| Revision as of 21:43, 7 September 2005 editOleg Alexandrov (talk | contribs)Administrators47,242 editsm →RFAr on Ed Poor← Previous edit |
Revision as of 23:53, 13 September 2005 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits ArchivingNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{shortcut|]}} |
|
{{shortcut|]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Archives: ], ], ], ], ], ] |
|
Archives: ], ], ], ], ], ] ] |
|
|
|
|
== Germen == |
|
|
Moving my comments from the RfA page to this discussion page, as they may be appropriate here, but certainly not there. |
|
|
:''Germen, the use of "left-wing" is a characterization of the politics of the users involved (which may or may not be true, but is used in a slanderous way) and "apologist" implies unjustified defense of Muslims. I included the wiki-link to slander so that you could check the meaning quickly, in hopes that it would not inflame tensions. --] 15:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)'' |
|
|
--] 15:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ah, someone else having a problem with Germen. See ]. --] (] 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ArbCom should be friendlier == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the ArbCom is unapproachable and hostile. One recent example (I have others) is Everyking's request that voting not take place in Everyking 3 until September else he would not be able to prepare a defence. The responses from ArbCom members were far from friendly. Indeed, Rual543's response seemed ill-tempered to me. Theresa's seemed to take the attitude that acceding to any request would demonstrate weakness. The ArbCom would look better if they just said, "Yes, OK." I suggest that in this example the ArbCom's attitude to the request make it look as if they are already not fairly disposed in the case: They look as though they are already hostile towards Everyking. ] 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In my view, when a proposal / petition / request is made the ArbCom should ''always'' take care to show they have given it fair consideration. A ''reasoned'' response should be crafted, especially if the request is being denied. And the ArbCom should ''by default'' grant the request except when some miscarriage of justice would be ''likely'' to result from granting the request. ] 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ah, Paul Beardsell telling us to be more friendly. Pot, Kettle, Black. ] 01:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am not on the ArbCom. What I do is not taken as being what Misplaced Pages is all about. What Raul654 does is likely to be so taken. Typically you do not address the points made. Besides: This is a common logical fallacy: You are effectively saying there is something about me you do not like therefore what I say is not true. Foul! Play the ball, Raul, not the man. ] 02:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Meatball made me do it== |
|
|
|
|
|
I ranted a bit this morning on the project page, but then I followed UC's link to meatball, which in turn linked . In the midst of all the spaghetti, this one looks rather meaty, so I gotta chew it over before shooting my mouth off again. I'm beginning to see the big picture a bit better - I hope! ] 12:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
==Trivia concerning the Ed Poor application== |
|
|
''Copying this here because most of it isn't written by me'' |
|
|
Oh for heaven's sake, who brought this poxy, pointless, idiotic case? Grow up! --]] 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Gee, Tony, you ought to remove that -- or is ] only for the little people? --] | ] 08:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Err, first of all our names are listed someplace up there ^^^, and second, man, be nice :( I certainly do not see it as pointless or idiotic, and I don't feel like looking up poxy on wiktionary at the moment. --]<b> (])</b> 16:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Poxy" means "as per The Pox", i.e. "pox-ridden" (]; an unsightly, dangerous, highly contageous, disease) ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Quite. --]] 22:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I believe ] are prohibited on this Wiki. Furthermore, I have noted that TonySidaway has been accused of double standards in the past himself. ] 21:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:: One could note much the same about every single person who uses this Wiki. Everybody "has been accused of" all kinds of nasty things. Whether evidence is available to support various idle accusations, well that's another matter. I don't engage in personal attacks, but I still say this is a poxy, disease-ridden little bit of nastiness and those engaged in it should be jolly well ashamed of themselves. --]] 22:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Anybody who would take Uncle Ed to arbcom over his recent activities (a) has a worldview somewhat detached from reality and (b) needs to get a hobby. --(Tony, non-logged in edit) ] 21:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Just a thought, Tony: a little politeness will always take you a long way. ]</nowiki>]] 22:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Not in this case. Fuck this arbitration application and the silly little hat it rode in on. --]] 00:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here here --] 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That's enough. ] · ] 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I must say, I share Tony's sentiment, even if I wouldn't have expressed it that way. ] (] 12:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I agree; I'll go further and say I ''did'' express identical sentiments, ''in identical language'' (allowing for translation across the Atlantic). The only difference is that I was not so bold to do so ''in the wiki''. Here, I like to think, I was a bit more tactful. — ]]]] 04:11, 2005 August 10 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Third Party View=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I am posting this opinion to the RfAr talk page rather than in the RfAr so as not to become a party to the arbitration. The originators of this request do appear to have a case. They did not follow the proper procedures because they did not file an RfC first. |
