Revision as of 15:17, 20 March 2010

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Discussion of agenda

Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

Discussion of announcements

Request for pointer to list of admonishment ordering

Hello,

Can someone point me to the list of possible Arbitration Committee scoldings? I think I've seen it before somewhere. I know it has admonished and strongly admonished.

Something like (..., lightly admonished, admonished, strongly admonished, very strongly admonished, lightly reprimanded, reprimanded, strongly reprimanded, very strongly reprimanded, lightly rebuked, rebuked, strongly rebuked, very strongly rebuked, lightly upbraided, upbraided, strongly upbraided, very strongly upbraided, ...)

Thanks, Uncle uncle uncle 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you missed "Wrist-slapped" from your list. Spartaz 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's shorter than you seem to think. We generally go with "reminded", "admonished", or "strongly admonished". Anything lower than a reminder isn't going to get mentioned in a case or motion, and anything more severe than a strong admonishment is going to be a proper sanction; sanctions will often accompany the latter two anyway. Hersfold 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • • (edit conflict) It might sound humourous (although Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article on humor only a redirect), but there really is such a list (I think). I have a memory of seeing one at one time, but a search on Misplaced Pages for wp:admonish brings up over 1000 results (it looks like everyone gets admonished eventually) and I can't find the list of scoldings version. Uncle uncle uncle 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Might I ask why this matters? Regardless of the "level" of admonishment, ignoring such an admonishment by the Committee is a Bad Thing™ most of the time, and can result in anything from topic bans to desysoppings to site bans. Hersfold 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I've actually just been corrected by a colleague by email: The levels of admonishment from the Committee range from "reminded", to "cautioned", "warned", and "admonished", with various adverbs thrown in as needed (strongly, etc.). Desysoppings and bans (proper sanctions) may be applied alongside an admonishment or as a higher grade of sanction (that is, in place of an admonishment). Sorry for the misinformation. Hersfold 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I agree that "ignoring such an admonishment by the Committee is a Bad Thing™ most of the time, and can result in anything from topic bans to desysoppings to site bans." Here is a link to statistics of arbitration requests . Wouldn't it be useful to include the admonishment level? Perhaps it would be revealed that those given a "strong admonishment" are more likely to "behave" than those given a "regular admonishment" or perhaps those given a "strong admonishment" deserved it because they are more likely to be naughty. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion - I still hope someone can point me to the list. Uncle uncle uncle 19:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Ah, but where would something like this user who was "urged, cautioned and admonished" (but none of them strongly) fit into the scale?19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
            • • Casliber clarified that one: "The items under A, B and C are requests, hence "urged" would be the verb, probably with an adverb like "strongly" to qualify it." Uncle uncle uncle 19:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Hmm. It appears that some of the arbitrators were unaware of the scale that other arbitrators treated as conventional wisdom. I certainly didn't realize that this was the conventional order. It's not intuitively obvious that "warned" is less severe than "admonished." At any rate, in the context of the motions, it seems clear that one user was considered more over-the-line than another. Cool Hand Luke 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I think that we all (each arbitrator) have our own scale guided by precedent and tradition. Personally, I will "suggest, recommend, urge and enjoin" things that should be done with various levels of urgency and importance implied, and "remind, caution, warn and admonish" against things that should not have been done with levels of severity implied. — Coren  19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "trouted" for things that shouldn't have been brought to us in the first place.  :-) — Coren  19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why not, in cases like these, simply issue a finding of fact "(some action) was an inappropriate use of admin tools/dispute resolution/e-mail function/user page/whatever."? Why bother arguing over verbs or the ranking of various inappropriate things that do not individually merit further action?--BirgitteSB 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any actual arguing over this, or that there ever was. Uncle expressed some curiosity at the system, and we realized that we don't have a very strict system in the first place, is all.  :-) — Coren  23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • May I suggest my Gruntled system of ascending degrees? It begins with 'gruntled', then 'not quite as gruntled as previously', followed by 'not gruntled' and then the universally familiar 'disgruntled'. It then goes to 'very disgruntled' followed by 'swop your fucking bollocks for your brains and see if anyone notices the difference you piece of shit gruntled'. After that I tend to get sarcastic and a little aggressive, although I find there is rarely situations that needs to go that far - and it sort of skirts WP:CIVIL as well. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • So someone who makes amends and returns to productive editing is then likely to regruntle the committee? — Coren  03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• If anyone is really interested in seeing how consistent ArbCom have been with such wordings, there is a wealth of arbitration case pages that can be searched (though some were blanked) and examples quoted. Some of the various stats pages also list sanctions by type as well, I think, so it is trivially easy to find examples of such wording. Maybe the confusion indicates the level of awareness individual arbitrators have of the history of ArbCom decisions? Though I should say there that I think it is a *good* thing that some arbs aren't able to recite past arbtiration decisions from memory, while others (and those commenting on cases and decisions) can remind people of past decisions and wordings. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight

Announcement

I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for taking this case and coming to what looks like the only reasonable conclusion.  Sandstein  06:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"User:ChildofMidnight is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year/User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only" makes no sense to me. Is he banned altogether for a year and when the year expires, restricted to the named spaces - or is he banned from all parts of Misplaced Pages other than the named spaces for a year? – iridescent 09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The former. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably ought to be spelled out, in that case. I'm more experienced than most in translating Wikipedese to English, and I couldn't understand what was meant by "this remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban". – iridescent 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably agree, though...it's not Wikipedese by the community's standard - just the reflection of an incredibly pompous ArbCom. I think the parties and the community would relate better to: "This remedy is an additional restriction, to any restrictions that are currently in force, or any restrictions that are enacted in the future. This remedy will remain in force indefinitely." But it's not like I can do or say much when ArbCom "disagrees". Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording could be better. "...is banned for one year. After the ban expires he is permanently restricted..." something like that. The permanent nature of the latter should, I agree, be spelled out. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What a foolish statement to make; or so I thought due to the fact that the community has always emphasised the difference between indefinite and permanent. But now I think it is quite an enlightening statement, and your candour would've been appreciated by ChildofMidnight, given that it reveals the ultimate reality about his future on this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be "indefinite" not permanent, as in without fixed expiry. That would be the normal way of describing such things, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the sanctions are unjustified.  Dr. Loosmark  14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. However, arbitration is binding and final, so you need to respect the decision. Please accept it and move on. CoM could have saved themselves at any point by acknowledging concerns and taking heed of them. Many opportunities were provided. Jehochman 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Really?. Sole Soul (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that arbitration isn't binding or that I plan to not respect the decision? I came here following a link "Discuss this". Does "Discuss this" mean one is only allowed to write comments in support of the ArbCom and its decisions?  Dr. Loosmark  14:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and you know what Jehochman, that's the key issue. I'd welcome him back now with arms wide open if he'd only stop being so stubborn and admit that his behaviour was less than acceptable and vow to improve it. He's not a bad guy 2/3 of the time - it's the other 1/3 when he's walking around shouting "abuse" when there is none that's the problem. I'm sad that it came to a ban to be honest - I thought CoM might realise half way through the case that he was actually severely in the minority when he said his behaviour was fine and everyone else was the problem. I'd suggest CoM takes a couple of months to get together his thought - hopefully he'll realise he made some mistakes here. Then I'd like to see an appeal to the committee, with an apology for acting the way he did and a commitment to behave better in the future - I could honestly see him back within 3-4 months if he can show he has been doing good work on another WMF wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank the Arbitration Committee for their service on this case, but at the same time wonder why a year-long ban was chosen over a shorter length. It seems a long time to kick out a prolific content contributor given the fact that the edit restrictions when the editor gets back would probably keep problems to a minimum. Could some arbs point out which facts in particular lead to such a long ban rather than a shorter one? Ks0stm 14:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is explained at WP:TURNIP. I think it is better to be strict and demand improvements than to appease or enable bad behavior. Jehochman 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well true, but I wasn't exactly thinking way short...I was thinking on the order of 6-9 months area rather than a year. Shorter, but still pretty hefty amounts of time. Ks0stm 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The ban, like any other remedy, can be appealed after a couple of months. If ChildofMidnight were to return to us with a desire to return to constructive contribution, he would certainly be listened to. — Coren  15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The sanction is very strange. You have a one year ban and then also all sorts of editing restrictions. Why not simply impose those editing restrictions with a review by ArbCom some time later (say a month from now) with the understanding that not strictly sticking to those restrictions will lead to a ban, but now only ArbCom decides this without some lengthy process in which CoM could argue his case again? Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the possibilities, and the one I favored, but has been overwhelmingly rejected by the committee as a whole. I think that ChildofMidnight's complete refusal to even consider the possibly that he might, just might have been in error played no small part in this, so was lack of constructive participation in the case itself. — Coren  15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly was that "overwhelmingly rejected by the committee as a whole"?  Dr. Loosmark  15:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that remedy 1 (the ban) being favored 9-1 over remedy 2 (the restriction) is an overwhelming rejection, would you not? — Coren  16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was there at the start of CoM's problems, so even though it'll break my self-imposed policy of never making a substantive comment on an Arbcom page, I suppose I ought to be there for the end. I agree with both Ryan and Ks0stm above. I've found CoM intensely irritating in the past for his apparent refusal ever to admit that other peoples' opinions could ever be right about anything (this is a good example to show that his "my way or the highway" mentality didn't just apply to politics) but I never had any doubt he was acting with the best of intentions and doing more good than harm; that is, the value of his "productive time" still outweighed the time wasted by other people in dealing with his outbursts. The comparator here, I'd say, would be Ottava, who was ejected from Misplaced Pages in very similar circumstances, and in both cases I think they ought be be allowed back if they could curb their argumentativeness and propensity to call every decision they disagree with "abuse". – iridescent 15:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm always unhappy when we have to ban anyone, much less a serious contributor to the encyclopedia such as Ottava Rima or ChildofMidnight. (And I am sure the other arbitrators are unhappy as well, even if they don't emphasize it on-wiki as much.) In both cases I urged them in my votes and comments to give us some indication that they would change their behavior if given another chance. ChildofMidnight knew well how and why the case was unfolding and chose not to give us a scrap of comfort that he would try to change his style of interacting with other editors if he were given one, three, or a dozen more chances to do so. I know that the immediately preceding commenter has little use for me as an arbitrator, as has been made clear in Another Place, but I hope it's accepted that when I say that I try my best to avoid these types of outcomes, I mean it. And I've made my share of motions to modify sanctions when they were called for, but I would need to have some sort of basis for making the motion and convincing my colleagues to support it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I'm not blaming you (plural); I can see that CoM didn't grab any of the "Get out of jail" cards that were being laid in front of him. I would say that (for both him and Ottava) you should at least consider making a formal (not a nudge-and-wink or off-wiki-and-later-retracted) offer that if they agree to the conditions, they're allowed straight back on the understanding that if they breach any of the terms they're straight out again. As you presumably know, it's worked regarding Ottava at the aforementioned Other Place. – iridescent 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be reasonable. I think a three month ban would also have been reasonable given the other restrictions, but there's no doubt that the major problem here was and always has been CoM's steadfast refusal to acknowledge legitimate complaints. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It can be difficult to acknowledge complaints if you're also arguing your case. Perhaps people need to be represented by "Wiki-Lawyers" during ArbCom cases. You can imagine having elections for Wiki-Lawyers just like we elect Arbitrators. An editor facing ArbCom proceedings can then choose to represent him/herself by a Wiki-Lawyer. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That has been tried. It didn't work, unsurprisingly. (Besides, in no legal system that I know of are lawyers elected; rather, their clients choose them.)  Sandstein  17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to acknowledge valid criticism without at the same time accepting foolish grudges and other nonsense. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several users already regularly play the role of 'prosecutor' in arbitration cases, and there are from time to time people who will 'defend' users. Most uninvolved users commenting though will generally just comment on specific points and their stance on a certain point may be favorable or unfavorable to the user. As for 'advocates', it's quite certain that no formal system could work, but nothing prevents a user from choosing to routinely 'defend' users in arbitration cases. Cenarium (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein: The AMA was a failure because it was overly-bureaucratic and prone to wikilawyering. The underlying idea—assigning advocates to those who are going before the arbcom—might actually have some merit. In this case, as with many underlying ideas, creating a dedicated organisation to pursue the idea didn't end well. AGK 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your view. Mine is that they were acting as enablers for trolls and other abusers, taking the side of their customer without any heed to its merits (e.g. failing to advise them to drop it when that was the proper course and instead prolonging the dispute), and their selection process was woeful, with some of the worst possible candidates acting as advocate. I think there were other factors too. Regardless of the merits of the idea it was so badly executed that failure was inevitable. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy: That too is my view. I am saying that the problem with the AMA was not in the idea itself; it was in the flawed execution of what was at least a valid idea. AGK 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how AMA was set up, but this seems to call for community oversight, election of members etc. In the real world where clients can choose lawyers, the lawyers are subject to ethic rules, can be disbarred etc. Count Iblis (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(←) I have to agree with Ryan. I actually came to like CoM after interacting with him for awhile (even gave him a barnstar at one point, which I don't do often). He reminds me of a friend I once had, who was really great to hang out with, but every once in awhile he'd go off on some rant that made everyone uncomfortable (about religion or politics, in my friend's case). For myself, I'd rather have seen the restrictions without the one year ban, but I definitely agree that for the most part the community is tired of his rants in one venue or another, and getting involved in others' disputes where his involvement makes things worse. But personally I'll miss some of his humor (and I never got around to making that bacon-themed article for his contest). -- Atama頭 17:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the user above who argued that the ArbCom should have applied the editing restrictions as an initial measure. If CoM chose to ignore those restrictions, he could've been banned for a year at that point, but it would've been good to see if a mainspace-only restriction would've been effective. I understand that it is obnoxious when users display no spirit of compromise, but the alternative strategy would've produced no additional risk and would have allowed for the possibility of continued content work. I hope the ArbCom will consider cases like this more carefully in the future, because retaining experienced content contributors is extremely important. Everyking (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Extremely important, but as a project we need to balance individuals' contributions and their ability to act creatively and constructively here with the needs and behavior of the project and other contributors as a whole. It's always regrettable when good people set themselves up to butt heads with the project as a whole on a regular basis. But we have to understand and acknowledge that sometimes that happens, and sometimes the damage done by that overwhelms the good they do when editing articles.

