Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 28 August 2013

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

Language question

Thanks for the nice welcome without rules! Over a tea, I have a language question regarding infoboxes, English being not my first language. You said: "I think it is true to say that Andy Mabbett's involvement in editing infoboxes should cease." How should I understand "true" in this line? I is true that Andy helped me more than anybody else to understand infoboxes, what they are and what not (not to summarize the article, for example, only facts, - some opposers seem not to understand that), and how to create a template {{infobox Bach composition}}. I am late to infoboxes and simply find them useful. Why they create such excitement is beyond my understanding. - Over the second cup, please go over Andy's recent contributions in 53 debated infoboxes and tell me precisely what you think has to cease. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should he cease? I thought I had given my reasons. Perhaps I haven't been clear. Could you take another look at what I said and come back here and give me your understanding of what I have said. Not your views on the case, but your understanding of what I said. Just in case I need to be clearer. That would be helpful. SilkTork 14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't ask "why he should cease", I asked about the "true" or "true to say". You mentioned "I took a look at the first six months of 2012", and I wish you would add "I took a look at the first seven months of 2013". (I watch him ceasing many things he formerly did, but you asked me not to give my view.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"True" in that context means "I agree with what has been said". It can be a "that is true, however I also feel this should be taken into consideration", or "true, and here is more evidence to support that". When looking into the contributions of someone who is applying to be an admin at RfA, I'll pick one or two months from the previous year, or at least six months ago. That tends to give me a gauge of what the person is like outside of the near history. The principle is that I am looking at a period of time where the person will likely be behaving normally: neither on their best behaviour because of an impending RfA, nor under their worse behaviour because of the stress that caused the ArbCom case. I saw what I saw, and in the context of this case, and Andy Mabbett's history, it gave me cause for concern. If it didn't give you cause for concern, so be it. We do have a Committee, so it's not just one person's perspective. Committee members, like yourself, will assess what I saw in the context of Mabbett's better, more valuable, behaviour, and make their own judgement. It is something that Committee members do as a matter of cause - we weigh up positive contributions with negative, and come to an assessment of net worth. SilkTork 18:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to explain, I am learning. The comparison with an RfA, however, seems not right, because this case came as a complete unwanted surprise, nothing to prepare for. - Thank you for your time, I will leave you in peace and create content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the ARBCOM posting their votes (and sharing their thoughts) as they cast them so they are viewed by the community (I'm fairly new to the DR part of Misplaced Pages). I'm curious though, are the committee members given a time period when they need to draw their conclusion and post their votes? Something like 24 hours? 96 hours? a week?
While transparency is great, I'm sure it must be a little anxiety-inducing to see the decision-making process slowly evolve over a few days (and votes can be changed!). The cost-benefit balance of transparency, I guess. NewJerseyLiz 00:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What has been posted is a "proposed" decision - that is, it's the suggestion of those Committee members who first looked into the case and put together some findings. The rest of the Committee will - to a greater or lesser extent - have kept an eye on the evidence and workshop as it evolved, and may also have given some comments on the proposed findings; however, this is the point at which the Committee as a whole seriously gets involved and makes a decision as to what is to be done. Some or all members of the Committee may on reflection, agree with the proposed decision, and it's carried without incident. But usually what happens is the proposals are rigorously examined, fine tuned, new evidence brought in, new remedies suggested, and alterations made. The views of the parties involved and other commentators may also impact on how the Committee as a whole accept the proposals. So the posting of the proposed decision is not the end of the case - in many ways, it's actually the start of the case. Or, at the very least, it can be considered the start of the end of the case! SilkTork 09:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC: Trees (poem)

Would you be able to give the FAC nomination for Trees (poem) a second pass. So far, I've resolved a lot of comments, but the article does need a little support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Tied up at the moment. Will try to get to this later today or perhaps over the weekend. Sorry for delay. SilkTork 13:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done a review. I have a number of concerns which I have listed, which prevents me supporting at this time. Please ping me when the concerns have been addressed, and I'll have another look. It's a long and weary process taking an article through FAC isn't it? Sometimes you get so far, and everything looks fine, then someone comes along with even more queries and objections. SilkTork 11:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While in hold

