| Revision as of 17:26, 14 August 2009 view sourceCoren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,492 edits →Motion: support← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:48, 14 August 2009 view source Hersfold (talk | contribs)33,142 edits →The Rambling Man: clerk archiving, motion passesNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Header}} | ||
| {{Shortcut|WP:A/R/M}} | {{Shortcut|WP:A/R/M}} | ||
| ==The Rambling Man== | |||
| ], a ], voluntarily resigned his bureaucrat status on May 14, 2009. At that time, The Rambling Man was a named party in an arbitration case then under consideration by this committee, ]. The issues in the case did not relate to The Rambling Man's use of bureaucrat or administrator tools, nor did they fundamentally reflect adversely on his suitability to serve the community as a bureaucrat. In the final decision, The Rambling Man was "admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods," by the narrowest possible vote of the arbitrators. | |||
| On August 12, 2009, The Rambling Man requested on the ] that his bureaucrat access be restored. Another bureaucrat granted this request, based on the general principle that a user who voluntarily resigns privileges such as adminship or bureaucratship may have such privileges restored on request. However, it was noted in subsequent discussion on WP:BN that where a user resigns while an arbitration case is pending against him, he could be deemed to have resigned "under controversial circumstances", thereby precluding automatic restoration of privileges without a new RfB, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise. (See the discussion on WP:BN for references to prior Arbitration Committee decisions on this issue, and the reasons for them.} | |||
| Based on my familiarity with the ''Date delinking'' dispute from having served as an arbitrator in that case, I believe there is no possibility that The Rambling Man's bureaucrat privileges would have been affected in the decision of that case had he not resigned. I am not aware of any arbitrator holding a contrary opinion. Therefore, in my view, The Rambling Man should be allowed to regain bureaucratship upon request, without being required to undergo a new RfB. For the avoidance of doubt on this score, as well as to address concerns that have been expressed in the noticeboard discussion to the effect that our policies and procedures in this area may in some circumstances be unfair or unclear, I offer a motion. | |||
| ===Motion=== | |||
| The Arbitration Committee: | |||
| (1) Finds that the circumstances of The Rambling Man's resignation during the ''Date delinking'' case do not preclude his restoration to bureaucrat status by request, in the discretion of the bureaucrats, and that a new request for bureaucratship is not required. | |||
| (2) Encourages any users concerned that the policies and procedures governing restoration of administrator and bureaucrat privileges following a resignation may be unfair or unclear to convene a community discussion on an appropriate policy page and to seek to develop a community-written policy on these matters. | |||
| :''Because there are 10 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 6.'' | |||
| :'''Support''': | |||
| ::#Proposed. ] (]) 01:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::#It is my opinion that a RFB would be a good way to show that the Community has confidence in TRM still, and this should have been discussed with the Community, and considered by any 'crat before they would return the tool. But since the Committee did not vote to desysop or decrat him during the case, I do not think it is '''required''' now. ]] 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# ] (]) 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::#An RFC or Centralized Discussion would be good forums for community discussion. Recall is an option too. Since no finding vis a vis TRM's crat bit was made in the case, a reconfirmation RFB should be voluntary here not required and I don't think this is "under a cloud". <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::#The issue here is basically for what reason TRM resigned, as well as when. Resigning a tool when you're a party in an arb case is usually a red flag for me. He mentioned in his resignation that the date delinking issue "have highlighted the conflict between the perceived responsibilities I have in my position as a cautious 'crat" Does this mean that he felt he was personally resigning under a cloud? Not necessarily, but one could interpret it as such. Given the evidence and the timing, it does look rather awkward. He talks about not wanting to bring the position down in May, and if he's resigning because of the arb case then it's an indication of some guilt, albeit small as evident by the remedies passed. However, this leads to one main question: Is this for us to decide, seeing as how his tools never came up in the decision? It's not, which means my above opinion is pretty much moot. An argument could be made that his resignation was