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators have certain privileges that require not only good judgment and objectivity but a sense of timing as to what is and what is not urgent. The need for a sense of timing, for instance, is essential with regard to blocking. An address or account should not be blocked, either for 24 hours or for a longer period, unless there is, in the words of Justice Holmes, a "clear and present danger", such as of vandalism or a revert war. An account should not be blocked, for instance, for one silly newbie experiment that may not have been malicious. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Poor is much respected as a member of the Misplaced Pages community, in particular for his role as a member of the Mediation Committee. Mediation, like administration, requires judgment and objectivity. It does not require the same sense of timing as does blocking, unblocking, and page protection. Administrator actions must often be done quickly, with little time for reflection, so that they should be done by administrators with a sense of timing. Mediation should be done deliberately, with reflection. I think that there is little doubt that Ed Poor provides deliberation and reflection as a mediator. |
|
|
|
|
|
At the same time, there have been questions about his sense of timing as an administrator. The case that is immediately in point concerns the VfD page. In that situation, he clearly made an error as to timing. He apparently had his workstation set to the wrong time zone. If I am expecting at work to be interfacing with a system (e.g., a US military communication system) that uses GMT rather than EST, I set the timezone to GMT so as to avoid confusion or errors. |
|
|
|
|
|
My own suggestion is that Ed Poor can better serve Misplaced Pages by mediation, and perhaps as a bureaucrat, that is, a meta-administrator, where there is no question as to his judgment, rather than performing day-to-day administrative functions, where he has occasionally made mistakes, including due to errors in timing. |
|
|
|
|
|
At the same time, the originators of this RfAr, while having a valid case, could have themselves better served Misplaced Pages by filing an RfC and allowing this case to be resolved in a less drastic way. |
|
|
|
|
|
No one asked for my opinion. No one asked for the opinion of the Misplaced Pages community via an RfC before filing this RfAr. The Misplaced Pages community should been asked, and here is the view of one of its members. ] 20:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Another third party view: a suggestion to Ed Poor=== |
|
|
Robert McClenon's statement above that there is "no question" as to Ed Poor's judgment as a bureaucrat has been overtaken by the events of Lucky 6:9's RfA, where Ed performed bureacrat actions that many people commented on as notably ill-judged, , mixed in with other highly questionable actions (overview by ] ). My suggestion for "a less drastic way" is to Ed himself: how about requesting voluntary de-adminship? In this RFAr, you have yourself the , which makes the following charges: |
|
|
|
|
|
''Sadly, pursuant to this event, Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Misplaced Pages operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Misplaced Pages community as a whole about his conduct. He deleted the RfC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD (archived version ]) , on the purported grounds that it violated RfC policy; the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable. Another administrator restored this page; Ed deleted it for a second time. He unblocked himself () after he was blocked by a fellow administrator to provide breathing space for the dispute to settle. Ed Poor appears to have counted on his seniority and popularity to avoid discipline (, ), and thus seems to consider himself above the Misplaced Pages community in matters of action and procedure. |
|
|
|
|
|
''It is our opinion that Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Misplaced Pages operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Misplaced Pages community as a whole about his conduct; he has consequently abused his administrator rights. This sets a poor precedent for the rest of the community, and threatens the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Misplaced Pages is built on, and re-enforces the divide between administrators and users - creating an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided. |
|
|
|
|
|
These seem to me to be very serious charges, and you endorsed them ("upon reflection", acc. to your edit summary). So, if you're in agreement that you've ignored the standard consensus on Misplaced Pages operations, failed to pay attention to feedback from the community, abused your administrator rights, threatened the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Misplaced Pages is built on, and created an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided... well, if you are, do '''you''' think you should be an admin? It would IMO save both you and many other people a lot of trouble, pain, and regret if you requested de-adminship yourself. As you said yourself recently, adminship and de-adminships are no big deals. ] | ] 10:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is my impression (based on some of the things that Ed has said) that he suspects or believes that he is a ]. I'm not clear to me at this point, however, whether he's basking in that status, actively attempting to undermine it, or simply gone loopy. ] 11:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've said it before and I'll say it again: all Misplaced Pages administrators should spend a lot of time reading Meatball. ] · ] 12:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've said it before and I'll say it again: There should be a practical way to de-admin administrators who abuse their power, or show poor judgement.--] ] 19:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As long as we're still ]ing: ], its ], and ]. Adminship could be a much smaller deal if it wasn't a package deal. We could grant and remove privileges individually, which would go a long way towards mortalizing adminship. ] · ] 21:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There is - report tem to the arbcom and we'll look at the matter. If there's a substantive complaint (e.g., they actually did misuse/abuse their powers), we'll consider the complaint very seriously. ] 21:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Two <del>Frivolous</del> Prematurely Filed RfArs == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not adding these comments to any active RfArs because I do not want to become an interested party to either of them. I see two RfArs that I consider frivolous and bordering on abuse of process. The first is the complaint against Ed Poor. Even before he admitted to having made a mistake, and before he apologized for the mistake, it was never clear to me what the reason for an RfAr was. Everyone makes an occasional mistake. If an administrator makes the same mistake several times, or too many mistakes, it may be a reason for withdrawal of admin status. At this point, what does anyone expect from an RfAr? Do they want the ArbCom to state that Ed Poor made a mistake, when he already agreed to that? Do they want the ArbCom to tell them to accept Ed's apology? |
|
|
|
|
|
The Vietnam War RfC is also frivolous if no RfC has been written about the conduct in question. |
|
|
|
|
|
These RfArs are both distractions of the ArbCom from serious business, such as dealing with the disruptive anonymous editor .6. That is just my opinion. ] 20:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is absolutely nothing invalid about the Ed Poor case. I haven't looked at the vietnam one, and don't really feel like it. It's not like Ed made one mistake and we RFAr'd him. --]<b> (])</b> 21:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The case against Ed Poor identifies one mistake. It does not identify a pattern of mistakes. If there was a pattern of mistakes, it should have been stated. ] 02:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There is a pattern, that's been alluded to a few times. Ed Poor has RickK's habit of shooting first, asking questions later, but without RickK's uncanny ability to be right. Deletion of VfD was just the most recent incident. --] 05:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I have changed the heading of this section. I acknowledge that the Ed Poor RfAr was not frivolous. It was prematurely filed, and, in my opinion, contained too little information for the ArbCom to know what the issue was, until it was expanded. It now appears that the issue is whether Ed Poor has exceeded his authority as an admin on various occasions, most recently the VfD policy. If I have read the RfC page correctly, and dispute resolution in general, an RfC on Admin conduct should have first been posted. That might at least have allowed time for the issues to be better stated, and to make it clear that the issue was a pattern and not one incident. If an RfC had been filed, outside opinions could be added to the RfC. I have an outside opinion, but it is awkward for me to try to state it now. I can state it on this talk page, which is peripheral to any attempt to resolve the dispute. I cannot state it in the RfAr without becoming a party to the arbitration, which I do not want to do. ] 15:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Whether the Vietnam War RfAr is frivolous depends on whether it is directed against the targets of the RfAr, or against its originator. There does appear to be a valid RfC against its originator for using his admin power to engage in what was essentially a '''wheel war'''. ] 15:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Okay, I'm chipping in here too. Some points to ponder: |
|
|
:::::# What the Arbcom does accept and what not is their own business. If ''they'' think a request is frivolous, they won't accept it. If they do, the request wasn't frivolous. Taking the time to decline a case brought in good faith is something that the ArbCom simply must have, or it is fundamentally broken. |
|
|
:::::# The ArbCom has accepted cases that didn't go through mediation before (it seems that the sentence "Mediation is pointless in this case and broken right now anyway" could be a template). They have also, rarely, accepted cases that didn't go through RfC if I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong). |
|
|
:::::# These two cases deal with admin misconduct. Whenever some method regarding organized deadminship was proposed, it was shot down on the grounds of "if there is clear admin misconduct, take it to the ArbCom". I can live with that comfortably. What I can't live with is that if people ''do'' bother the ArbCom with such things, they get flamed. |
|
|
:::::For the record, I'm not saying that the two admins this pertains to should be punished. They clearly stepped over the line, but if that is grounds for deadminning ot other measures is not something I have a clear opinion on. But some people think there is a problem requiring ArbCom intervention, and do so in obvious good faith. Please let them make this request without subjecting them to nastiness, and let the ArbCom decide if it is worth their time. That is all. --<span style="font-family:monospace"> ] </span>] 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==DreamGuy== |
|
|
After reading many edit histories, i have concluded that user dreaemGuy is incurably incivil, attempts ahve been made to orrect this, but have met, atbest with removed comments with flase claims of harassment in the edit summaries or at worst, as in the case of user ]'s talk page, his own harassing comments being placed at great leangth, I do not pretend to be an Arbitrator, but I would think that an RFC would not do any good. Would this be a case for arbitration, or just banning a problem user?] 03:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* First step would be to try an RfC. After that, perhaps arbitration, but I don't think Arbitration ever really happens until after an RfC. ] 04:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Apparently, an RFC has already been attempted, and it has been made clear that he agreed to cease incivillity, but that hasnt happened. I reccomend an RFA, or to simply ban ]] 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, ] has been banned as a sockpuppet of ]. Gabriel was the major instigator in the RfC against me, which was closed amicably by editors on all sides (pro, con and outside) -- Gabriel being the one editor involved whose absence in the closing agreement was conspicuously lacking. His summary of the conclusion of that RfC is understandably biased. Gabriel is undergoing a ] for sockpuppeting, chronic POV warring and 3RR violations (some while he had agreed as part of his RfC to stay within 1RR). "Ketrovin"'s claims are obviously spurious. ] 07:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ArmchairVexillologistDon == |
|
|
|
|
|
]’s arbitration case was closed because he had stopped editing. For your information, he has started again. ] ] 10:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I second this. AVD's actions in January were completely beyond the pale, and he has already become embroiled in controversies at ] and ]. - ] 12:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I also second this. He created a POV fork article after I removed his original research at ]. ] ] 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Marmot == |
|
|
|
|
|
When I first read the Marmot RfAr, I wondered whether use of an offensive handle was one of the issues. On reading it further, I see that Marmot, or a Marmot sockpuppet, is insulting an administrator who has been blocking him. Maybe he thinks that using an offensive term to label his opponent is a way to get unblocked. I would be skeptical of that theory. It appears that, on the contrary, Marmot is demonstrating why he has been blocked. ] 12:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:"So, I made a few typos. The point is, I did my time, and now I should be unblocked." |
|
|
|
|
|
::No, you didn't make a few "typos". You used a deliberately offensive word to refer to another user. It appears that you also vandalized the user's user page. ] 18:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
==Hall Monitor== |
|
|
The user/administrator ] should have his privileges revoked. He deletes comments on OTHER user's talk pages without any form of consent. He then cites people for vandalism when they do the same thing. ] 19:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: It is difficult to respond to these criticisms when you have not provided any evidence. If you believe that I have acted in bad faith or somehow wronged you, please elaborate so that your concerns can be addressed. Since you are writing anonymously from an AOL IP address, it is difficult for me to see where our paths have crossed. I show nothing in common with ]. Best regards, ] 20:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The Ril thing== |
|
|
''These comments were in regard to the matter of Ril's signature.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
This strikes me as a waste of arbitrator time. Admins could have dealt with it if made aware of the problem. Ril's signature (I just realised after staring at it for yonks) is confusing and his refusal to change it is perverse. If a consensus was arrived at one ] I would have blocked him for an hour or two to see if he agreed to change it, and then escalated, increasing by say four hours at a time, or increasing to a day or two at a time, until he just stops being a silly sausage. If there was no consensus that he was disruptive I would have just let it go. --]] 02:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
IMO this matter is way too ] for RFAr, even though I agree that Ril's sig is confusing. Indeed, I have asked Ril to change it, and received the same obnoxious refusal that others have been given. ] Co., ] 02:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't see his signature as being confusing at all, unless there's someone else out there who's even better known for using four twiddles as their sig. --] 04:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to get a quickie injunction from ArbCom, rather than going through a whole arbitration? A flat declaration that the signature is unacceptable, and that he shouldn't try to replace it with something equally obnoxious. Tony Sidaway's proposal above sounds quite reasonable for enforcement. We really ''shouldn't'' need to bring every violation of ] to the ArbCom. ](]) 04:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(In reply to Raul654's accept vote on the Ril request) - I just want to point out here that the "demand" is apparently based on some RfA that actually took place (?) as an April Fool's joke. So really what he's doing, it seems, is asking for the the rules to be enforced—albeit I suppose he's taking the point to an extreme. Also I disagree that the comments about Jimbo are "flagrantly false". ] 04:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Asking for the rules to be enforced is fine. Demonstrating how we're failing to enforce the rules by complaining how an April Fool's joke is not being taken seriously is completely ineffective, and I doubt even Ril thought it would accomplish anything. That is, if I consistently apply ] and presuppose Ril was ''not'' pulling a controversy-for-the-sake-of-controversy troll, which I must admit I find hard to do. ] · ] 15:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If Ril is not Lir, then he really got unlucky with his user name. ] ] 14:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:After reading some old RFArs, I personally think he may be Lir. This is because they both seem to want to undermine wikipedia within the rules. For example, this 3rr BS! I had no experience with Lir, however. --<font color=red>]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b></font> 18:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dispute Resolution Process Issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
I may be confused, but it appears that the dispute resolution process is being bypassed too often this month. I realize that it is summer in most of the English-speaking parts of the world, but are people really so bored that they need to file RfArs without RfCs? Of the last eight RfArs that have been filed, four have bypassed the RfC stage: Ed Poor; Stevertigo vs. CJK (1); Ems57fcva; and -Ril-. (1. There is an RfC in the works against Stevertigo as admin, but the RfAr was filed by Stevertigo against someone else.) Maybe I am mistaken, but it appears that these RfArs, some of which are getting Accept votes from some of the arbitrators, are delaying the ability to deal with disputes that have been discussed and where less extreme measures have been tried and failed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone please explain to me how I am mistaken, or do we really have too many Requests for Arbitration that are not going through the proper process? ] 12:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Are we defending ] today? I believe the RfAr against Stevertigo was filed because it was apparent from the RfC that there is consensus to deadmin Stevertigo, but WMF procedure seems to require the ArbCom to order it before a steward will implement. (If Stevertigo offers to voluntarily deadmin, then the issue becomes moot, but as far as I know he hasn't.) An RFC on Ed Poor would be repetitive since that issue has already been discussed to death all over the Wiki anyway. While I agree that some discussion is called for before an RfAr is filed, requiring that this discussion take place as an RfC is, without any question, instruction creep. ] 15:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::] was in effect partly an RfC on Ed Poor, and in fact I believe ] currently redirects there. --] 16:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::-Ril- indicated that anything short of an ArbCom ruling would not result in a change in his behaviour. Though I imagine that the matter might have been resolved without ArbCom intervention through the mechanism described in the section above, I can't see how an RfC would have been helpful. I would also note that many of the issues that came here without passing through RfC did receive extensive discussion and community input elsewhere, particularly on ] and ]. The latter openly invites informal discussion of admin behaviour ''in lieu of'' filing an RfC. ](]) 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Attempt at Clarification=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I understand some of Kelly Martin's misunderstanding of my post above. It appears that an RfAr '''against''' Stevertigo was posted ''after'' I posted the question about dispute resolution bypass. I had been referring to the RfAr filed '''by''' Stevertigo against CJK, which appeared to have been posted without discussion. I agree with Kelly Martin that the RfAr '''against''' Stevertigo follows adequate discussion. I was also referring to Ems57fcva and to -Ril-. In each case, there had been local discussion (on user talk pages or article talk pages), but not the sort of global community discussion that is normally done via an RfC. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of Ed Poor, I agree with Kelly Martin that it had been discussed to death all over the Wiki. I can see that she does have a valid case that I was somewhat mixing apples and oranges in complaining about what I considered to be two types of poorly handled RfArs. The Ed Poor case was discussed ''ad nauseam'' all over the community. At the same time, I am not persuaded that there was any effort to reach a consensus short of arbitration. I am not even sure what the filers of the RfAr are requesting be done to Ed Poor. Are they asking him to apologize, which he did? Are they asking the ArbCom to caution him, which is probably unnecessary since he already apologized? Are they asking the ArbCom to de-admin him? Are they asking the ArbCom to block him for a period of time, which would be excessive? |
|
|
|
|
|
In the other three cases that I mentioned, there did not appear to have been any global discussion, let alone any effort to reach consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
I did not mean to be implying that an RfC should be a mandatory step before an RfAr. I was implying that I thought it was a usual step before an RfAr. I was more generally implying that I thought that an RfAr should not be filed prematurely, and should not be the usual first or second step in dispute resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
I was also stating that if too many disputes are taken to RfAr without trying lesser methods of dispute resolution first, they will waste the time of the ArbCom in having to decide whether to take them, when they have cases on their agenda where all other methods of resolution have already failed. |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope this clarifies what I had been trying to say. Maybe it does not. Maybe the instructions need clarifying rather than to have instruction creep added. ] 17:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Need More Arbitrators=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have posted a statement of my opinions as to what needs to be done to resolve current problems in Misplaced Pages in ]. I think that there is a pressing need to streamline the way that arbitration is done. I would also like to thank all of the arbitrators for the thankless work that they do in acting as a Supreme Court with no lower courts. ] 00:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Stevertigo and Fred== |
|
|
I am curious why Fred Bauder recused from the "User:CJK, User:Stevertigo" RfAr but didn't feel it necessary to do so in the more recent "Stevertigo" RfAr. The second request is, as I see it, a dispute that has resulted directly from the situation that led to the first. I am not complaining - I have no doubts as to Fred's neutrality and as an involved party in both I don't have a problem with Fred's participation. ] 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am quite distressed by Stevertigo's edits to Vietnam War, but feel ok with questions regarding Stevertigo's activities as an administrator as I feel confident that I can objectively consider them without reference to Stevertigo's point of view editing. ] 21:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Davy Blue and Aaron Brenneman == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to formally request that ]'s profile be deleted. Will anyone support me on this? ] 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
*''Will anyone support me on this?''. Nope. Well, I should really say, "No, I very seriously doubt it." --] | ] 03:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Care to explain why? ] 22:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
*There's absolutely nothing wrong with Aaron's user page, and deleting it won't stop him from editing, which seems to be your desire. You might want to review ] and ] given the tone of your comments made to Aaron on ] and ]. If you have problems with his conduct, there are proper channels for it, such as ] and ]. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 22:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Look at his contributions. Wouldn't you say at least some of this qualifies as both vandalism and harrassment? Isn't there some way we can ban him?] 02:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:1) Nope. |
|
|
:2) What do you mean ''we'', paleface? |
|
|
--] | ] 02:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*There's nothing I've seen in his contributions that would even come ''close'' to justification for a permanent ban. Seriously, take it to RFC. Chatting about it here does you no good. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 03:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Please do take it to RfC, if only to see how fast you'll be slapped down for it. As far as I can see, Aaron has been nothing ''but'' polite; on top of that, there's nothing offensive about his user page, so I suspect you're not quite understanding the difference between deleting a userpage and deleting a ''user''. --] (]• ]) 03:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thanks == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to thank the ArbCom for dealing with Alfrem. He was extremely difficult to work with, and I think he may be gone for good. I really appreciate your effort. ] ] 22:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lost Bits == |
|
|
|
|
|
The RFAr "template" at the top of the section for requesting new arbitrations seems to have lost some of its bits, like the line for Arbitrator opinions. I'm not sure what all should be there, so I am not going to try and fix it myself, but I figured this was worth pointing out. ] 18:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 3rd party cases? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Consider that (Users A and B) attempt and fail at untangling a long running and increasinly virulent edit war between (Users X and Y). A and B have no interest in the article(s) as editors, only in patching things up. X and Y ignore any attempt to persuade them to use the various dispute resolutions. Suppose A&B as 3rd parties take the case to RfC and not a lot happens. They consider RfAr since things are out of hand. Will the Arbitrators even hear a 3rd party case, or can it only be brought by the parties themselves? Not asking for a committment, but wondering if there is precedent either way. -] 20:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Precedent exists, though I cannot recall the specific case off-hand. I'll try and track it down when I can. I am almost certain that Michael Snow brought a case as a 3rd party once (and had it accepted), and I'm positive that Snowspinner has successfully brought more than one case as a 3rd party. I think a 3rd party should likely be very clear about their attempt to do something about the dispute--while I can't of course speak of the AC, I think they'd look more favorably on such a request, rather than a request made by a bystander who had no prior involvement. ] 21:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK, thank you. There's no particular need to track down the cases if it's time consuming. This is just about to go to RfC so is at least a little while away from an RfAr; we were wondering whether arbitration was even on the list of options. -] 22:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== opening cases == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are currently two cases that have been accepted but not yet put in the evidence phase. Is there anything specific the ArbCom is waiting for or is it just a lack of ]? --]] 12:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFAr on Ed Poor == |
|
|
|
|
|
The arbitrators may wish to read Ed Poor's reactions in ]. In particular, Ed renamed ] to ] claiming that it was an inappropriate username; some people contest this and feel Ed has acted against consensus. ]]] 12:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually I judged that there was (A) a policy against offensive / provoking usernames and (B) a rough consensus that ''Trollderella'' violates this policy. I did not count votes on whether A+B=C. That is where judgment comes in. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I recorded my actions, plainly exposed my misgivings, and requested a review - as I did for the previous 3 involuntary name changes I made (see ]. I find it interesting that '''immediately''' users began using this incident as a forum to call for my de-b'ship. Very few seem concerned with the immediate issue of whether the old username violates policy and/or how to take care of the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am encouraged by EveryKing's approach though. Nearly all his remarks were to the point, and I actually agree with 2 of them. If we can stick to the issue - and not turn this into a referendum on my b-ship, I'm sure we can all reach a consensus on whether to reverse the name change or let it stand. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I will abide by the consunsus and am frankly puzzled by suggestions that I might not. ] 14:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'm not particularly interested in Ed's bureacratiship (however that's spelled!), but I think it's an extraordinary leap to judge that there was in any way a consensus that "Trollderella" ''was'' against policy. Even a cursory inspection of the RfC reveals that the majority of respondents thought that the name was OK. ] 14:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I do think it's important to note that Ed's original statements on this made no mention of consensus; he referred to the policy in vague terms at first, but didn't start talking about how he saw a consensus for an objectionable username until people started reminding him that he needed one. He later said ''This is the 4th inappropriate username I've changed in a week, since I discovered the button that performs name change''. I think the likely explaination is that he just found out how to do name changes, and didn't know all of the relevent policies as well as he should have. That isn't such a bad thing in and of itself as long as he admits he was wrong; the relevent part of policy is, after all, just one line on a huge page, and even a longstanding bureaucrat like him can't be expected to know every detail of every policy. Claiming after the fact that there was any kind of consensus that Trollderella's username violated policy, though, stretches credibility a bit far. There seems to have been a rather decisive consensus in the other direction. ] 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
*I do not think this should be discussed here. Personally I do not care about what Trollderella's name may be, and I am not holding it against Ed. It simply felt relevant to his RFAr, which is still undecided. Ed's action can be construed as good (upholding policy) or bad (ignoring consensus) or neither. Like I said I do not have an opinion on this issue, and I'll leave it to the Arbs to consider theirs. ]]] 17:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just wondering, Ed's case has had four arbitrators accepting it since August 21. Why is it still on the requests page and not in the evidence phase? ] ] 07:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yup, I was wondering about that in the section above too. 1 2 3 test. Is this thing on? --]] 23:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I always thought it was a minimum of four ''net'' votes (with a reject subtracting from the accept total). There are three rejects. <small>PS, anyone want to archive this talk page?</small> ]·] 04:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Nope, it's definitely four VOTES. ] says "The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it;" A Reject does not negate an accept vote.] 17:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As far as I know, the 'net vote' method is only used for a motion to close an ArbCom case. In all other votes, a simple majority carries. ](]) 19:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ah, well I'm not totally crazy. Someone may want to ask an arbitrator then, but the fact that no one's opened the case may be telling. ]·] 19:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Hmmm...since the ArbCom is up to ''eight'' ] now, I think it now takes ''five'' supporting votes to accept a case. Of course, you can still ask the four arbitrators who haven't commented why they're not voting. ](]) 19:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::] correctly counts eight active arbitrators. I do not count four who haven't commented. I count three who have voted to accept, three who have voted to reject, one arbitrator on vacation who previously voted to accept, and two who have not decided. That looks like nine out of the nine including the one who is on vacation. Maybe the suggestion should be to ask the two who have said that they have not yet decided. ] 19:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::] states "The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it". There is no mention of a majority. —] ] 20:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
← <small>back to the left margin...</small> |
|
|
My bad; I really am usually better at counting. Cryptic makes a good point—I forgot that the threshold for accepting a case may under some circumstances be lower than the threshold for making decisions during the case. I too count 4 accept votes (Fred Bauder, Sannse, Jayjg, and Neutrality); 3 rejects (Jdforrester, Raul654, and The_Epopt); and 2 undecideds (David Gerard and Theresa Knott). Of course, since Sannse and Raul654 are away on wikibreaks at the moment, the ArbCom might be waiting to proceed.... ](]) 20:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Maybe they just forgot. Should one of us remind them? This page is getting kinda cluttered. ] 22:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes we have accepted it, but there is little point in proceeding until a consensus is reached among us as to how to proceed or whether. ] 22:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Whether? Saying that you've accepted it, but there is no consensus to proceed, seems contradictory. What am I missing? ] ] 23:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fred, what if I just plead guilty to all charges, agree ''in advance'' to accept whatever remedy you guys decide, including giving up bureaucrat rights and sysop rights '''plus''' go on probation? ] 00:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Don't do that, Ed. Try to forget this is going on, and let them reach a decision. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I have said in a few other contexts that no one should ever offer to withdraw the signature from an RfC. This is seen as a sign of weakness, and encourages a culture of bullying. Similarly, no one should ever simply withdraw their defense from an RfC. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It is a Misplaced Pages policy to assume good faith. It is not a good idea in the RfC process to do that. The fact that an RfC or RfAr has been filed tends to indicate that somewhere (we do not know where) there is a lack of good faith. Do you, ] think that you acted in good faith? I think that you did. I think that you made mistakes. Humans make mistakes. They fall into two classes, those who admit that they sometimes make mistakes, and those who are so self-righteous that they know (wrongly) that they never make mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You made mistakes. Your accusers made mistakes. You have admitted that you made mistakes. Please do not set a standard that says that only the most self-righteous can prevail. ] 01:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*I '''strongly''' disagree with abandoning good faith at RfC. That's a large part of the reason that they go so badly. If there is a culture here that says it's a bad idea to show "weakness", there are serious problems. <br/> ]]] 01:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I did not say that there is a '''culture''' that says it is a bad idea to show "weakness". However, one of the reasons why dispute resolution is needed is problematical editors, who include POV warriors, petty tyrants, and trolls. In dealing with reasonable people, willingness to cooperate is not weakness but reasonableness, which is a strength. However, in dealing with POV warriors or trolls, who are only interested in getting their own way, special considerations apply. I have learned that one should not file a user conduct RfC and then agree to withdraw it. It is better not to file it at all. If one does file it, and then offers to withdraw it, the POV warrior is too likely to counter-attack. ] 11:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::My reason for telling Ed Poor that he '''absolutely''' should not "plead guilty to all charges", when the charges have not been stated clearly, is slightly different but related. As a mediator, some of the cases that he mediates are ones where one of the parties is a POV warrior or troll. These are cases where mediation may have one of two effects. It may persuade the POV warrior to change their style. If so, it succeeds. It may fail. If so, it was useful anyway. However, if a mediator has shown behavior that trolls see as weakness, they will see the mediator as vulnerable to bullying. If POV warriors or trolls think that a mediator has shown weakness, then the mediator becomes ineffective in dealing with bad-faith editors. ] 11:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::If Ed were to agree to "plead guilty to all charges" with poorly stated charges, then it would be necessary for him also to resign as a mediator, because he would no longer be credible. We need him as a mediator. He made mistakes of timing as an admin. We have too few mediators, and we need more, not fewer. One should not seek out conflict. But there are right and wrong ways to minimize it, and appeasement is a wrong way. ] 11:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Robert: I'm wondering if there is perhaps some confusion going on here. The RfC that is being talked about here, is ], initiated by ], ], ] and ]. Are these the people you are talking about above, who should not be "appeased"? ] ] 13:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::No. I am not confused, but I was not clear in what I was trying to say. There may have been unintended confusion that I will try to correct. The initiating parties to the RfAr are not POV warriors or trolls. I was saying that POV warriors and trolls must not be appeased. I was critical of the RfAr because I was not sure what relief was being requested. The usual relief being requested in an RfAr is that an abusive user be banned, or a difficult user be placed on parole. However, I was saying that if Ed were to "plead guilty to all charges" and "accept whatever remedy" was imposed, it would send a signal that POV warriors and trolls would take to mean that Ed could be intimidated in mediation. Also, any agreement on his part to any sort of "parole" (when no one had accused him of personal attacks) would impair his ability to mediate. ] 14:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::What I meant was, in particular, that Ed should not "plead guilty" in advance until the charges and the remedy were specified. ] 14:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Ok I think I understand now, thanks for the clarification. In my view the sole determinant of whether Ed (or anyone) should "plead guilty to all charges" is whether or not he believes he ''is'' "guilty" of "all the charges". ] ] 18:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Ed Poor accepted== |
|
|
Please place any relevant evidence at ] and participate in the discussion at ]. ] 16:37, September 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|