I think that in a perfect world, once we got to Arbcom, it would have been nice if CoM had cooperated, and any finding was then limited to edit restrictions as has been suggested. But that was not the case. There was refusal to cooperatively engage from the beginning of the RFC, independent requests to calm down, and throughout the Arbcom case.

Cooperation and compromise have to come from both sides. CoM was yesterday loudly declaiming that civility enforcement was terrible for the project, more defiant and angry about it than ever.

I know why he's pissed off about it. But it's not a Shrubbery to ask that someone who's been taken all the way to an accepted Arbcom case at least acknowledge that there are a number of people upset with them and attempt to engage cooperatively and civilly regarding that. By the time it gets here, it's pretty much the "cooperate or leave" point in someone's Misplaced Pages career.

CoM stuck by his guns that he was doing the right thing. Which is consistent with his beliefs and prior opinions. But not the way for him to have worked his way into a compromise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

GWH, I think that's the best summation of the arbitration process in general I've ever seen. I think there's a general feeling amongst the community that if you find yourself faced with an ArbCom case, there's no hope, so you may as well go out all guns blazing. That's not the case. If you genuinely show an understanding of what the problem is, and are willing to fix it, then you're much less likely to get banned or face other sanctions, and in the event you are still sanctioned, it'll be less than it would have otherwise been. Of course, we'd like this revelation to happen much sooner, but if it takes being faced with an ArbCom ban to make that hit home, so be it. (And the Monty Python reference gives you bonus points) Hersfold 02:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hersfold. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My basic point was that contribution to the encyclopedia should be the overriding concern, so if there's a way to fix the problem that involves restricting CoM in some ways while leaving him free to write articles, it would be good to pursue that as an initial step. It's not that CoM doesn't deserve the ban; it's that the ban is possibly counter-productive if we could still be getting good work out of him. I'm much more interested in having people writing content than I am in notions of crime and punishment, contrition, or reform. Sometimes people are so supremely obnoxious that we cannot tolerate them to any degree at all, but I'm not quite sure CoM was on that level, and it would've been easy enough to find out. Everyking (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But what do you believe is the expected success rate of a restrictive measure when the editor is outright stating that any such restriction is harassment borne of malice and personal vendettas? The only predictable outcome would be multiple boundary testing, appeals and continuous soapboxing; and that is almost as costly in community effort wasted towards drama than the original problem might have been to begin with; I can name several past cases where that happened and I'm sure you can as well. (And, incidentally, lest you think this is a jab at you, your behavior of the past several months can be cited as an excellent counterexample). — Coren  11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What Hersfold said (it worked for me, anyway). Guy (Help!) 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this community particularly cares for a summation of the unfortunately deteriorating state of arbitration that is currently in place; I think it cares for improvement to the system. For example, last year I could see substantial improvement in the workshop of at least a few cases; this year I've seen reversion back to the ineffective format. If arbitrators aren't waving political handkerchiefs around in the air, and are genuinely trying to avoid such outcomes, then the first step is to offer the user an incentive to continue contributing to the project. Frankly, when a member of the arbitration office pokes an user like this shortly prior to a site ban, or calls them a drama-loving troll in a high profile venue, I'm not sure what person in their right mind would believe that it is remotely probable that the user would be receptive to the concerns. Ottava Rima's problems began in 2008; ChildofMidnight's in 2009; they were given the same outcome only a few months apart. In the latter of these cases, the user didn't feel the need to out users on his talk page because he didn't actually lose anything - only the encyclopedia did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deteriorating? I don't think so. Obviously as Misplaced Pages's profile increases it will become increasingly important to people to get their views reflected here, which will result in more cases requiring bans and more people who will assert as loudly as possible that these bans are wrong because they stop The Truth™ being told but I don't see any evidence of ArbCom deteriorating. I agree that workshop pages should be more vigorously clerked but that's not really a very big deal. And while I agree it would be better to keep the trap shut than raise hostages to fortune by making ill-judged comments I am forced to agree that CoM had adopted the persona of a drama-loving troll with new discussions about behaviour almost daily at some points, and refused to drop that persona or even acknowledge that it was in any way problematic. CoM should have listened to comments from friends, uninvolved parties and many others. I suspect that even now a contrite statement would result in a reduction of the severity of sanctions. It's not even new, m:MPOV documents it perfectly. By the time it got here it was not the time for ArbCom to pussyfoot around, CoM has shown bullheaded refusal to accept valid criticism and instead dug in and fought harder. That was never going to work. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have agreed with you about a non-deteriorating ArbCom, if I hadn't followed a recent case where poor clerking caused plenty of problems, which could not be dismissed as "no big deal" for those familiar with the relevant readily verifiable facts. It was a stroke of luck that there would be no issues in this case as the main party refused to participate. The ill-judged comments and actions may be isolated from the user who makes it; but it's not isolated for the user who constantly receives them.

Anyway, why stop CoM's future content contributions? Was he a tendentious editor? ArbCom seems to have relied upon the following question and answer: "what do you believe is the expected success rate of a restrictive measure when the editor is outright stating that any such restriction is harassment borne of malice and personal vendettas? The only predictable outcome would be multiple boundary testing, appeals and continuous soapboxing; and that is almost as costly in community effort wasted towards drama than the original problem might have been to begin with." ArbCom seems to have forgotten that dispute resolution involves making attempts/steps; i.e. sometimes you exhaust an attempt or step, no matter how certain you believe you are of the adverse outcome.

Based on the indications he was giving elsewhere, the odds of retaining his positive contributions (while curbing the not so positive ones) weren't so dire with the other workshop proposals that were on the table. ArbCom missed the hint and signalled that 0 of his content contributions are welcome on Misplaced Pages for the next 12 months because of an uncertain success rate - frankly, I think that's a sign of a deteriorating ArbCom; when an user no longer has incentive to volunteer their time here in the future, or no longer wishes to return, I don't see much wisdom in ever expecting a contrite statement. Interestingly, I found similar problems in a community matter; certain administrators appeared to be ready to sacrifice one of their peer's contributions to keep a more prolific content contributor here - I would've thought that aiming to retain both editors contributions was the proper way for administrators to act, but hey, maybe this year I've just forgotten how administrators are meant to conduct themselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Without sidetracking too much, I feel the need to point out that "the peer whose contributions were sacrificed" in the case you mention above had a grand total of 31 mainspace contributions this year, almost all minor and/or automated, and that he was only "sacrificed" because he chose to walk off Misplaced Pages in a sulk when other people wouldn't tell him how wonderful he was.116.15.129.147 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I said the "peer's" contributions - I didn't limit it to content contributions as his conduct wasn't considered a problem in the namespace, and he may very well have provided useful contributions outside of the mainspace. My understanding is that he walked off when his peers did not take his concern(s) seriously, but perhaps you know some facts that I don't? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that more vigorous clerking may well be in order. We could always propose that, you know? I don't want to sound as if I'm getting at you personally, I'm not, but I've seen several cases recently where people run around shouting that the sky is falling, the project is doomed and so on because $PROCESS did not give the outcome they wanted and they couldn't work out what to do about it (which, I have to say, often comes down to "get over it", but that's another discussion). Jimbo's talk page occasionally degenrates into an episode of Jimbo'll Fix It because people go there demanding that the world is changed to their liking, it doesn't seem to work. In this case the outcome does not seem to have been materially affected by the observed problem, but the observed problem should be amenable to solution if people ask. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, apropos - (I have no connection to this, just think it's interesting) Wikitruth Through Wikiorder - "Focusing on Misplaced Pages, we argue that the site's dispute resolution process is an important force in promoting the public good it produces, i.e., freely-accessible encyclopedia articles. We describe the development and shape of Misplaced Pages's existing dispute resolution system. Further, we present a statistical analysis based on coding of over 250 arbitration opinions from Misplaced Pages's arbitration system. The data shows that Wiki-dispute resolution ignores the content of user disputes, instead focusing on user conduct. Based on fairly formalized arbitration findings, we find a high correlation between the conduct found and the remedies ordered. In effect, the system functions not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting users, but to weed out problematic users while weeding potentially productive users back in to participate." - see also the blog post's hilarious flowchart -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That flowchart reads like a plot synopsis of Animal Crossing, with far too much "shower with love" options. :P —Jeremy 06:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor wording issue

Is it too late to have the wording changed? Per comments above, I'd like to see "ChildofMidnight is restricted" changed to "After the expiration of his ban, ChildofMidnight is indefinitely restricted" if that's what ArbCom was saying. I'm not asking for the sanctions to be changed; all I ask is for clarification. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from ChildofMidnight's talk page

On ChildofMidnight's talk page there is a link to this arbitration discussion which says "Discuss this." These are all of the comments that people have posted on ChildofMidnight's talk page so far:

• COM, I won't comment on the process. Don't think the outcome is terribly productive. Hope to see you return either in a year or earlier in the event of a successful appeal. Hang loose. _matic 04:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I'll chime in with Bongo. I'll miss seeing you around, buddy, and it will be a lot less fun while you're gone. Good luck if you appeal. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Dang it, CoM, it won't be the same around here without you. We'll keep the bacon warm until you're back. (Doughnuts too, if you're good.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see this happen CoM. I had hoped the outcome would be better but hopefully you'll be back before too long. Shinerunner (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• All seems rather odd to me. For the record I have never found you anything other than agreeable and pleasant. It all looks rather like a small storm in an even smaller teacup. Frankly a year's block means that you are unlikely to be back. That's a shame. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and even after a year, some things might continue to have a "permanent" effect it unfortunately seems. It's a shame that the arbitration office had some of its members persistently poking, even in the last moments prior to the ban, but no tactic they employ is exactly shocking anymore. Anyway, all the best in your endeavours ChildofMidnight, and we'll hopefully see you again sometime soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• <blink>I leave for two weeks and this is what I come back to....--kelapstick (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Words fail me. Nevertheless, all the best, Child. Geoff 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good luck to you in the future, CoM. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Would it be TOO Pollyannaish of me to hope that you come back once the year is up? ::: sigh :::: Oh, CoM. This really does suck. Be well, hm? GJC 01:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Too bad it's come to this - I hope we'll see you back editing again in time. For all the problems that have apparently happened, I've never personally had a single bad experience with you, and I wish you the very best of luck. ~ mazca 09:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Your punishment is about 364 days too long. The fact that they keep adding DYKs based on your contributions even after your ban has taken effect proves that you are an asset to the encyclopedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. This seems like a grossly excessive punishment. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope that the Arbitration Committee will take those comments into account in the event of any possible future appeals regarding the length of ChildofMidnight's ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Grundle, if anything, this only cements the necessity of a ban. This was one of the primary problems with this user; this seeming Jekyll and Hyde act of being a productive content editor in non-controversial subjects on one hand and an atrociously disruptive voice in policy discussions and political articles on the other. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps some topic bans on the relevant subjects could be added, and then perhaps the length of his overall ban could be substantially reduced. If he could come back in a day or a week or a month, with certain topic bans, then he could still continue to be a productive editor in the areas where he was a productive editor before. My own topic ban, while not perfect, seems to be working out reasonably well. Perhaps the same type of process could work for ChildofMidnight. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that this outcome is very sad. If CoM had shown some sign of cooperation or recognition of a problem, he probably would have received at worst some kind of temporary topic ban from project space. It's now up to him to set things right. Mathsci (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement

Announcement

Discussion:

This decision is clearly in error. No action was taken to upset an ArbCom sanction. What was done was to upset the interpretation of the ArbCom sanction by a single admin, Sandstein. His interpretation is not more correct or valuable than any other admin's interpretation, and so Trusilver's interpretation that led to his action was on exactly the same level of sanctity. No admin (e.g. Sandstein) should feel that their actions are beyond reversal without elaborate appeal to ArbCom simply because they did some deed first.

To claim that somehow Trusilver acted against ArbCom itself is nonsense. And Trusilver's reversal of Sandstein is nothing but a difference of interpretation made possible by a very murky sanction, further removed from ArbCom's original decision by the sloppy, individual changes of Tznkai. Brews ohare (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This committee failed to interpret this matter as a dispute between possible interpretations, requiring a decision upon which action was better for WP, and instead interpreted the matter as a threat to their authority demanding disciplinary action. That wrongheadedness led to no deliberation upon the actual issues, and a derailment in a completely inappropriate direction. The result is damage to credibility of the committee members as a group and individually, and damage to WP that is startlingly beyond anything remotely at stake in the original actions. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're oversimplifying this, Brews. The current take on arbitration enforcement is this: If an editor is restricted in some way, it was not without cause. If said editor violates the restriction, then he can be blocked. No admin may unblock them without clear consensus or arb consent. If an admin looked into AE, they knew that, and knew that it should be appealed. An arbcom response to such an appeal will not always be timely, the blocked editor will often have to live with the block (which in the end they brought on themselves), but since arbcom reserves control to overturn "questionable enforcement administrative actions", they monitor the situation and all is eventually as well as it can be. That approach certainly can work, it's not unreasonable, and is supposed to be the way of least drama (if folks stick to it).
However: What is required then is that arbcom gives responses to disputed AE blocks, as timely as possible, but even if the block is already in the past. Otherwise, the supervision arbcom has specifically given themselves is pretty much circumvented. I haven't had one look at the AE block, the cause, the noticeboard discussion, or the restriction, and only glanced at the case page, so I don't know what it's about, and have no opinion about it, but from what I read it seems to me that the enforcement block was very much controversial in the community. I haven't seen an arbcom statement so far whether they see the block as correct and proportional. I'm not looking for motions, admonishments, whatever, just a "yep, that's what we'd have done" or "that was over the top" - but I feel that some such a statement is absolutely required for future guidance, and most importantly to give admins in the same situation as Trusilver, who believe that an AE block was unfair in any way, assurance that it will not simply be ignored even if it's only a few more hours till it expires. Without such feedback, the system will break down again. Amalthea 17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a statement about this on my talk page. The only thing I would say here would be to just rehash that, it's easier just to link it. Trusilver 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank the Committee for making a difficult and probably unpopular decision, one of those decisions that make nobody happy (including me) but may be necessary just to make sure that we do not have to have this same discussion again and again. The clarified rules regarding AE will hopefully help to prevent that as well. It's of course not good that we lose, for now, the admin services of Trusilver, whose judgment I have never had the occasion to doubt until this incident. A sanction restricting him from undoing blocks without the blocking admin's or ArbCom's consent, as I've also proposed, might have had the required preventative effect without requiring a full desysop. Still, desysopping is not permanent, and from what I read Trusilver is not about to give up on Misplaced Pages, which is good to hear. I'd like to emphasize that I bear no bad will towards anybody as a result of this case, and look forward to working together again with all involved, including with Trusilver. I also assure all who might be concerned about this that I have been and remain ready to discuss any and all of my admin actions, either directly or in a community appeal as envisioned by the 2008 and 2010 motions, and do not resent any (hopefully infrequent) consensus to undo or modify my actions. Thanks again,  Sandstein  07:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, How can you say it's not good that we lose the admin services of Trusilver, when only yesterday you were stamping your feet and demanding that ARBCOM desysop Trusilver? And some ARBCOM members let it be known that they took your opinions very seriously indeed. They were clearly quite uncomfortable on realizing that you weren't happy. Well you've got your way now, so please spare us all this display of phony modesty.

The book that you need to read is Les Misérables by the French author Victor Hugo. There is a character in that book called Inspector Javert who you could learn some valuable lessons from. Inspector Javert was obsessed with enforcing the letter of the law over the head of the higher picture of natural justice, and as such he destroyed a good man called Jean Valjean. In your case, your actions in blocking Brews ohare gave Brews a poke in the eye at the behest of editor Headbomb, who was merely abusing the ARBCOM tool to settle a private score. But you didn't care about that aspect of the picture. Inspector Javert realized the error of his ways in later life as a consequence of the fact that he was saved from execution as a result of the actions of somebody who held the complete opposite point of view to his own. He then saw the light, but struggled with the dilemma that he had spent so many years dedicated to enforcement of the letter of the law. In the end, he couldn't stand the mental anguish any longer and so he threw himself into the River Seine.

And one final point. ARBCOM repeatedly turned a blind eye to some key facts in this case. Those key facts were that discussions did take place at an AN/I board that indicated a consensus in favour of unblocking Brews ohare. ARBCOM were notified and their opinion was solicited. One arbitrator arrived at the AN/I board, spoke in riddles, and disappeared. There was a strong consensus expressed at the original AE thread which opposed your decision to block Brews ohare, and indeed you even removed one editor's comments. And Trusilver did hold discussions with you. ARBCOM were repeatedly made aware of all these facts, but they continued to turn a blind eye. I reminded them last night, but Charcharoth merely brushed it aside as the writings of a 'charged partisan'. The whole situation looks very bad indeed, because certain arbitrators continued right up until the end, to claim that no discussions took place and that nobody attempted to involve ARBCOM. There were alot of lies involved in this case. The manner in which ARBCOM pandered to you, while brushing aside the views of Brews's allies was quite a disgusting display of bias. David Tombe (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're posting stuff like the above, I can sure understand that you were seen as a charged partisan. And seriously, categorizing editors into allies and, by extension, enemies, lays the groundwork for many of the disputes here. It's an encyclopedia. Amalthea 08:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the input of people like David Tombe seriously degraded the process and impeded a dispassionate view of the issue. The Brews camp insist on making every single incident an excuse for refighting the arbitration case, the Trusilver incident was not a refighting of the case it was an individual admin whose reading of the issue led him to conclude that an error had been made. It is most unfortunate. Luckily I think any new RfA is likely to pass, since Trusilver did not, in my opinion, undermine the trust of the community - rather the opposite if anything. But he will be feeling bruised right now so I would think some time will have to pass first. The clarification of enforcement rules is welcome and ironically would have weakened still further the case for this particular block. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