under a cloud, but it's up to the bureaucrats on him, not me. So I'm supporting the idea that the case should be up to the bureaucrats. If they require an RfB or something though, that's up to them, not us, so I can't support that part. ] 02:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# ] <sup>]</sup> 04:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# I think in order for it to be under a cloud, it would have to be something that was potentially at risk. We've never required the removal of a bureaucrat bit, and it's not even clear that we have that power. I believe that bureaucrat bit is regulated by bureaucrats; they have their own norms for review, and their function does not intersect with daily grind of building an encyclopedia like admins, checkusers, and so forth. They tend to do their own thing; they should feel free to do their own thing in this case. ] '']'' 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::#:But ]. I'm not sure why we would require the removal for editing issue, and I don't think we ''ought'' to have that power. ] '']'' 14:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# Support the motion while disagreeing with my colleague Cool Hand Luke. Bureaucrats live in the English Misplaced Pages planet and ArbCom has the power to deal with bureaucratship issues as it is the official arbitration body. For the rest, I am leaning toward Wizardman's view. -- ] - <small>]</small> 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# I do not believe that TRM's bureaucrat bit was ever considered, or indeed within scope, of any possible decision in that case; accordingly, they could not have given it up in an attempt to avoid having it stripped. Normal bureaucrat discretion for the restoration of a voluntarily dropped privilege apply. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''': | |||
| :: | |||
| :'''Abstain''': | |||
| :: | |||
| :'''Recuse''': | |||
| ::#There are currently that I "''worked behind the scenes with TRM to obtain the latter's informal and secret agreement to cease the problematic behaviors''". These claims are not factual, but I don't have time right now to address them, so I will recuse. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# I have opinions on the general issue of re-cratting, but since I recused in this case, I will recuse here as well. ] (]) 01:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::# I was recused in that case, so I suspect it would be prudent of me to recuse here as well. ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ----- | |||
| ===Comments=== | |||
| ====Cross-reference==== | |||
| We are aware of the comments on the ] discussion. I encourage arbitrators to read that discussion as well as this page before voting. Editors who have posted there should not feel compelled to repeat their views here, although of course they may. ] (]) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Thatcher==== | |||
| The issue here is one of interpretation of the term "resigned under controversial circumstances" and the role of Arbcom in determining this. If someone resigns during a case, was that done to avoid sanction? What if the advanced permissions are not mentioned in the final decision? Some mind-reading will be called for--as in this case, where we have no basis to make a guess on whether TRM ''would have been'' mentioned in the case had he not resigned prior to posting the proposed decision for voting. There are a number of potential approaches, any of which, if applied consistently, would be an improvement over the current situation. For example, | |||
| # Bureaucrats have absolute discretion over reinstatement of advanced permissions that were resigned, unless Arbcom has specifically removed those permissions. Users who resign while named in a pending Arbitration request or while a case is open may be reinstated at the bureaucrats' discretion unless their permissions were specifically revoked in the final decision. | |||
| # Users who resign permissions while named in a pending Arbitration request or an open case may not be reinstated without permission of Arbcom. | |||
| # Users who resign permissions while named in a pending request may not be reinstated without permission of Arbcom, but users who resign while named in an open ongoing case may be reinstated at the bureaucrats' discretion unless their permissions were revoked in the final decision, | |||
| And so on. | |||
| What is needed is simply a standard procedure that Arbitrators and Bureaucrats understand and follow. | |||
| This problem could also have been avoided if the bureaucrats had a standing practice of holding all reinstatement requests for, say, 24 hours, to allow for discussion of issues that might not be readily apparent, and I hope the bureaucrats give this suggestion some thought. ] 02:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Item one is the best of these IMHO. In all three, "named" could be amplified, such as named as a party, sanctioned in the PD, or what exactly. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Item one is, apparently, in conflict with one or two past Arbcom decisions. If you want to adopt #1 as a formal ruling, you should probably have a vote (internally) and post an announcement on ]. A consistent approach will be best for all, whichever you adopt. ] 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Avraham==== | |||
