a rogue here. But your dismissal of the idea that otherwise "someone should have initiated a five-day DRV debate seeking to reinstate the page" misses the mark entirely. a. The first port of call was NOT DRV, but my talk page. I was about that evening - prior discussion would have been nice, rather than "Bah humbug" afterwards. b. If an uninvolved admin had overruled me, that would be one thing - but one of the warriors? Using admin tools (for the second time that day) to reverse another admin without discussion in order to allow him to resume hostilities? This isn't "disruptive"? You could have fooled me?

--Doc 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To make sure I read this clearly, Gerard reversing Geogre's odd action is good and okay, but Geogre reversing your odd action is bad? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I commented on Gerard's actions.--Doc 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the phrase is spelled "obiter dictum". --bainer (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrected thanks, law-school was an age ago ;) --Doc 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc, the precedent you cite with respect to wheel-warring says what you say it does, but we all know it is not the only discussion that's ever been had on the issue. My own practice is never, ever to reverse another administrator's action without seeking to discuss with him or her (or seeking a consensus on ANI if that doesn't work), but not everyone follows that rule, and it's never attained universal acceptance. As to your numbered point (1), obviously it would have been better if Geogre had left taking any administrator action on the page in question to another admin, but I found this situation distinguishable for the reasons given in my succeeding sentences discussing the specific actions in question. In which regard, it appears that you are correct on your point (2). I saw the phrase "changed protection level" in the protection log and assumed it meant that David Gerard had changed the status to full protection from something less. I now see that it was in fact a change in the duration of protection, and that the automatic summary is a little bit misleading (but it's still a blunder on my part, I should have caught it). On your (3), I still consider overruling the Christmas truce to be a relatively minor matter. I may add further thoughts on this matter tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

I notice that the findings of fact only cover a few people so far? Is the presumption that everyone involved will have a finding of fact about them, and if not, is silence in any way endorsing the actions of the other people involved? The other people whose actions I personally would like to see the arbitration committee state a view on are (going by the timeline): User:Tony Sidaway, User:Doc glasgow, User:AzaToth, User:David Fuchs, User:Coredesat, User:LessHeard vanU, User:Irpen, User:Betacommand, User:Ryulong, User:Phil Sandifer, User:Sean William, User:Jossi, User:Jouster. Some of these could, of course, be rolled up into blanket findings covering groups of people. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a separate finding of fact for each party standard practice? I don't recall that being the case in the past. I would imagine that if there is no specific remedy addressed to a particular party then it is unnecessary to make a finding of fact regarding that individual. 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the Arbitrators are not finished here yet. Generally any remedies must be supported by findings, and sometimes (but not always) findings will also be directed at editors who were prominent in the case even if no remedies are proposed against them. Thatcher 04:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no decision at this point as to whether additional findings will be proposed, and if so, regarding whom or what. Any arbitrator may place proposals on the page for voting by the committee, and as is obvious, several have not even had the opportunity to look at the partial proposed decision as yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but are the arbitrators sensitive to the effect that the order of the findings of fact have? Is there any order? Does the order reflect the "severity" of what happened (which is itself a matter for debate) or whichever arbitrator gets round to putting something up first? Would a strictly chronological ordering help? At the moment it is unclear whether UninvitedCompany is saying "this is what I feel most strongly about", or whether this is just a start. At the end of this process, I would expect findings concerning all the thirteen named parties, and for all the findings to be presented before voting starts. That way the overall shape of the findings is clearer, and in a case like this the overall balance will be important. The arbitrators who vote later in a case probably find it easier to be consistent as they can see the entirety of what is being presented. Would those voting earlier consider that? Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, yes, and maybe. The arbitrators now have their own private wiki, on the theory that it would be easier to work on cases than a mailing list. (I of course am not privileged to see or edit there.) These may be the principles that were most readily agreed to, with other, more difficult principles to follow. My own personal feeling is that when the community is deeply divided about an issue, with sensible opinions on both sides, the committee will be too, because they are elected from the community. So extra patience is required in complex cases. Thatcher 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Five questions and three answers. :-) I should ask less questions, but thanks anyway (I'm presuming you addressed my first three questions). The private wiki thing sounds good (though not if it detracts from the usefulness of the Workshop and Evidence pages - I would be concerned if some arbitrators assembled their own evidence and proposals on this private wiki without considering the pages here), though the logical endpoint of that process is that decisions drop on this wiki fully formed and with all the arbitrators in agreement (well, as far as they can agree anyway). In some senses the visible disagreements and rewrites on this page are good - in other senses they aren't. One final comment, concerning the evidence presented in the proposed decision - sometimes arbitrators seem to, ahem, miss certain bits of evidence, or not be precise in terms of linking to what they are talking about. Could they be encouraged to copy diffs and stuff directly from the evidence and workshop pages? Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the Proposed decision page, I think the first Fof needs to be broader and address a larger group of users. I don't have time to right one now but will get to it later today. (If no one else does first.) FloNight (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why balance is important when presenting findings of fact