JzG by some unnatural mental process blames Brews_ohare for Headbomb's stupid actions and Silverstein's stupid enforcement of them, and for the startling damage to WP inflicted by this committee. If the preponderance of committee members had a mote of wisdom, none of this would have happened. In no remote way possible are my few sentences here and here on how to write an introduction responsible for this ridiculous, damaging brouhaha enjoined by Headbomb and Sandstein and made into a chasm of incomprehensible nonsense by this committee. Brews ohare (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete bollocks. I blame your small band of devoted followers for making so much fuss and noise about every single attempt to enforce this that they made it impossible to view the incident in question as anything other than a bunch of anarchists who won't accept an ArbCom ruling. That is not actually what happened but David Tombe, Tarc and HiaB made it virtually impossible for anyone to see it. Had it not been for them I believe that a different outcome would have been achieved. I told them this several times and they refused to listen, they refuse to listen still, they are still doing the same and I'll be amazed if they escape sanctions themselves for being a massive drain on everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Almathea, You have got it the wrong way around. Brews has allies, firstly because of a dispute, and secondly because of the mishandling of the dispute. It seems that the dispute should have gone to the mediation committee, but instead it went to ARBCOM whose name seems to be somewhat of a misnomer. That misnomer is part of the greater problem which now needs to be addressed. Is ARBCOM actually an arbitration committee? Or is it something else? David Tombe (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Breaking an editing hiatus to commmend the Committee for upholding and clarifying the principle of order in an instance where it would have been easy to look the other way. Well done arbitrators.  Skomorokh  14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Echo this sentiment. AE is probably the most thankless task in the whole of the project, and I'm glad that ArbCom supported those who do it. The whole Trusilver 'camp' (but not Trusilver himself) was incredibly detrimental, in my opinion, to the resolution of the whole thing... as a group they managed to take WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to an awe-inspiring level. I would probably support Trusilver is he ever chose to run for admin again, however. Ale_Jrb 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Trusilver also unblocked GoRight (talk · contribs) recently, another action that verges on the maverick. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. He just offered to unblock conditionally. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not according to GoRight's block log...? Hersfold 02:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to misremember these things. Trusilver initiated and played a major role in the unblock discussion (see here) but did not perform the unblock. User:Bwilkins performed the unblock but did not participate in the discussions. Seems a bit odd, but that's the way it happened. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Misremembering things is one way to put it; poor quality commentary is another way to put it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Initiating discussion, eh? It's a wonder he wasn't de-adminned sooner! This site is such a joke. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci: So I don't get it. Are you going to label Bwilkins a maverick now that we know the facts or is this possibility only reserved for Trusilver? Dr.K.  04:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't unblock GoRight, but I had every intention of it. There are two areas of Misplaced Pages that I feel should be dealt with using the utmost expediency - WP:AIV and WP:RFU. The former has never been a problem, the latter always is. I don't have a lot of tolerance for unblock requests that sit for days or weeks because nobody can muster up the balls to make a decision. There are remarkably few administrators that are willing to make tough decisions. That's not necessarily a condemnation, it's far more easier to pass on something and let someone else handle it than to make a difficult decision yourself. The problem is when EVERY administrator just sits on their collective asses waiting for someone else to do something. Misplaced Pages is run by volunteers, even someone who has been blocked. As such, any serious unblock request deserves respect, and should be acted on with respect. The breakdown in the system occurs when you have a dozen administrators, including the blocking admin, gathered around (pardon the imagery) with their thumbs up their asses because nobody wants to be the one to step forward and say "Sure, I'll do it... here's my conditions." Trusilver 06:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll say this much, if you ever come up for RfA again, you'll receive my 2nd ever support vote. Especially after reading the above reply.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a pity that although Trusilver has such useful and admirable principles, he seems to invoke them in the wrong situations or in the wrong manner. The inability/unwillingness to see through problematic and tendentious editors can be counterproductive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And who determines exactly who "those" editors are? You? By making an unblock request, I think it's a given that someone is going to consider you a problematic and/or tendentious editor just by the nature of the fact that you were blocked to begin with. That's the entire point behind unblock requests being handled by an uninvolved admin. It should be by someone who has not previous stake in the dispute. (In theory, of course. I've seen some pretty damn involved "uninvolved" admins over the years.) If we don't intend to allow problem editors to reintegrate themselves into the community, then what really is the point of WP:RFU? If we create a mechanism for allowing people that have screwed up in the past to come back and then don't allow anyone to use it, then what really was the point of having it to begin with? Why not simply tell anyone that is blocked for longer than a month "Sorry, but you can't appeal this block." GoRight is a perfect example of this. He was indefinitely blocked, now he's back. He's had a few little speed bumps since his unblock, but I think overall his editing pattern is a few hundred times more constructive than it was before the block. Cooperation is the foundation upon which Misplaced Pages rests, yet there are a HUGE number of Wikipedians that think the definition of cooperation is "Working with people that agree with me." Trusilver 19:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Preach on, brother. I agree 100%.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Protest

In my opinion Arbcom is taking itself too seriously and is on a very bad, power-grabbing path that can only lead into serious problems. Arbcom, like any court, government or similar institution in real life, derives its power from the fact that people do what it says, i.e. from its authority. The tweaking of the SlimVirgin decision was very necessary, although it would have been better to scrap it entirely. (Such things work better if they are not formalised.) Executing the SlimVirgin decision in a situation where there was no compelling reason because it was a borderline case: This was a stupid decision. Evidently it was intended to strengthen Arbcom's authority, but it actually does the opposite.

According to Max Weber there are three types of authority:

Rational-legal authority

It comes from the fact that according to our founder and the Wikimedia Foundation we should do what Arbcom says.

Traditional authority

It comes from the fact that we always did what Arbcom said.

Charismatic authority

It comes from Arbcom's pattern of leading the community by doing the right thing.

If we look at authority from the point of view of a single member of the community and ask why this member does what Arbcom says, then we see that we need to consider additional factors:

Authority by force

It comes from the fact that if you don't do what Arbcom says, Arbcom's authority will lead someone to punish you.

Authority by persuasiveness

It comes from the convincing arguments made by Arbcom members supporting a specific decision and from the impression that Arbcom consists of reasonable people who have considered all facts carefully.

The SlimVirgin decision came at a time when a persistent disconnect between Arbcom and the community (lack of authority by persuasiveness) had caused an almost complete breakdown of charismatic authority. In other words, Arbcom's authority at that point was based only on formalities, tradition and the force that it could exert with what was left of the first two.

This was obviously a problem. The right solution was to (1) immediately make sure that Arbcom decisions were followed because of their persuasiveness, and (2) restore Arbcom's charismatic authority through a pattern of persuasive decisions and effectively dealing with their internal problems. This solution was made possible with the 2009 election and was carried out to a satisfactory extent.

The wrong solution, tried by a panicking 2008 Arbcom shortly before the 2009 election, was to tweak the only parameter that they could tweak without changing their own comportment: Trying to strengthen authority by force. Setting aside the ethical problem of a dictatorial Arbcom, this was also dangerous for Arbcom itself because in an open wiki environment force based only on otherwise weak authority (what they were trying to address in the first place) simply doesn't work very well. Hans Adler 10:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The committee's legal-rational legitimacy is not based on us abiding by instructions to "Obey them" by the powers that be. It comes from the fact that, year upon year, we elect new arbitrators—and, as a by-product, confirm that we continue to be okay with delegating some of the community's power to a small group of editors. AGK 13:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where Max Weber put authority through elections; I guess under rational-legal, although traditional would be another option. But that's not the point. Is discontent with an elected body so unheard-of? Is the authority that comes from elections really absolute? I don't think so. You missed my point, which was that Arbcom's actions have an effect on the amount of authority it has, and that it is on a path that looks as if it increased their authority but does the opposite. Hans Adler 17:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AGK: You miss the point here, which is that the committee has no legitimacy based upon voluntary acceptance of their actions stemming from the perceived substance of their decisions and good judgment, but has only de facto ability to cram decisions down throats. Even the military with a top down command structure that brooks no resistance to authority encourages explicitly the role of leadership, recognizing voluntary compliance is to be striven for, despite a commander's de facto ability to force matters. This committee's failures show contempt for leadership, and have added one more back-alley beating to their unenviable record of abuses of authority and indifference to the good of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:DEADHORSE. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. I am not particularly interested in this specific case. I want a strong Arbcom that makes Misplaced Pages run smoothly, and I believe they just damaged the institution. Hans Adler 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tarc: You bet, time some attention was paid to leadership. I guess you don't agree? Brews ohare (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• ArbCom decided to beat a WP:DEADHORSE in this case. After all, it was Brews posting on Misplaced Pages namespace territory that led to these events (Headbomb wikilawyering about that using an unclear restriction imposed on Brews, to win a point in an edit war, Sandstein blocking Brews and then Trusilver unblocking Brews). But what is happening right now? Brews actually being invited by ArbCom to give his opinion here (on a namespace page) on this decision. If that's not ridiculous, what is? Count Iblis (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Brews is still posting in Misplaced Pages space. Why isn't the sanction being enforced? Jehochman 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is this a rhetorical question? Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that what Ironholds is trying to tell us is that there was a problem in the past with administrators wheel-warring, and so a system was devised in which editors who had been perceived by a select committee to be perpetual problems in a particular subject areas were to be topic banned, and that if they broke their ban and got blocked, that no other administrator was then allowed to unblock them. That seems to be the rationale behind ARBCOM's existence based on what Ironholds has told me.

But the result was merely to replace one unsatisfactory state of affairs with another unsatisfactory state of affairs. Let's forget about ARBCOM for a moment and concentrate purely on the administrator system in isolation. That is also unsatisfactory as it stands because every administrator has the power to undo the work of every other administrator. Also, appeals against blocks are made blindly to all administrators, and so the chances are that the appeal will be answered by a trigger happy administrator who likes to keep blocks in place.

What is needed is for the admins to lose their power to unblock, and for all matters relating to unblocking to be put into the hands of a special appeal board which possesses unblocking powers and desysoping powers. Division of power is the key to harmony.David Tombe (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous in practice. Given the sheer number of unblocks it would rapidly be overwhelmed. My point is this; certain actions cannot be performed by an admin - a topic ban, for example, can not be arbitrary, and neither can a standard ban. There are some users who divide the community to the point where SOMETHING needs to be done, but the community cannot agree enough to do it. It's that sort of thing the arbitration committee was set up for - situations where the community can't do anything, and not doing anything would fracture it. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds on that, there is a huge number of unblock requests that come in on any given day. Having a specific group or (god forbid) an elected board take control of that would only serve to complicate an already slow process. And just keep in mind that probably 90% of unblock requests are handled within an hour or so of being made. It's only the difficult 10% that sit forever on RFU's doorstep. Trusilver 06:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Trusilver, you've just been desysopped by the arbitration committee, what are you going to do next??" "I'm going to Disneyland!!" (No seriously, I am. Taking my kids there for my youngest daughter's birthday today.) I think that one of the things which makes Arbcom so universally untrusted is the lack of transparency that you see in every other facet of Misplaced Pages. Every time we see this, it causes issues, it certainly did with IRC a couple years back (and still might, for all I'm aware). Anyway, have a good day :) Trusilver 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree. The present system mostly works OK, the problem here is that Brews' followers have never accepted the arbitration outcome and have pushed back against it from the very outset, usually in the wrong way and in the wrong places. Most enforcements stay enforced, no problem. In this case you took what I think was a defensible course in a debatable situation, but they made so much noise about points of principle and disputing the validity of the original case that the noise completely drowned out the fact that in this case the specific issue was not necessarily as it appeared. Anarchy is not going to work, so ArbCom decided as it did. I think this time they were wrong but I can see why they called it as they did, and the main cause was, IMO, David, Tarc and HiaB - I guess we should call them the "anti-Headbomb cabal" to echo their own rhetoric. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds and Trusilver, OK I take your point. I didn't realize that there were so many unblock requests everyday. I assumed that people only filed unblock requests for long term blocks. An appeal board would therefore only be used to deal with long term cases that had been repeatedly declined by the ordinary process.

Anyway, in that case, I would say that wheel-warring is a more preferable state of affairs than to have a system of ARBCOM based blocks with no unblocks. The latest resolution has made the situation worse than ever, because now no admin will touch an ARBCOM unblock request with a barge pole. Ultimately I fail to see why an unblock should ever cause any major controversy unless it was in a case of blatant vandalism. In any civilized system, the benefit of the doubt should always been given to a good faith appellant. David Tombe (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that many editors, who believe they are acting in good faith, are extremely disruptive. This is particularly true in the nationalist disputes we often see here. In these circumstances, simply agreeing to any unblock request is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. As ArbCom is the end of the road as far as dispute resolution is concerned, it is entirely appropriate that the appeal options are limited.  Roger Davies 12:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger, that simply fails to address the issue of why priority should be given to the first administrator's interpretation. The system as it stands is wide open to abuse. I appreciate that it may not be easy to find the perfect system, but the problem with this latest episode was a total refusal on the part of most of the arbitrators to examine the full facts of the case. They focused on the unblock and blatantly refused to look at the block. David Tombe (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't a "total refusal ... to examine the full facts" at all. It's simply that most arbitrators decided that the bright line that AE restrictions may not to be overturned by administrative IAR actions was more important to the stability of the project than the alternative.  Roger Davies 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That is ruling through fear, not wisdom - you could have done both. Without feedback on the proportionality of the block, this will happen again. Amalthea 12:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose any bright line enforcement can be characterised as ruling through fear.  Roger Davies 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably, and having strict consequences is absolutely OK, I agree with that part, as I've said elsewhere. But if the analysis of the cause is omitted and you neither work nor acknowledge the problem that led to ignoring the AE rules, you're just playing Whac-A-Mole. "Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor." Yes, they brought in on themselves, but controversial blocks shouldn't just be accepted without question. Amalthea 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Briefly: first, we did push through a clarifying motion on AE appeals to address the underlying point; second, as an individual, I'm always ready to look at ways to improve process; third, the unblocking admin's responses may not have worked in his favour.  Roger Davies 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This a more measured and nuanced reply. I respect that. Dr.K.  13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with you Amalthea. Thank you. Dr.K.  13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amalthea and I add that talk of bright lines without examining the deeper issues is skirting the real issues in favour of simplistic notions of rigid discipline. Fit for a camp perhaps but not for an encyclopedia full of intellectuals. Dr.K.  13:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that Misplaced Pages has bright lines all over the place.  Roger Davies 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cool Hand Luke said it best when he described hiding behind AE enforcent motions to mete unjust and excessive punishment as a "license to kill". Carcharoth, Risker as well are not talking about bright lines but are taking a more nuanced and intellectual approach to this. Ruling through fear and suppression without regard to deeper issues is no way for Arbcom to rule. Dr.K.  13:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The committee is made up of sixteen individuals, with differing priorities. Motions, by their nature, reflect broad common-denominator consensus but not complete agreement and it is all but impossible to reflect nuanced positions.  Roger Davies 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your predicament and that the dynamics of a complex environment like the Arbcom decision making process may make it unwieldy or unresponsive to the finer points of a case. But this case had fundamental principles involved that cannot be described as mere nuances. They involved fundamental issues such as administrative abuse of blocking power, among others, and that is not a mere nuance. If Arbcom cannot deal with such core issues maybe we have to find another way of resolving these issues. Dr.K.  17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger, An administrator overturned another administrator's actions. Nobody overturned an ARBCOM action. There was a clash of interpretations as to whether Brews had breached his ARBCOM sanctions or not. Why did ARBCOM unequivocally come down on the side of Sandstein's interpretation just because Sandstein got there first? That's the bit that doesn't make any sense. It was then exacerbated by the harsh treatment of Trusilver on the one hand, and the total turning of a blind eye to the fact that Sandstein blocked Brews ohare for a second time, after he had taken out arbitration proceedings which involved Brews. William Connolley was desyspoped for doing the same thing.

And ARBCOM have also failed to address the fact that they only desysoped Trusilver because of a motion that was initiated by Sandstein. If Sandstein hadn't taken out those ARBCOM proceedings, nothing would have happened to Trusilver. Sandstein should have kept neutral on the matter. Sandstein blocked Brews ohare the first time because he believed that Brews had broken an ARBCOM sanction. Trusilver unblocked Brews because he believed that Brews hadn't broken an ARBCOM sanction. This should have been no concern at all to Sandstein as it didn't effect Sandstein adversely in any way. But Sandstein took the matter personally and used the ARBCOM tool to settle a private score with Trusilver. The overall picture is not satisfactory in the slightest. David Tombe (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No. This is very simple. An editor was under a legitimate discretionary sanction, and was subsequently blocked for breaching it. The administrator unblocking them therefore crossed the bright line. The question for me therefore was purely one of mitigation.

Please also be more circumspect in what you say about motives and try to assume good faith.  Roger Davies 13:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good teachers often look the other side when a pupil crosses a bright line in good faith and they can plausibly pretend not to see it. They know that their authority is in danger if they don't pick their battles intelligently. Hans Adler 13:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's the point I was making about mitigation (or the extent to which one turns a blind eye). The thing here is, to paraphrase Newyorkbrad, almost every decision ArbCom makes is supposed to be without clue. It's just the constituency that suggest it changes from case to case :)  Roger Davies 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Davies, what you've said here today is reasonable. I would have liked to see this much involvement out of you during the actual case. I'm curious where you think the line exists with the additional language added to the policy? I am happy to see any change for the better, but the vague wording makes the change very small. There's still the non inconsiderable problem that any admin can make a block in the name of arbcom with no more rationalization behind it than "because I say so." I can't see any reason why language that insists that the violation of sanction must be "clear and indisputable" can't be included. Trusilver 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday

Announcement

Can somebody explain the ArbCom dynamics to me? Only two ArbCom members accepted this, is that sufficient for an arbitration to occur? Woogee (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The motion was proposed and passed in lieu of a full case. Usually when arbitrators vote to accept or decline a case, it's only accepting or declining a full case, not any motion that may occur. SirFozzie (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But with only two accepting it? Woogee (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Two accepted that a full case was necessary; that doesn't mean the rest felt it was a non-issue, simply that a full case wasn't necessary to deal with it. I think the approval ArbCom gave to the motion is indicative that the majority of the committee felt there was a problem - just one that didn't need a full case to address it. Ironholds (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, if you look, 8 Arbitrators actually supported the motion to propose the restriction. SirFozzie (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would an exception be made if the two could be persuaded to agree to mediation? Guy (Help!) 09:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would recuse on any such request for an exception... however.. considering the level of rancor and ill will I saw, I would think that I would prefer any such mediation to occur off-wiki. This is something that if it's going to be solved, the two of them need to solve it themselves (with the help of a mediator of course).. it doesn't need the onlookers etcetera, nor folks hoping for another equivalent of a car crash. SirFozzie (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Please drop this line of conversation, I am perfectly satisfied with the situation as it stands; should it be necessary to adjust the agreement in future, there are obvious ways to go about arranging for the proposal to be modified, such as either of us e-mailing to ask the Arbcom or a mutually-respected admin to contact the other. I find this insistence that I must be friends with another user, and all these behind-my-back discussions of how to achieve this goal, completely inappropriate, particularly as I have already talked to JzG about this. Shoemaker's Holiday 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Woogee: Look at the number of recusals, both for the original case acceptance and the motion. That's the only way to see a real glimpse of the underlying politics here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm bad at glimpsing. What underlying politics? Amalthea 17:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. GJC 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody

Announcement

While I am certain that this was not the intent, I feel that this results in a massive disincentive for A Nobody to return to the project - at least in an acknowledged manner. I have no opinion on whether the consequences of the main part of my comment is a good or bad thing, but the addendum is certainly bad. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)