| In this particular case I believe the focus should not be on the meaning of the word "controversial" or "pending" or "cloud", but on what was the purpose of the PhilWelch ruling—why was it necessary for ArbCom to make that finding? I think the reason is that we want to forestall cases in which someone can try and sidestep a bit removal through voluntarily giving it up, and then claiming it back a short time later. As such, the question becomes, was TRM ever in significant or immediate danger of losing his crat or sysop bits? It appears that he was not, and so the re-sysopping/cratting would be acceptable. However, there are inherent ambiguities in the Welch ruling, and I think it would be appropriate for some clarification as what constitutes a voluntary relinquishment that is being done to prevent or preempt sanctions, and what is not. -- ] (]) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Ottava Rima==== | |||
| I believe that the community and only the community should have the right to determine the re-oping of someone in a controversial circumstance. Bureaucrats are only given a tiny bit of discretion during the original process and only after the views of the community are clearly expressed. Not having all matters like this settled by the community undermines the consensus base system and further takes away from the community what little power it still has left. The Arbitration Committee should have no power to allow someone to attain any position of power or reattain a position of power without community approval, and no amount of Bureaucrats should have such a right either. ] (]) 04:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Tennis expert==== | |||
| As for The Rambling Man's frame of mind when he resigned his 'crat flag, he also said, | |||
| John Vandenberg said that my interpretation of his e-mail to me is untrue. Well, here is the text of that e-mail. Perhaps Mr. Vandenberg would like to explain what he was doing by having these behind-the-scenes, ex parte discussions with The Rambling Man, who was a party to the arbitration that Mr. Vandenberg was helping to decide: | |||
| <Email redacted> <small>''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 13:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Mr. Vandenberg, if you are going to quote part of your email to me, then surely you won't object to restoring the entire text of the email here that Postlethwaite mysteriously deleted and expunged from the history. After all, you initially opened the door to posting that email by denying my interpretation of it and then you opened the door even wider by selectively quoting from it. What's there to hide? ] (]) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I also would be interested in why the banning of ] was left out of the proposed decision. Accident or intentional? ] (]) 09:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Comment by John Vandenberg ==== | |||
| The email posted by tennis expert looks to be accurate. It is 5:30PM, and I have not yet finished my work for today. Since some people can't wait, the short version is that there was no wheeling and dealing in my correspondence with TRM, and the correspondence with him which occurred ''after'' the de-cratting, ''after'' the proposed decision was posted, and ''after'' my votes. (I don't believe I altered my votes after we started chatting about meta issues) | |||
| * Feb 5 - I mention The Rambling Man on clerks-l, noting discussion | |||
| * April 30 | |||
| ** At 02:29 UTC I add the following remedy to the draft on arbcom wiki:<br/><div style="margin-left: 2em">''] is admonished for conduct unbecoming a bureaucrat.''</div> | |||
| ** The between 03:05 and 04:15, a few minor improvements followed, and a few other remedies were added at . This included a finding of fact about TRM, but I omitted some of the remedies which I had only just added to the Arbcom wiki page. | |||
| ** At 30 Apr 2009 14:20 +1000, I sent an email to arbcom-l:<br/><div style="margin-left: 2em">''Hi everyone,<br/><br/>I have pushed the majority of the draft onto the public page.<br/><br/>I have not published the remedies "Lightmouse banned", "Ohconfucius banned", "Arthur Rubin" or "The Rambling Man", however the FoFs to support them are in place.<br/><br/>I think the air will be clearer without the bannings being mentioned, which will help general discussion about the merits of the other remedies.<br/><br/>Any thoughts on that?<br/><br/>Also, I made one mistake when pushing it onto the public wiki, leaving obnoxious in the text, removing it soon after with a clear e/s:<br/><br/><br/><br/>I expect it will not go unnoticed.''</div><br/>(Note: the "Ohconfucius banned" draft proposal was never included in the PD; right now I don't recall why it was omitted, but I will be happy to take a look into it if someone inquires.) | |||