Having looked again at the findings of fact as presented so far, I see what really seems odd. People do read the proposed decision page as it develops, and like it or not this can present a skewed view of the case if the page is not finished. I hope the arbitrators agree that any absence of a finding of fact concerning Tony Sidaway would be nonsensical. The evidence is all there on the Evidence page and, presumably, in the hands of the arbitration committee. It seems strange to use language like "regarding comments made in the channel" and (from Newyorkbrad) "made by another user to Bishonen" - why name Giano and Bishonen and not Tony? It is clear from the first entry in the timeline ("Giano II to Tony Sidaway "Must be marvellous for you "men" in "#admins" being able to call a woman any insult you care to, I wonder if your ever so brave to a man in real life?""), and from the filing of the case ("Giano II claims that Tony Sidaway made a personal attack") that Tony's role in this needs to be explicitly made clear - Tony himself has presented evidence on this point. Given all this, I struggle to fathom why a finding of fact would be put up about Giano, and nothing about Tony. Having said that, I'll be patient and see what happens. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There could be any number of reasons for this. 1) When Tony has admitted the facts, and that he used inappropriate tone and language, it may be thought superfluous for arbcom to "find" an undisputed fact. 2) Arbcom's primary concern is behaviour that disrupts the wiki - they may, or may not, see IRC behaviour in the same light, or to be under their jurisdiction (I really don't know). 3) A few instances of incivility (however serious) are seldom things that arbcom acts on (even if they are on wiki) - especially when there's been an apology and the user has withdrawn from the forum concerned. Arbcom may consider no possible further "preventative" remedy to be possible here (again, I have no idea). 4) Maybe they've just not got to it yet - it wouldn't be the first time that significant things were dealt with later. I really don't get why you "struggle to fathom" this - we are simply not privy to arbcom's thinking, but there could be any number of rational explanations.--Doc 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I make that four reasons, not "any number". :-) Findings of fact can be made and the acknowledgment and apology noted in the same finding of fact as an implicit explanation for no remedy. That would be a good example to demonstrate to people that apologising is a good thing. What should be considered here is the reader who knows nothing about the case, who hasn't followed it through all the twists and turns for several weeks. What they see, if the findings of fact are not balanced, actually, maybe "comprehensive" is a better word, is an incomplete picture of what happened. Maybe a disclaimer at the top of arbcom pages should make clear that the final decisions don't always cover the full details of what happened, and that people need to read further (including the evidence pages) to get a fuller story. I often read final decisions without reading the evidence or workshop pages (as I'm sure you do), but I would hope that the final decisions include fair, accurate, just and reasonably comprehensive summaries of what actually happened, and I would hope that others would agree with that. I don't want to have to think to myself when reading final decisions: "Is that the full story, or is there more to this that hasn't made it to the final decision?". In this case, maybe a separate finding of fact that the timeline thebainer provided is just such an accurate and fair summary (though maybe some arbitrators disagree with this?), would be sufficient to draw people's attention to the timeline, rather than linking the timeline from within various findings of fact. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom cases are not for telling stories - they are for dealing with problems. If you are looking for balanced narrative, I suggest you do a write-up for the Signpost. And perhaps, to bastardise the Bismarkian cliché: "arbitration decisions are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made".--Doc 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, Carcharoth, the page is near completed yet. Just be patient, and let them do their work. Your comments here could be interpreted as an attempt to switch forums from the evidence page in an effort to have additional influence on the result. I think you can be reasonably certain that the Arbitrators voting in this case have reviewed the evidence pages at a minimum and likely the workshop as well and will take the contents of those pages into account when crafting a final decision. 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Finding 1

Proposed Finding of Fact 1 currently concludes with the words: "Giano made a series of provocative and disruptive edits to Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins regarding comments made in the channel in early 2007".

A minor niggle, perhaps, but I believe that original comments on the channel were dated late September, 2006. I believe this was the date of appearance of the inflammatory (mea culpa) reference. Lar tells me he sent a transcript witht hat date. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the edits were made in response to the comments made on December 22, 2007, based on the evidence given here in this Arbcom, and I suspect those are the comments referred to in the finding. Risker (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case "early 2007" is still wrong. December 22 is about as late in the year as it gets. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed I think. Thatcher 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks about right to me. The arbitrators will elaborate if they think it's that important. --Tony Sidaway 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they will actually use your name. Sorry to sound cynical, but circumlocutions like "another user" are really not needed, and starting at the WP:WEA page ignores both the earlier edit wars at that page and the edits Giano made to your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Only a few arbitrators have commented yet, and later arbitrators may want to modify the wording and add proposals related to my part in the affair. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The FoF regarding David Gerard

The FoF regarding David Gerard seems to me, as it stands, deeply problematic. I am ambivalent about the finding as a fact (I tend to agree with David's conduct), but the issue to me is that the finding depends on an interpretation about the policy surrounding IRC that is highly controversial, and is currently not stated elsewhere in the decision.

This is fine - if the arbcom wishes to clarify that WP:OWN and policies about edit warring apply to all pages with no special cases, it is within their remit and a reasonable interpretation of policy. But if those policies do apply fully to the IRC page, this has profound implications on the nature of that page, its relationship to the community, and its relationship to the IRC channel and, by extension, to the WMF. And those implications need to be dealt with by the arbcom, lest this decision result in increased, rather than decreased confusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One point that should be noted is that things change. Misplaced Pages:IRC channels (the main page) was first written back in December 2001 (confusingly, that diff indicates two earlier edits at later dates, including what looks like an initial creation dated February 2002 - the seeming confusion is explained at User:Conversion script and Misplaced Pages:Usemod article histories). Getting back to the IRC channels page, and its status, things have changed six years later, most notably Misplaced Pages itself. Some of the edits over the years make interesting reading: This page is deprecated but will be updated periodically. Please direct edits to the meta:IRC channels. (April 2004) and most of this page is now on meta. The page then re-evolved into its present form. And then Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins appeared in May 2007. It seems that the status of IRC and these pages has never been clear. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)