Hi SilkTork, while Meher Baba is still on hold, can you please take a look at what we have done so far and let us know if you see further issues? I have commented about one point that is not up to us to fix. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tied up at the moment. Will try to get to this later today or perhaps over the weekend. Sorry for delay. SilkTork 13:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead still needs work. What is the "one point that is not up to us to fix"? You can make comments on the GAR page, I have it watchlisted, so I will notice. SilkTork 13:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What I think Hoverfish is referring to is the request to explain better the significance of things like Baba's silence and New Life. Hoverfish is right that this is a problem. It is agreed by all in and outside Baba that no one actually knows what the significance of these strange stages and developments of his life meant. He simply always said they had "inner" meaning, and never clarified at all. In fact, his first biographer Charles Purdom wrote: "How often in the course of this book have I had to use the words, 'Baba has not explained'!" (Purdom p. 443). This is what Hoverfish meant that one problem we can't fix ourselves. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, could you be more specific about 'more work'? We did work quite hard on the lead on what you said, and we added the section on teachings and worked to reflect the sections in the article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it later, and do a bit of work on it. At the moment there are loose sentences, and the Legacy section is not appropriately represented. As regards the teachings - what do you recommend as the best guide - both accessible and authoritative? SilkTork 14:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

BWV 35

Sorry, I am not in the mood for tea right now, I feel sick. Please bear with me, looking at one infobox case: Peter Planyavsky. I am the author of that article. I wanted an infobox. Nikkimaria reverted it, more than once. Andy helped me. You write: "That he deliberately parachutes into infobox editing disputes in such contentious areas:" (this one, 13 March 2013) "concerns me deeply." There is so much talk about the wishes of the main author! Please respect my wish and let this not concern you deeply. I want an infobox for "my" article, I still don't have it. What else can I explain for you? The title of the cantata BWV 35 translates to "Spirit and soul become confused", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned for how the community behaves as a whole. That was one incident out of a number that I took into consideration. I will be looking more closely at Nikkimaria's involvement shortly - there are aspects of her behaviour which concern me. SilkTork 16:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That was the incident you pointed out. What did you mean by saying "deliberately parachutes"? If you look at the debated infoboxes you will see that I inserted more than Andy. Where is fairness??? As several pointed out recently, Andy was not liked by content editors who want to control their articles. Is that a reason to ban? As said before:

This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Where is your evidence that Andy is "aggressive". I never found him aggressive. Don't say that's because I am on his side. I wasn't always. I disagreed with his view on Samuel Barber (March 2012), but found him factual, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour even: "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". I don't have time for more right now, but to see labels such as "intimidating", "belligerent", "battleground mentatality" etc. with no evidence apparent to me, simply repetition of experiences from a time past, makes me question why arbitration in the true sense of the word (as I understand it) is not even tried. - This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Stress on "was". I know well what "frustration" means right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Basis for banning

This is inexplicable. Editing in contentious areas is not only permissible but a bedrock of collaborative editing. I raised a question on the talk page, which no one has addressed, about the basis for Fof #4. I'm still waiting for an answer. Is Talk:Cosima Wagner/Archive 1 the answer? I can see nothing there which would justify banning. It's a discussion, and we don't ban good-faith people from the project simply because their point of view is uncongenial to some or their mode of engagement somewhat abrupt. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I probably expressed myself poorly, so I would welcome your views on how I could better explain myself. An editor who is aware that placing infoboxes on certain articles is going to be contentious, and who has previously been sanctioned for doing so, deliberately places an infobox on an article knowing it will be contentious, and does it at a time when it will be the most contentious, then responds as though he is unaware that such an edit would be contentious and challenges others to debate with him. In internet jargon that is called "trolling". Is there some aspect of that that you disagree with? If not, then how best can I explain it so that everyone understands? SilkTork 16:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you entire premise is flawed and amounts to an editing version of the Heckler's veto. What you leave unexamined is why such edits might be controversial. In general, adding and/or editing infoboxes is not controversial. There are over a million of them in use. In this localized case there is staunch, stubborn opposition which amounts to ownership, which the proposed decision half-heartedly acknowledges. If I were to accept your view, a WikiProject could decree that certain types of edits are forbidden and react angrily to anyone from outside project trying to change consensus or simply edit an article. That's not the wiki way. That's not collaborative. Trolling is an accusation that should not be made lightly, though many who oppose Mabbett call him that too. As an arbitrator you're suppose to remain above the fray and not internalize the arguments of one side. Does WP:COMPOSER (or some other wikiproject) now dictate policy? What if I write an article on a composer and I decide to include an infobox? Suppose I'm reverted because of "local consensus"? What am I supposed to do now? Gerda's asked you the same question, and you didn't answer her. If the entire encyclopedia functioned this way it would be utter chaos. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We have various procedures for dealing with such issues: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Users who continually ignore such procedures, and disrupt Misplaced Pages in order to make their point, do tend to end up being blocked or banned. Andy himself has indicated that he is now understanding this. It is a shame that it has come so late after causing unneeded friction and disruption. As regards WikiProjects dictating policy, etc, I think you need only look at the various comments I have made on the PD page and talkpage to see how I feel about that. SilkTork 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

On top of the above, Cosima Wagner again was 2012. It will not happen again. - I was sarcastic in the workshop. I am sick now (see just above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I also gave an example from March 2013. I also took into account Mabbett's behavior and comments during the ArbCom case - including his attitude (which I quoted on the PD talkpage) toward another user during a current bot request. He has appeared largely unrepentant, and seemingly unaware of the problems and resentment he has been causing. SilkTork 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The words I found before: "This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Where is your evidence that Andy is "aggressive". I never found him aggressive. Don't say that's because I am on his side. I wasn't always. I disagreed with his view on Samuel Barber (March 2012), but found him factual, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour even: "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". I don't have time for more right now, but to see labels such as "intimidating", "belligerent", "battleground mentatality" etc. with no evidence apparent to me, simply repetition of experiences from a time past, makes me question why arbitration in the true sense of the word (as I understand it) is not even tried. - This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Stress on "was". I know well what "frustration" means right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel stressed. SilkTork 16:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosima Wagner

Cosima Wagner was not a classical composer and the article isn't even in the scope of WikiProject Composers or WikProject Music. It's a Featured Article and three-quarters of Featured Articles have infoboxes - with a higher proportion common among biographies. Why should anybody be required to assume that adding an infobox - much less merely discussing it - must be treated as controversial? --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it was two days previous to Mabbett's edit a FA of the day, and he is aware that his editing of such articles is controversial. If Mabbett had not learned from that and previous sanctions that his editing was contentious then that is as much a reason to ban him as if he was fully aware. Either way, we cannot have a user continuing to be provocative (either knowingly or unknowingly) after several warnings and sanctions. I think that he needs to rethink his strategy of how to implement the metadata technology on Misplaced Pages. It is clear (to me at least) that his current method is too confrontational to be effective. He needs to slow down and explain the features and benefits a bit more, and pause and wait until people are on board with the features and benefits before rolling out the technology en mass. SilkTork 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder how you think Mabbett will accomplish this if you ban him for a year without sanctioning anyone else. It's also clear given the adoption of Infoboxes throughout Misplaced Pages that in the main people agree with Mabbett and think he's on the right track. There's no evidence of a broader problem. There's plenty of evidence that this is a specific, localized problem. Your proposed decision ignores all that. Mackensen (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what decision have I proposed? SilkTork 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have voted to adopt certain principles, findings of fact, and remedies in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision, one of which is to ban Mabbett for a calendar year. "Your" in this case refers to the committee, of course, but this is hair-splitting. It's certainly not my proposed decision. I'm concerned that you have not addressed my main question, which is how Mabbett is supposed to take this advice onboard if he's been banned for a year, with an uncertain reprieve. If you ban him and it sticks you'll make it very difficult for him to return and be productive. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

People are banned and return. We used to ban for a fixed period and when they returned there was no certainty that they had taken on board the reasons for the ban. We now tend to ban until the person shows on appeal that they have taken on board the reasons for the ban, and indicates willingness to address the issues so that the reasons for the ban do not occur again. SilkTork 18:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that. You're surely aware that you're holding Andy's two previous bans against him in this arbitration. This would make three, and do you really think the other parties in this dispute would do anything other than try to get him banned again? This is a no-win scenario you've crafted that completely ignores the bad faith and disruption on the other side of the discussion. I'm not the first person to point this out and I won't be the last, and I'm disheartened that you refuse to address it. Banning Mabbett doesn't solve that problem, and if you think that's the main issue then I'm concerned that you've missed the forest for the trees. Mackensen (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea in hand (What, no choco cake!) No attacks intended while agreeing with Mackensen above:

• In part, decisions in this case have been made on the erroneous position, and an opinion, that one way of dealing with a contentious article is better than another, that when faced with a contentious article the appropriate way to deal with that article is to walk away rather than try to work through a dispute. This implies tenacity is a fault. There is no policy that says an editor must walk away, and there is nothing in this case that deals with why an article is contentious, that by definition a contentious article is at least two sided. What happened to the other guys. My point is that at the moment when we define contentious appropriately that is multiple sided, emphasis falls on many editors, not one, nor those on one side, and takes the weight of blame off of one person.
• Andy Mabbett has already said he will attempt to amend his bahaviour. Is it punitive to apply sanctions to an editor who has within the case itself said he will amend his behaviour? Is a sanction applied to an editor who has over time improved, and even as the case is ongoing says he will improve behaviour further need a time out to think?This is punitive seems to me.
• Any one using two past arbitrations to support another sanction should in my opinion look very, very closely at the past cases to make sure those past cases are not lending themselves to the creation of a false narrative about an editor. And if an editor has improved since a last arbitration what then?
• Another editor recently emailed me saying because of the way the case had been set out he thought Andy Mabbett was at fault. Only after looking more deeply did he change that position. The point is that this case from the beginning had implicitly identified editors as being in the wrong. Is that, just, or even fair?

Silk Tork: At one point you commented on a remedy that seemed more creative to me, and just, given the points I've made above. I thought such a remedy was indeed thinking outside the box and could open the door in the future for remedies and sanctions that were more nuanced than what is in play now. Such a remedy allows an editor to prove himself. I'm sorry to see you've discarded that idea. I'll try to find the diff. Thanks for your time... just some thoughts on what seems an unfortunate case.(olive (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC))

I still have the notion of a suspended site-ban in the back of my mind, and have not rejected it completely - indeed I was going to comment on that when I supported the site-ban, but felt I was already saying a lot, and thought I should either do something about it (propose the suspended site-ban myself), or shut up about it. Where I am uncertain about a suspended site-ban is in the awkwardness of such a suspended ban, especially as it could be gamed against Andy. If there is a suspended site-ban, and there is a discussion on metadata and infoboxes and Andy is provoked into being incivil, so he ends up being banned, it would have rather more unforgiving consequences: "Look we gave him a chance and he blew it, so what's the point of giving him another chance?". SilkTork 21:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You could insist on him having a mentor starting now. What he needs more than anything is someone to tell him "walk away - it's not worth the pain", because he's glaringly bad at recognising when that point has come. Over the last few weeks, he's often emailed me to ask my opinion on a given debate and most often I've told him to walk away - to his credit has done that each time. I won't offer to be his mentor because I'm never going to be seen as impartial and when this is all over, I'm gone. But if you don't get someone who can help him spot when his best option is to step away - even when he's right - then you might as well ban him forever. That would be a tragedy because the guy really loves Misplaced Pages and still has so much to offer if it could only be channelled into the places where it would be most productive. If you think that the ban that is passing right now will accomplish anything positive, then go ahead; but if you still think there are more productive ways of moving forward, then I'd urge you to speak out. It's not yet too late. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)