| Revision as of 22:14, 24 October 2013 view sourceArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →Motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute: added anchor← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:28, 24 October 2013 view source Arcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →Motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute: remove implemented motionNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Header}} | ||
| {{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
| ==Motion regarding ]== | |||
| {{anchor|Motion}} | |||
| This motion modifies the wording of a single finding of fact in the '']'' case. | |||
| Finding of fact 22, regarding {{user|Baseball Bugs}} is replaced by the following: | |||
| : 22) During the course of the dispute, {{user|Baseball Bugs}} frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct , ; engaged in ] based on his personal view of the article subject's actions ; and needlessly personalised the dispute . | |||
| ''{{ACMajority|active = 10 |inactive =2 |recused = 0 |motion = yes }}'' | |||
| ; Support: | |||
| :#] (]) 01:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 01:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 01:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) <small>No objection to changing 'malice' to 'misconduct'. ] (]) 01:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :# Support per the talkpage thread cited below. I also would not object to replacing the word "malice" with "misconduct" or "misbehavior" or "misusing Misplaced Pages." ] (]) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :# ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :#:I have no issue with the word "misconduct", but then I have no issue with "malice" either. On balance, probably "misconduct" would be a better word. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :#Malice is clearly what BB alleged the administrators were guilty of. ] ]] 10:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :#:Please see below. ] (]) 12:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :#Though I would not support Risker's further modification suggested below, at least not to a word so weak as misconduct. ] 19:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :#:{{ping|Timotheus Canens|Carcharoth|Worm That Turned}} Could you please approve the change, so this can move forward notwithstanding Courcelles' objection? ] ]] 20:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ;Oppose: | |||
| :# | |||
| ;Abstain: | |||
| ;Inactive | |||
| The following arbitrators were inactive for the case and are presumed to be inactive for this motion: | |||
| * Roger Davies | |||
| * SilkTork | |||
| ===Arbitrator discussion=== | |||
| *This is further to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 01:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Regarding the word "malice," AGK and I are both right, because this word is notoriously hard to define and has multiple meanings in both everyday and legal usage, complicated by gradations of meaning between US and UK usage. For example, from our article ], I learn that UK civil caselaw defines "malice" as sometimes including "recklessness in the performance of official duties"; but a US reader would understand "malice" to most likely mean "action taken for the deliberate purpose of harming another." This ambiguity makes it all the more desirable to find a synonym. ] (]) 12:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *As the arbitrator posting the motion, I have no objection to changing "malice" to "misconduct", which I think is as close an approximation as we'll find. Unless there is an objection, I will change the word in about 24-36 hours. Clerks, please do not close this motion before that time. ] (]) 03:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :* I still don't consider such a change to be at all necessary, but in the interests of moving this motion along I won't object. Thanks, ] ]] 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::* My views on this is essentially the same as AGK's. ] (]) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion by others=== | |||
| *"Malice" is about as bad as "Bigotry". "POV-pushing" or "bias towards the subject" would be more in line with what my complaints were about. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Our sister project's definition of ] emphasizes ''intentional harm'' Based only the three diffs presented, BB made no reference to intent; "POV-pushing" seems most apt. <small>]</small> 22:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Even in the British legal sense, taking an action with "malice" means that some harm is foreseen. I don't discern from the diffs that BB accused the alleged POV-pushers of foreseeing that any harm would come from their POV-pushing. POV-pushing is often done without any desire or expectation that anyone would be harmed.] (]) 00:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes. Quite the contrary, I am confident that those users in general thought they were doing the right thing, i.e. acting in good faith. My complaint was that they were incorrect about what the right thing is. An editor can act in totally good faith and be 180 degrees wrong-headed in the process. (And before you say it, I have occasionally fallen victim to that same mindset.) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***Editors sometimes intentionally make stuff up and put it into articles, but that can be for many bad faith reasons other than "malice" (e.g. self-promotion or to advance some other cause). What the diffs show is that BB said other editors were editing with bad faith, not that they were editing with malice (i.e. in a knowingly harmful way). Even if BB had been attributing malice to other editors, that is allowed if "]" (though such an accusation should be made elsewhere at Misplaced Pages than at an article talk page).] (]) 05:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *There are still two other parties which you accuse of discriminatory speech. Even if the evidence is stronger in their case, I don't think that it's prudent in light of ]. The AC can appear as a court or some kind of official organ to uniformed outside observers, which gives more weight to your affirmations; so using such strong legal terms directed at potentially identifiable users should be avoided, if only to diminish the risk of defamation lawsuits. ] (]) 15:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **You make an excellent point. We are very sensitive on Misplaced Pages to terms such as "libel" and "slander". Someone throwing terms like that around, when it's an attempt to intimidate or stifle, will typically end up indef'd until or if they recant. Terms like "discriminatory speech" and "malice" are dangerously close to passing legal judgment on someone, as in accusing someone of committing "hate speech"; or of acting in "bad faith" as opposed to posing what the editor feels (incorrectly) is a valid argument within Misplaced Pages rules. If those expressions are somehow embedded in the Misplaced Pages rules as legitimate accusations to make, they shouldn't be. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***I support this change, but ultimately this is about what you said. I looked again at some of the diffs cited and you accused others of 'twisting facts' and of 'malfeasance'. Given what has been said here, would you phrase that differently if you found yourself in a similar situation in the future? That is the key point that we shouldn't lose sight of here. ] (]) 02:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***:I don't recall saying those specific things, but if I did, then that is indeed an accusation of bad faith. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****You wrote those words -- but one ought note the full sentences involved: ''(Right after they've reverted to the previous version, to partially correct for their malfeasance.) '' which is not exactly what was implied by "accused others of malfeasance" in context. ''despite their blatant violations of the rules about sourcing and their twisting of facts to make a bogus "manual of style" argument'' refers, AFAICT, primarily to the ''nature'' of the MOS argument -- which. AFAICT again, is ''not'' just the blanket accusation of "twisting facts." Bugs is ''definitely'' irascible and prone to making statements more strongly worded than others would, but one ought ''not'' take words out of context to condemn him -- that sort of argument is 'bosh and twaddle" <g>. ] (]) 11:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****:I must have been right much irritated by then. "Malfeasance" seems like overkill. "Bad judgment" would have sufficed. I don't recall the other details, but it likely had to do with what I saw as really stretching the sourcing and MOS guidelines to fit a specific scenario. That's an all-too-common but improper approach: To select specific sources and guidelines to support/justify a particular point of view. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****::Some of those conversations (or raging arguments, if you like) were so fast moving, it is difficult to remember what was meant at the time, I agree. But will you accept that if you can't remember now what you meant back then, then it might be an idea to pause and think before posting something next time? As I said above, would you phrase that differently if you found yourself in a similar situation in the future? That is the question I'm trying to get an answer to here. And the larger picture I keep trying to get people to look at is that there is a time and a place for everything (as Anythingyouwant says below). What may be borderline appropriate on ANI may be unacceptable on the talk page of a BLP. People who want to declaim at length about whether Misplaced Pages is open and welcoming for transgendered people absolutely should be able to do that, but in the ''right place''. Blogging about it off-wiki is fine. Discussing it at the village pump or a discussion page set up for the purpose is fine. Having bitter lengthy arguments on the talk page of the Manning article is the wrong place. If we learn anything from this, it is to try and moderate our discussions better, and those who interject irascible and outspoken comments need to be called out (firstly on their talk page) by the rest of the community as part of keeping such discussions on track. ] (]) 22:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****:::Once it was presented to me, it looked familiar - and definitely too strong. As noted above, I might question judgment, but I would no longer use a dramatic and non-AGF term like "malfeasance". My complaint was, and still is, that sourcing did not back up renaming the article, and that BLP and MOS were being stretched by advocates. That doesn't mean they were acting in bad faith - it just means ''they had it wrong''. They were looking at the subject through sympathetic eyes. That's understandable, and viewed through just that narrow lens, I share that sympathy - but it's got nothing to do with what the subject is notable for, which is committing crimes against America. Advocates had talked about renaming the article clear back in the spring, when the name of choice allegedly was "Breanna". I say allegedly because sourcing was so vague that it couldn't be justified, even by advocates, so it didn't happen. Supposedly the subject's newly-chosen and publicly announced name is mainstream now, so renaming the article is now appropriate. 2 months ago, or 6 months ago, it wasn't. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****::::Thank-you. This discussion has helped, I think, though probably best to leave it there. ] (]) 23:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****:::::You're welcome. I had already had more than enough of this topic by the end of August, and reliving it is painful. Y'all do as you will. It's a subject I would just as soon avoid from now on even there wasn't a topic ban. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****Presumably Bugs will answer Carcharoth, but I'd just like to interject that the venue for Bugs' comments is important. Such comments seem run- of-the-mill at ], and they're also not much of a problem at user talk, but in article talk there may be much more of a problem .] (]) 02:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ''Beige! beige! Paint the ] beige!'' I think we're way past the point of diminishing returns. <small>]</small> 09:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Funny. Think of the countless hours spent on Misplaced Pages debating things like punctuation, spacing, and whether to spell a word with "-or" or "-our". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: What colour should we paint the bikeshed? I think "malice" should be replaced with "bad faith". Somebody save us. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Paint it transparent. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| How about replacing "''accused other participants in the dispute of malice''" with "''accused other participants in the dispute of using Misplaced Pages to advance an agenda and in some cases, he was right.''" I mean, let's be honest here. We all know that Misplaced Pages is abused by POV pushers. This happens everyday in countless topic spaces. I don't edit I/P topic space, but we would all be fooling ourselves to say that there aren't pro-Palestinian editors who advance a pro-Palestinian agenda or that there aren't pro-Israel editors who advance a pro-Israel agenda. Bug's greatest crime appears to be pointing out the same problem in a different topic space. ] (]) 13:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Oddly enough, didn't someone raise the topic-ban question on WP:ANI, and wasn't it dismissed, only to be resurrected at ArbCom? Or am I mis-remembering? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:28, 24 October 2013
Arbitration Committee proceedings
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsNo arbitrator motions are currently open.
Motions
 | Shortcuts
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |