Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 25 September 2006 (→Grudge versus legitimate distrust: add comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Odd editing

My last edit I got a brief falsh of the edit conflict screen, and then it went to the page... please do review it, whomever is interested. - brenneman 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How can this possible work?

I'd suggest, as gently as possible, that if people are not willing to work on a single version of events, that we're all really wasting our time here. I'm dismayed that even getting one paragraph to reflect a plurality of views appears to be too much to ask. I'm also suprised that a member of the commitee should first support a nascent finding, barely minutes old and then withdraw that support when *gasp* someone edits it.

I cast my mind back to the last arbitration that Tony and I were both involved in and the riduclous lengths that were gone to there to ensure that a preferred version of events was reflected in each finding or principle.

Can I ask that the individuals involved (including myself, or course) make a little bit more effort to edit harmoniously? --Aaron Brenneman 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This workshop page is provided for the benefit of the arbitrators. It's probably not a good idea to perform a radical edit on a proposal that at least one arbitrator has accepted. Create an alternative and see if anybody likes it better. This enables the arbitrators to decide between different versions. It's the way it's done on the proposed decision page, except for minor tweaks. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'd refer to the previous arbitration, where the "proposed versions" included such serious spin-doctoring as to begger belief. If we're trying to craft proposals that reflect the actual chain of events, a lá neutral point of view, then there is no need for forking like this. Statements like "It's the way it's done" serve no useful purpose, providing nothing in the way of material support for this deeply illogical method of working. --Aaron Brenneman 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If your preferred version is of merit then it will be copied to the proposed decision and the arbitrators will vote on it. If you have a problem with this way of workshopping, take it up with the arbitrators. This way reduces edit warring and maximises exposure of different viewpoints. The arbitrators decide. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As gently as possible, my previous experiance indicated that Tony Sidaway is the main propenant of this "method" and that other ediotors are happy to work together on finding the nuggets of truth. It's adumbrative to suggest that arbitrators have expressed a preferance for this way or working, and I'd ask everyone as much as possible speak only for them self when editing.

I'd note that a large part of the controversy here surrounds appeals to authority, and editors speaking on behalf of bodies they do not in fact represent. The fact that it's been done twice already on this talk page is illustrative.

Aaron Brenneman 05:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's complete and utter rubbish. Check any proposed decision page and you'll find that the arbitrators compose and vote on parallel versions of the same motion. It's impossible to keep track of who supports what if people insist on making their large-scale revisions overwrite earlier versions of a motion that someone has already commented on. And what's more it's quite unnecessary to do so. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between the usually superficial changes that occur during voting and the unabashed white-washing that has already occured on the workshop page. I shall however cease for now to debate you on this point. - Aaron Brenneman 05:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page. How can there have been any whitewashing if both versions are visible, side by side, on the same workshop page? --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, do you really think that it's a good idea to edit a statement after editors have approved it? How are we supposed to know whether the list of approvals is accurate? IMHO, Tony's proposal of listing an alternative to proposal "n" as "n.1" preserves the existing discussion and places your alternative up for debate. Thanks, TheronJ 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, seeing an arbcom member "approve" a statement minutes after it's birthed looks, well, bad. Are we trying to find some version of the truth, or just the pre-judged approved version? As to the actual utility of the n.1 system, it splits debate. Half the points get addressed in one version, half in another. I'd urge anyone who actually thinks that this works to look over the sections in the older arbitration I've linked in "General discussion" on the main page. This is the voice of rude experiance talking: literally tens of thousands of words get wasted because one editor won't work well with others. - brenneman 15:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fred is only speaking for himself based on the current evidence. I agree that adding separate proposals is better than unilaterally writing. Another option is discussing in the comment section until consensus for new is reached. --FloNight 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this case going

I'm just rambling here, ok? Please treat this section as a sandbox. - brenneman 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is about the RFA, what are the possible outcomes?

1. Re-run the RFA
2. Provide some direction to bureaucrats
3. Clarify limits to bureaucats' authority
4. Endorse the bureaucrats' decision
5. Nullify the RFA
6. Something else?

Note that 2 and three could mean simply saying "they did fine" so everyone knows for next time. - brenneman 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's wider, what else is it about?

1. The blocks placed by Tony Sidaway and JoshuaZ?
2. The cultural problems perceived by Geogre et alia?
3. The longer-term civility issues with named parties?
4. Clarification of the role of clerks
5. Code of conduct for clerks (it's becoming clear that they have to be pretty conservative in their demeanor)
6. What else?

This case is already a mess. Perhaps if we can (amongst ourselves, if the commitee doesn't weigh in) decide where we're trying to go we can work together a little bit to get there. - brenneman 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's arbitration. The Committee can consider any and all of those things. --Tony Sidaway 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly these pages exists so that others can form and present a case to the arbitration commitee. If it can be agreed upon what exactly it is that is being looked at here, the burden can be lightened when it comes time for them to make their decision. As a "clerk" I'd think that you'd be first in line when it came to normal editors working together to present a cogent case.
brenneman 08:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason we have an arbitration committee is to consider cases where there is an otherwise insoluble dispute. If the editors involved could all get together and agree on the nature of the situation and its remedies, there would be no need for an arbitration case. Look through a few recent arbitration cases, paying particular attention to the way the proposed decisions are assembled and arrayed as alternatives. The arbitrators will make their own minds what is important and what is not, and we won't know until they do, at which point they'll tell us by voting on it.

I've added a few bits in. I know which issues I think are unlikely to be addressed, so I'll ignore those and pay attention to the ones I think will be. --Tony Sidaway 09:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us not repeat past mistakes

Count of Edits	
Tony Sidaway    30
Aaron Brenneman 28
Fred Bauder     18
Kirill Lokshin   3
Sjakkalle        2
Dmcdevit         1
Ral315           1
MacGyverMagic    1
Grand Total     84

Unseemly. I'd love to hear how we can avoid having 70% of this whole arbitration being yet another round of the Aaron-and-Tony show. I'd support an injunction saying we could not edit the page more than twice a day, or something similarly Draconian. We've both got lots to say, but the domination of the page by anyone (or two) is a bad thing, as it makes it both less likely that others will contribute and makes it harder for them to be heard when they do.

brenneman 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is matter is beyond trivial. A workshop is supposed to be edited. --Tony Sidaway 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Grudge versus legitimate distrust

Sjakkalle writes:

Is this a grudge, or is it legitimate distrust? Being unfairly blocked indefinitely is a punch in the face, no matter how quickly it is unblocked, and I think it is a bit ureasonable to expect or demand that Giano be happy about seeing the person who did this to him readminned.

What you say is right as far as it goes, Giano is entitled to not forget that Carnildo treated him abominably, and his judgement at RFA may be strongly influenced by that--that's a perfectly legitimate reason to distrust a potential admin.

However Giano's feelings have, you can tell from the way he expresses himself, in themselves become problematic. He accused Lar of "insulting" him simply because, not really understanding the full background, Lar described Carnildo's actions in coming back to the community as "brave". .

What Misplaced Pages is not also tells us not to treat Misplaced Pages like this. It isn't a battlefield, or a place to nurse grudges. We can make allowance for hurt feelings that may influence perceptions, but is that really something we have to do forever? This RFA was over six months after the block. This is the reason why I emphasize that what we have here is a grudge. There is certainly legitimate reason for Giano to doubt Carnildo's reliability, but this doesn't excuse Giano's behavior. Giano's failure to follow dispute resolution over what was clearly a very large and ongoing issue for him probably contributed to the problem. --Tony Sidaway 09:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But Giano felt that he got a second punch in the face when the bureaucrats apparently disregarded the people in the "oppose" column and promoted anyway. Tony, when you blocked Giano, I know you intended it as a cool-off, that Giano needs to take a break from editing because he is angry and posting comments without fully thinking them through. But to Giano it probably felt like a third punch, and the result was another round of angry rebukes. Giano's behavior has not been the most diplomatic we have seen, and may well have contributed to the problem, but he is almost certainly not the only guilty party. I am more inclined to think the whole thing is a chain of events which has been allowed to escalate. It goes something like this:

1. A perceives he is treated unfairly and speaks out, in an annoyed tone.
2. B thinks the complaint was uncivil and says "Hey be civil".
3. Hurt at being told that the comment was incivil, while the main message of the complaint was ignored (it doesn't matter if the message was ignored or not, as long as it was perceived to be ignored), A says back "You didn't bother reading the complaint did you? All you care about is making things look civil."
4. B thinks the last comment was horrendously incivil and says "You need to cool down and stop making personal attacks, or I'll get someone to block you."
5. A feels that B is threatening him and responds with...

There are many points here where this chain could be broken, but the root cause is both sides are on the defensive. Both feel that their dignity has been compromised and that the best way to defend it is by fighting those who have attacked him first (and of course, "started it"). A feels wounded by the original perceived injustice, and then by being told that he is an incivil personal attacker. B feels wounded by being told that he is an ignorant busybody.

Perhaps warning someone by citing WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA is a bad idea... it is better perhaps to appeal to their good sense ("I understand that you're upset about this, and I see your point. I disagree with you because...") Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I rarely quote Wikpedia policies at people, and when I do, I take the trouble to explain it myself. Just hurling alphabet soup at someone says: "You've been bad. I don't have time to explain. Go and read this page.". It comes across as very rude. More discussion is needed, not curt quoting of Misplaced Pages policies at each other. Carcharoth 17:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for evidence might help

Aaron and Tony, perhaps if you wait for evidence to be put on the evidence page this case would be more focused. ;-) FloNight 10:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah, call me idealistic, but I thought that first we defined the problem together and then we scrounged up diffs to support what everyone already knew. This whole "side by side competing statements" thing combines the efficiency of the post office with the warmth of the tax department. It's just a terrible way to work. But, per suggestion, I've dumped a bunch of diffs onto the evidence page. Please do edit them. - brenneman 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL - superb turn of phrase.!--Mcginnly | Natter 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to not be cuddly Fred Bauder 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo

I presume from comments on his talk page that User:Carnildo is aware of this RfAr. I am also aware that he is not a named party in this RfAr, but that his recent RfA is a subject of discussion here. I can see the advantages and disadvantages of Carnildo choosing to stay away from this discussion. But can someone briefly explicate/confirm whether, as he has not technically been named and informed, any conclusions here can concern him. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)