| * May 1 - another crat (not arbitrator ]) contacted me, pointing out how the FoF about TRM could be expanded upon in order to be more accurate. A few small emails were exchanged, and mostly consisted of old diffs for me to review. There was no wheeling and dealing. I only agreed to revise the FoF in order to be more factual; these changes can be seen in the edit history. I informed the committee on May 8 about this communication regarding TRM, and the resulting delays and last minute revisions to the FoF. | |||
| * May 7 - TRM removes his 'crat bit, and updates the PD, which is the first that I knew of his decision to resign from being a 'crat. I mention the "de-crat" in passing to a few people, with displeasure, but it is not a subject of discussion. | |||
| * May 12 - 05:15:00 -0700 - TRM emails me for the first time. This is the first time that we have ever corresponded privately, and to my knowledge we have never interacted publicly prior to this, excepting on the case pages. We generally discuss the various problems that the tennis project was facing, and facts of the case. There was no wheeling and dealing about remedies. I informed him that I would be proposing an admonishment (this was already on the arbcom wiki, but needed to be revised due to the de-crat), and he did not comment about this in his replies. | |||
| * May 17 - The proposed decision was completed at 20:14, with remedies against TRM including an admonishment. I voted at 21:08, and my votes remain unchanged, with Kirill being the only arbitrator who voted for more "harsh" remedies. | |||
| * May 17 22:15 UTC - TRM emailed me, vowing to not get involved in stylistic wars again, and he also approved of the admonishment for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods. Quoting TRM (with permission):<br/><div style="margin-left: 2em">''I will abjectly refuse to be involved in any kind of "stylistic" edit warring ever again. Moreover I 100% sanction the admonishment of me for not using the correct dispute resolution procedure.''</div><br/>With my votes locked in, TRM and I then have a more in-depth discussion. | |||
| * May 19 - Tennis expert "vanishes", and I contacted Ryan Postlethwaite, William M. Connolley and Tennis expert about the wheel war over the "vanishing". The leaked email was my main email to tennis expert at May 19 23:24:18 +1000, intended to ensure that he was aware that vanishing was probably not wise unless he really felt that he needed it in order to move on, and that there were other options to vanishing. Quoting my own email, in regards to TRM I said (other parts can be discussed elsewhere):<br/><div style="margin-left: 2em">''I have talked extensively with TRM, and I believe he has changed his tune. He now vows to not get involved in stylistic wars again, and I will be pressuring him to control his compatriots so they don't torment you so much. I hope that in time you can make peace with him. But know this: their tormenting has not gone unnoticed; it will come back to haunt them. If they don't change, they will all find themselves undergoing RFCs or RFARs dedicated to themselves. But I have only so much time to collate a case against them, and this one has already exceeded appropriate timeframes.''</div> | |||
| I have reviewed all my private correspondence, and there are no other emails/messages/anything from me about TRM, except the ones mentioned above. My discussions with TRM had no impact on the proposed decision, because they didn't influence my proposals or my votes, and I did not discuss the remedies about TRM with anyone else privately (not even arbitrators). | |||
| As others have already said, the admonishment of TRM was about as much as his actions warranted in light of his long history with Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Updated. 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Updated again 23:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| @Kotniski, "pushing back against the date delinkers" does not imply that I am strongly biased ''against'' date delinking. I have openly shared my thoughts about date delinking elsewhere already. Some of the parties would ''like'' me to have a COI, and would ''like'' me to have had a pre-determined opinion, but have failed to come up with any evidence of either. I barely even knew the date-debate existed prior to becoming an arbitrator, and a large part of my professional life has been devoted to ripping code and features out of software. I have formed my opinions during this case, as a result of reviewing the actions of the parties.<br/>I strongly disapprove of the methods that the date delinkers used to force their way, and the conduct of many of them, and I voted accordingly. I also believe the way that TE and TRM have duked it out, without engaging in proper dispute resolution, was very counter-productive and I voted accordingly for both of them.<br/>However I also proposed softer alternative remedies for everyone, and rejected calls for the case to close while Vassyana and NYB were engaging the parties on the talk page, because those two arbitrators are on the "softer" side of the committee, and NYB has excelled in word-smithing. In other cases this year, we have often seen new a FoF or remedy added in the final week, and held the case open until arbitrators have gone and voted on the new additions. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| @tennis expert, your interpretation of my email was incorrect because you didn't know that the assurances I conveyed to you had only been given to me by The Rambling Man a day or so prior to my email to you, and you also had no idea how little I privately discussed this case with the other arbitrators or members of the community. I can certainly see why you interpreted it incorrectly, especially as I didn't respond to the same inaccurate assumptions in your email to me on June 21; I let it be because you indicated that you had plans to move on to other pastures. | |||
| In my recusal above, I stated that I didn't have time to address these inaccuracies; it was mid morning, and I had meetings to attend to. That wasn't opening the door for you to post private correspondence without permission; you could have sought either an explanation, or permission. Or you could have sent it to arbcom-l. I should have been more clear that I was willing to give an explanation and/or permission when I had more time, but what is done is done. | |||
| I have quoted the part of the email that is pertinent to ''this'' motion. I explained why my email is not evidence of any wheeling and dealing. I have also pointed out that it is incredible to believe that I was seeking a softer remedy for The Rambling Man, as ] on the proposed decision shows that I was calling for the most strict remedies. | |||
| With that in mind, you either need to assert that my statement here is deceitful in some way, or put forth some other cogent explanation for why you believe that I wheeled and dealed. If you do neither, then there is no basis for you to use this motion as a platform. | |||
| I don't mind if you or someone else finds a different platform, such as ], ], or ], but I do object to republishing of the email without first contacting the people whose names appear in that email (real names, mind you). I have alerted a few of these people, and will be alerting the rest of them in the coming days. If you or someone else wants to pursue this, I would much prefer that it be put on ice for seven days due to a hard deadline in my day job, as it will be preventing me from participating in the subsequent discussion before then. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 11:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Kotniski==== | |||
| Just when I thought the possible limits of absurdity had been reached in this case, we get new revelations... I don't want to condone the publishing of private e-mails, but: far from indicating that JV was colluding with TRM, this one actually seems to reveal that JV was strongly biased ''against'' date delinking ("thanks for pushing back against the date delinkers" - what is that supposed to mean?) Surely it is inappropriate for someone who holds such views to be not only voting in the case, but actually drafting the proposed decisions? --] (]) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Ohconfucius==== | |||
| Insightful revelations - as much about Jayvdb's frame of mind as Tennis expert's. Knife–back, egg–face. 500 kiloton–boom!! | |||
| We always suspected that the programmer's instinct was too strong to want to allow a group of average users destroy a programmer's toy, so it's now out. Would have preferred the transparency, but thank you anyway for the rationale. I gladly accept it to be ''ex-post''. The thing is, the bad blood between TRM and TE was never about dates, but the state of tennis articles. ] (]) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Goodmorningworld==== | |||
| As a matter of principle I disapprove of disclosing the content of e-mails without the other party's permission. In one-on-one communications (e-mail being but one kind), there is an implied expectation of confidentiality which should not be violated except in truly unique circumstances, and I do not see how Tennis expert can claim such a circumstance. Nonetheless I saw the e-mail and read it. If it was put up on a noticeboard for all to see how Vandenberg was cynically buttering up someone for use as a tool in furthering his purposes, I believe a request to the community to make Vandenberg step down as an Arb would stand a good chance of success. ] (]) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Agathoclea==== | |||
| I hate to open another section just to say I concur with ], but there it is ] (]) 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:48, 14 August 2009
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsNo arbitrator motions are currently open.
Motions
 | Shortcuts
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |