Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Blnguyen
2. Charles Matthews
3. Deskana
4. FT2
5. Jdforrester
6. Jpgordon
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Matthew Brown (Morven)
9. Newyorkbrad
10. Paul August
11. Sam Blacketer
12. Thebainer

Inactive:

1. FayssalF
2. UninvitedCompany

Recused:

1. FloNight

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Injunction

Goodness me, that injunction would be a mad idea, as it would give free uncivility reign to Giano II if none of the 15 Arbs were online. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, the committee of admins idea that got 3 votes could be adopted as a temporary injunction but no, I don't think it would give free reign to Giano. Periods when they are not online are short and it would go harder for Giano if he was warned not to repeat because "we were going to tell". ArbCom members could publicly delegate their authority as well. So I see this as a workable measure. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest to the committee that, in the interests of transparency, any such request for blocking be posted on WP:AE or another page designated by Arbcom, and that any such authorisation to block be posted on-wiki, and be specific with respect to exactly the reason for the block? Risker (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it has always been an unwritten rule that you should not block Giano, why not make it official? _{1 != 2} 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not recused?

I'm amazed to see FT2 is still acting as an active arbitrator on this case. While I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Arbcom as a whole at this hour, and the question whether FT2 should remain part of it is obviously unresolved, I would have thought it a no-brainer that he ought to at least recuse himself from this case. Come on guys, everybody can see that this case is a direct spin-off of the FT2/OrangeMarlin/Arbcom mess. Giano was blocked for negative remarks in a discussion of FT2, on FT2's talkpage. That's what triggered the whole thing. I mean, seriously, how more blatantly involved can you get? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This case isn't about Giano... Viridae^Talk 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are speaking in jest or not. Please tell me you are; my irony meter must be out of order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It might have resulted from events around Giano, but is in no way related to his behaviour. Instead (at least as far as the request went) was about the behaviour of those named in the case title. Viridae^Talk 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano's only need to even be in this case would be to vacate or modify the IRC ruling, which could be done there as well as here. So could the temporary injunction. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Though Giano was named as a party on the initial request for arbitration, this case really has little to do with Giano. At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod, but see above. I hope ArbCom chooses to modify the restriction, either via the IRC case motion, or via a new one here. Other than that, absolutely agree. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This "case" without a finding and a remedy that would not include Giano would be a major surprise to me. Not that surprises are rare, but all surprises I have got from this arbcom were bad surprises despite I long since lost my pink glasses. --Irpen 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the comments above miss the point of my initial posting. My point wasn't about Giano; I don't care if he is part of this or not. My point was about FT2. The whole kerfuffle was triggered in the immediate context of the FT2/Arbcom mess, and it is reasonable to believe that everybody's conduct, including that of the wheelwarring admins, was also motivated by that context. Therefore FT2 should recuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the connection personally. _{1 != 2} 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And was not I right to not expect surprised from ArbCom? [1]  ? --Irpen 08:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That Giano criticized FT2 is irrelevant - there is ample precedent for the view of "you cannot select arbitrators for recusal by making personal attacks against them and then declaring them biased." Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Avruch

Is it really fair to issue a remedy for Avruch? He made one sarcastic comment - of course, it didn't help the situation, but I'm not seeing any pattern of abuse that requires him to be officially admonished by the arbitration committee. If there was a long standing problem, I could totally understand, but one comment (that wasn't even that bad) doesn't strike me as grounds to be reprimanded. Just a thought anyway.... Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall a situation, before Avruch caused it. Giano (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But this isn't about the minor situation that led to your block - this is about the admins that wheel warred over it. Minor infringements by yourself and Avruch shouldn't be ruled upon here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, how very touchingly naive you are Ryan. Well I shall be accepting zero of the findings of this show trial, just as I did on the last occasion. Others must do as they see fit. However, I am pleased the Arbcom has the time on their hands to discuss these "minor" matters, and feels there is nothing more demanding of their time. Giano (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you view an "admonishment" as the Arbcom equivalent of a trout-slapping, then I think it is fair to say that Avruch deserves it for causing this mess. If it hadn't elevated itself into wheel warring we wouldn't be here. But it did, and we are, and it is certainly fair for Arbcom to say that what Avruch said was inappropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, admonishment is the most severe "warning" that arbcom can give out. Maybe a reminder would be better in these circumstaces, given that he's got no previous history of causing problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, Avruch now realises that it is best not to be a stirrer, and if one does want to stir a pot, then beware of the fat hitting the fire. Giano (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I've never paid much attention to hypothetical distinctions between "warnings", "reminders", "admonishments", etc. Perhaps you can discuss it with the members if you think it is really important. Though with my above comment in mind, it would be equally fair for Arbcom to comment on the inappropriateness of Giano's comments with respect to triggering this matter. Dragons flight (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::::"I think it is fair to say that Avruch deserves it for causing this mess." If he is being admonished for 'starting' this mess, then why is the action that he is being admonished for an edit that he made well after this mess was started? It appears otherwise - that the if the finding passes, some members of the ArbCom have zero sense of humor about the oft cited truism "There is no cabal.". And if such references are automically admonishable, the ArbCom better make a ruling to delete WP:CABAL-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have your timeline confused. Avruch said [2], Giano replied [3], and WMC cited Giano's reply as the reason for issuing the first block in this sequence. [4]. Avruch's sarcastic comment directly precipitated the current dispute. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's putting the cart before the horse to blame Avruch for Giano's reply and WMC's block. Giano had a choice about whether to reply; WMC had a choice whether to issue a block, but Avruch had no control over either of those actions. I think it's an incredible break with precedent for Arbcom to even mention an editor over a single comment. Meh, I suppose if Arbcom wants to keep randomly punishing people this is sensible. This shouldn't have come this far in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly. It is utterly unbelievable to see Avruch, an established user in good standing with no history of conduct issues, singled out for ArbCom-sanctioned criticism as the result of a single moderately sarcastic comment. The Committee can't really possibly believe that these unpredictable, seemingly random lightning strikes are a good idea, can they? Attaching blame to Avruch here is like saying that World War I was Franz Ferdinand's fault. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to [Bizarro World - in the same case where one user flat out calls another an "idiot" and gets protection from the ArbCom, another makes a standard joke and is admonished for "incivility". ArbCom members should quickly and unanimously vote 'oppose' to remove such silliness from the air. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[5] ([6]). Avruch 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Regrettable. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it that FT2 is the only one who does not understand the common sense norm behind principle 4? "What is at issue here is that the "Block-uncivil-extend block-uncivil again" cycle is predictable, and to an extent, needs allowing for." Excuse me? Then in 4.1 he goes to say "this should ideally not be done" but if it is, oh well??
• It's really very simple - whether it was the reasoning behind the initial block, or you're unblocking and then issuing a new block (such as an extension of the initial block) because of incivility directed at yourself, it's completely unacceptable, period. It's a fundamental principle, and I'm concerned that this is the second time he's having trouble getting this.
• I was going to reserve this for my analysis of ArbCom, but this is one thing that I'm going to point out here first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My own interpretation here, but I think he's finding the current wording of Principle 4 too vague. And looking around AN and AN/I, I've seen admins challenging this: drawing a finer distinction between simply blocking someone who attacks you, and blocking someone who you've been involved in a conflict with (the logical absurdity is a vandal who insults every single active admin by name, so that none of them can block them).

Further, I think he's abstaining because he'd like to see a better defined principle, and he seems to suggest one focusing more on the block-attack-extend cycle, rather than rehashing the principle as listed here. I don't take this to suggest he actually disagrees with this principle, simply that there's a better way to phrase it in regards to this case. --InkSplotch (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in the case where someone aggressively tries to game the system by being incivil to every admin so that they can't block, they'd certainly be up for a ban by the community. We do have other measures to deal with them. That aside, I don't think 4.1 is very well written like a principle - seems more like something you'd write on a guideline page. It doesn't seem to fit with the other principles. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point that even if someone is incivil to Admin A, that admin can still block for incivility to Admin B. Ideally, a totally uninvolved admin will do this instead, but I take "DefendEachOther" to mean take action if you see others being mistreated, but similar to rely on others to defend you and not to try and defend yourself. You just need to make clear that the block is specifically for a different act of incivility, not for the act of incivility against you yourself. Say that in the block log and on the talk page, and stick to that line, and you should be backed up all the way. Saying that you are explicitly ignoring the act of incivility against you is optional. Vague acts of incivility or attacks such as "all admins are fascists" should be ignored as venting. Carcharoth (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

True...I did miss that in my above response. I just think, depending on the situation, incivility against sysops should be ignored as venting in the same way as the vague acts of incivility. I think it's rare for editors to be incivil out of the blue @ certain sysops. But there is a situation where (and why) such incivility occurs in the first place - when a sysop has given a final warning to an editor, or used admin tools on the editor, or on someone or something relating to the editor (but sifting the incivility aside, there might be some merit in whatever it is the editor is saying, and that bit shouldn't be ignored). Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But you can't legislate against people taking affront. What I would say is that if person A was incivil to person B, and person B took affront, and then person A apologised and person B continued to take affront and called for a block of person A, then I would (usually) tell person B to calm down and for both to just walk away from each other for a few hours. Not everyone has the temperament to either ignore incivility, or to restrain themselves from being incivil, and that needs to be taken into account. It is also important to sometimes back up another admin, even if you think their actions were harsh. I would have asked Giano, for instance, to just walk away after the first block, and then I would have talked to WMC and Avruch and tried to get them to handle things differently if this happened again (ie. not insert yourself into a dispute [WMC], to be more careful when being sarcastic [Avruch], to not go running to WP:AE [Avruch], to be more aware of other discussions [WMC], to be more aware of the background [WMC], to revert the incivility [WMC], and so on). I did leave a note on Avruch's talk page, but most of this had gone down before I was aware of it. I also wouldn't have handled things the way MZMcBride or Geogre did, but this might just be different styles of handling such things. Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

True.... Overall, principle 4 does seem more appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So

After less than twenty four hours we have a proposed decision all written up and ready to be voted on, and yet after almost two months (!) we have nothing here? What's so urgent about this case? Naerii 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there are things that arbitrators are eager to have done and this case gives them an opportunity. That other case is much more difficult to solve to their plasure as well as to finally "address the problems of IRC to be done at a later point", or come clean from FT2 mess that they can't do for so long because they are still "busy intensely discussing". So busy they are discussing what to do re OM fall back that they took this case with a rare expediency, discussed it to a degree that they are ready with a decision to vote. --Irpen 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they posted a final report about such issues already, Irpen, on the OM ArbCom page. SirFozzie (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that "report" and since it happens to be the same bunch of a carefully crafted bunch of evasive talk as we have seen before it cannot be persuasive. And before anyone would go along the "you will never be satisfied until you like the result" line, please take time to read this "report" yourself and find there anything but meaningless generalities. --Irpen 07:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not take thebainer's writing of proposals as evidence that the committee is near closing this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WMC/Wheel-warring

I just happened to notice that while there are findings of fact aimed at WMC's inappropriate extension of a block aimed at Giano, and then inappropriately reapplying the extended block (hmm.. sounds like reinstating the block after an unblock without discussion or consensus, no matter how dubious the unblock, constituted wheel warring, under ANY definition), the only proposed remedy is that he is not to have any further administrative action against Giano. Do you really think after touching Wikipedia's third rail (thanks, Risker for the reference, it fits!) and with the proposed remedies modifying the sanction against Giano, he'd WANT to have any further contact with him? So what we have here is the one person who EVERYONE can agree wheel-warred on this, again, that one line that should never be crossed by an administrator, and we're going to do... nothing? Maybe I'm jumping the gun here and there's more remedies coming, but there's a glaring hole here as it stands. SirFozzie (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for time

Per my pledge to stand up on behalf of fair process for any and all Wikipedians, I respectfully request that the arbitrators refrain from voting on this case until all of the parties have had adequate time to present evidence. That is, at least one week from the opening date or if all of the named parties agree that they are ready for voting to commence sooner. Named parties who are ready to see this case voted upon may sign below. Durova^Charge! 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Signatures:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I guess. I mean, I haven't paid any attention, as no one has tried to mediate anything with me. In fact, other than notifications of tribunal meetings, I haven't been asked anything, spoken to by a non-automated process, or anything, and I actually do things to celebrate holidays other than look obsessively at the teapot of storms. Geogre (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
3. William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano's response is here.[7] Durova^Charge! 08:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

• What additional evidence can there really be to provide? The facts of the case are pretty clear. Unless you mean "evidence" as "giving an opinion", which seems to be what the evidence page is mostly used for these days. Naerii 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Pointless obstruction. The relevant facts are in logs for all to see. Friday (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from negative assumptions. After my own case, which went to voting in under 24 hours with five arbitrators going on record before I could assemble half my evidence, I decided to speak up and request adequate time on behalf of other Wikipedians. Prior to this case, I did the same in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62 although I did not know Vanished User, and Physchim62 had been openly hostile toward me before the case opened. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33 I supported Giovanni's request for additional time, even though I had previously blocked him indefinitely. This is absolutely not pointless obstruction; it is principle. See below.

From Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Case handling:

Cases are sometimes allowed to take considerable time, even if (apparently) obvious. This is because often over time, if allowed to stand, new material will be added that otherwise would not have come to light. For this reason an arbitration case will often be allowed to stand open for a number of weeks, to ensure maximal opportunity for new information to be added.

Durova^Charge! 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree..so long as more time doesn't mean that everyone with an axe to grind from previous matters shows up here to get some sort of "revenge". Cases open to long sometimes become festering dungheaps of "diffs" that are cherry picked to ensure that punitive actions are taken. But this is moving really fast....[8]--MONGO 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the key is if we leave this open long enough someone will lose their cool, do something stupid, and thereby extend the case in new and fascinating directions. I understand Durova's concern here, but I think it's misplaced; long cases prolong the suffering for all involved. Arb cases are like mosquito bites; people can't help but scratch them. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If the named parties want voting to proceed this quickly they can say so with their signatures here. Ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. Durova^Charge! 00:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a complicated case factually; indeed, it's fairly straightforward, and even the parties agree on the substance of what happened. The question here is rather the characterisation of those facts: what do they constitute? In that kind of case, I don't see a problem in getting something out there that people can work from. I've posted what's a fairly minimalist proposed decision, and I fully expect that other arbitrators will offer their own proposals, and that people will continue making proposals on the workshop page. Having a proposed decision posted in no way means that minds are closed. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding with that thoughtful comment. What I ask, basically, is that the Committee consider the situation you faced last weekend and extend the same understanding patience you asked of the community. If I've been informed correctly, at least some of the arbitrators had prior engagements and weren't very available on a moment's notice. I trust you all proceeded as quickly as you reasonably could; the named parties here are all dedicated volunteers and we can trust them to do the same. Durova^Charge! 03:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting too soon simply gives the impression that due process is not being followed, and serves to prejudice the case. Rushing to voting has put the arbcom in disrepute multiple times. My case, the MatthewHoffman case is still discussed, given that the rush to vote and desysop me, before I had put up a word of evidence other than to say I would need some time due to illness and upcoming exams. The Orangemarlin controversy just this month centred around not allowing the user to provide evidence. Give the user at least a week to provide and polish his defense, or there is a strong risk putting arbcom in disrepute. Indeed, I'd say that a week minimum should be enshrined as an arbcom standard. I would therefore ask that Bainer deletes all proposals, or at least moves them to the Workshop, which would be an appropriate place for early thoughts on the case. - User:Vanished user 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That case dragged on for months; few cases were less of a rush to judgment, IMO. We left things open for a long time in an attempt to allow you to provide more evidence. I feel that you are holding on tightly to the belief that you were hard done by rather than accepting that you used admin tools inappropriately.

That proposals are posted does not mean that our minds are closed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, that case was suspended for the conduct RFC that ought to have preceded it. Despite being conducted on highly prejudicial terms, with an open arbitration case and several arbitrators already on record in favor of desysopping, the community's response was solidly in Vanished User's favor. It was clear that he would have no trouble passing RFA a second time--and how many administrators who actually use the tools could achieve that? The only effect this had on the Committee's decision was that when it proceeded with desysopping it attempted to keep him under the Committee's supervision, yet the decision itself was so poorly written that it did not actually prevent him from seeking the bit again by normal means. From start to finish it was a textbook example of how not to operate an arbitration case. In the Navy they study spectacular disasters for the purpose of "lessons learned". Rather than excusing that one, the Committee would do well to follow the Navy's example. Durova^Charge! 09:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

After the committee had piled on to vote to desysop me before I had provided any evidence, had ignored dozens of emails I sent, refused to give me time to do exams - which cost me at least a couple grade levels - and after the Finding of Fact #9 incident, where half-a-dozen people were shouting that the diffs Kirril provided did not back the conclusions, to self-righteously declare that my failure to then use Christmas to provide evidence is a sign that this is all my fault is ridiculous. I will also note that I made every effort to learn from the experience up until the Finding of Fact #9 incident. I encourage anyone interested to read the case. User:Vanished user 13:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page the clerk placed Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. I did rather assume from that the the arbs would wait for the evidence before voting, that being a kind of due process thing, and I had hoped that they had learnt from the OM case that due process was a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I agree mostly with what has been posted as the proposed decision, I still have some points to follow up. I was intending to do so this weekend. I agree with the calls here to allow at least a week for evidence submission. One of the points I want to make is that blocks of the sort WMC carried out rarely work if there has been little or no interaction previously. I am not aware that Giano and WMC have ever edited in the same areas, or "talked" to each other on-wiki. The point being that if you don't know an editor, it is best to start a more general discussion, or open dialogue with the editor, rather than reaching straight for the block button. I would like to be able to contrast the different approaches taken by WMC, Avruch and WJBscribe on seeing Giano's edit (there are presumably other people who saw the edits and did nothing at all on-wiki): WMC blocked; Avruch prepared an arbitration enforcement post, and WJBscribe reverted the edit and left a warning. Does no-one see a problem here in the way three different editors and admins can chose three such widely varying reactions? Admin actions can't always be consistent, but this is a very wide disparity. Admins need to try and ensure reactions to types of incidents are broadly similar, or at least demonstrate awareness of the alternatives (something I'm not sure WMC has demonstrated). Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We now have Having a proposed decision posted in no way means that minds are closed and That proposals are posted does not mean that our minds are closed. This is excuse making, and deliberate obfustication, rather reminiscent of the arbcomm non-statements in the ongoing FT2 affair. We're complaining about you *voting* before the evidence is posted. No one is going to have any confidence in your respect for process, or of your having learnt anything from the FT2 mess, if you're prepared to vote before the evidence is submitted. The votes made need to be struck out. Or is this going to be another FT2 "we didn't need to hear the evidence"? If thats really so, can we all stop pretending, and just let you get on with it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please

I am very sympathetic to Giano in general, but may I say that an ArbCom resolution deploring sarcasm would be bloody stupid an absolutely brilliant idea. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to clarify whether this is sarcasm or not... I think a better principle would be that sarcasm can be unhelpful and should only be used with care. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, come on everyone? Sweep the whole mess under a rug & pretent none of it happened. Agree to disagree & go your seperate ways. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility is important, but I think that findings which further restrict the already narrow range of acceptable expression on Wikipedia are counterproductive. If someone can't handle an occasional mildly sarcastic comment, then they need a thicker skin - or at least the empathy not to consistently dish them out. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to Thebainer/arbs - decorum principle

Didn't we take "trolling" out of the list on more recent cases (eg; footnoted quotes)? There was some concern with the use of that term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, "we"?

Anyway, it was taken out of that specific case because it wasn't applicable; in general, however, it's still appropriate.

James F. (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm...yeah right. I really shouldn't need to regurgitate the fact that principles are intended as absolute, and that it hasn't been applicable in some cases it has been used in. Nor the inappropriate way the term has been used by parties in this case. My bad, huh? (Please think again.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 1 (any five administrators version)

Even if you don't think it would happen in any other case, you must know that five administrators are going to all agree to block Giano, in the midst of a massive discussion in which significantly more than five disagree thus starting the biggest wheel war in history with one side screaming "it only needs five of us" and the other screaming "but consensus!". Seriously, if you mean five administrators beats everything else then say so very clearly and if you don't then say that very clearly instead. It's going to happen. There is a small chance that none of the five will mention having agreed it on IRC. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I do disagree with the above comment, as I know that I am an administrator and I tend to oppose blocking/banning wherever reasonable, I also think that it might be better if the phrasing were adjusted in such a way that non-administrators of the Committee's choice might be considered as well. We have at least a few former admins who have either voluntarily given up that status or lost it on the basis of matters which might be unrelated to those of this case, and I think it might be a good idea to at least potentially include them, as well as any senior, trusted editors who have never sought adminship, in the potential pool as well. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to specify which version I meant but I still confused the issue. I meant 1 (currently the bainer's first choice). Not 1.1. 1 is the "any five administrators" version not the "designated administrators" version. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP above. Given that blocks of Giano regularly invite the comments of 15-20 admins and senior editors each time, it's entirely conceivable that consensus would be to not block but five admins of the group would favour blocking and...well... In fact, I have no doubt I could find five administrators right this minute who would block Giano indefinitely, without any further activity on his part and without a moment's hesitation, as long as they knew they'd all hang together. If a remedy along this line is going to pass, I am afraid it would need to be designated administrators and/or Arbcom members. Risker (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• "the biggest wheel war in history with one side screaming "it only needs five of us" and the other screaming "but consensus!" - this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Well, OK, it is still funny, but if it ever happened it would also be a very sad day. Carcharoth (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You raise a very good point 87; my intention was that consensus be the operative requirement, consensus in a discussion involving at least five administrators. A discussion at arbitration enforcement is the kind of thing I envisage. I've altered the wording; does this resolve the ambiguity? --bainer (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks 87.254.72.195 (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thought though, suppose some variant of 1 passes (1, 1.1 or 1.2) and then the next day an administrator unaware of any of this sees a comment by Giano that he regards as uncivil, and blocks him. Someone then points out this arbitration. What is the correct next step by the administrator - unblock and follow the special procedure, leave blocked while trying to get agreement through the special procedure, or say "I wasn't acting under the Arbcom restrictions, it's just like any other block"? Should the proper response be evident from the remedies or is it better to rely on sound administrator judgment? 87.254.72.195 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Kirill Lokshin to remove himself from this case

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop#Request for Kirill Lokshin to remove himself from this case. --Irpen 08:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Since you only involve yourself in a certain class of arbitration case, you may not be aware that in a great many cases, the only sensible, coherent evidence is that offered by the arbitrators. Often in cases which have likely fallen under your particular radar, the evidence presented by the parties is so tendentious, so steeped in the original dispute, or simply so incoherent, that the only decent evidence and summaries are those offered by the arbitrators on the workshop or proposed decision page. It is simply routine. Thatcher 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thatcher, respectfully request a refactor to something more genteel. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, my error. I should have said, "You truly are a very stupid ignorant person Irpen!" Thatcher 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • • Oohh, nice, Thatcher! First you describe Irpen's edit as bullshit—that possibly wasn't "genteel", but not particularly incivil, either. And then you "refactor" it into an egregious comment on Irpen the person. This is an excellent illustration of what Irpen was saying earlier—I forget where—about incivility residing in the kind of claim made, and not in the use of ungenteel words. Outstanding, really. You have enlightened us. I hope Irpen will enjoy the pedagogy rather than resent the insult. If he cries Personal Attack, you can expect Bishzilla to come warn you. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
        • Thatcher, I earnestly request that you reconsider. One of the findings in this case has to do with decorum. It does not bode well for the case clerk to be setting this example. Please refactor, or else I must request your recusal. Durova^Charge! 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Bish, I agree with your sentiment (although not exactly with the expression of it). Thatcher, please respond. This isn't heading in a good direction. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Alas, my remark seems to have gone over the heads of its intended audience. I apologize for any offense I have caused. Thatcher 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
              • No, no, Thatcher. It was the fucking refactoring, not the remark. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
                • • Irony is dead. Thatcher 23:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
                • (sigh) Okay Thatcher, I'm going to submit a formal request for your recusal and replacement. Bishonen, please refactor. I asked it of him so I have to ask it of you too. Please set the example you wish others to follow. Durova^Charge! 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Thatcher isn't even the clerk here, it's User:Daniel - Thatcher is commenting as any other editor. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • Right you are; I apologize for the misapprehension. Durova^Charge! 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
                      • In fact, I have resigned entirely as an Arbitration clerk. Thatcher 23:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Thatcher, some cases are too complex for evidence to be presented in a week. It is a matter of scope. If this case was restricted to Geogre and WMC, then it would be simple. Since Kirill seems to have widened the scope to involve instances of incivility on the part of Giano going back several months, it may be necessary to do some very deep digging and present a list of all the incivility directed at Giano, and the "campaigns" directed against Giano. Not in the sense that Giano means it (I would be the first to admit that he goes over the top sometimes), but in the sense that others have come to see that people rush to "take sides" when Giano is involved. If I, or someone else, presented evidence to this effect, Thatcher, could you and others (including the arbitrators) genuinely promise to read it carefully and assess it objectively, or would it largely get ignored? If the arbitrators pledge to actually read and assess the quality of the evidence, then they might get a better quality of evidence. On a more general point, I think the matter of scope has long been a problem in arbitration cases. I think this could be solved by having a "scope" page, where people can indicate what they think the scope of the case should be, or where the evidence is leading, and arbitrators can do the same. I can think of several other directions that the scope of the case could be widened in, but it seems only arbitrators really have any chance of successfully widening the scope of a case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • But your comments have nothing to do with Kirill recusing. Thatcher 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It seems I wasn't clear enough. My comments were a direct response to what you said:

        "Often in cases which have likely fallen under your particular radar, the evidence presented by the parties is so tendentious, so steeped in the original dispute, or simply so incoherent, that the only decent evidence and summaries are those offered by the arbitrators on the workshop or proposed decision page."

        What has that to do with Kirill recusing? Either you are saying Kirill is the only one presenting objective evidence (and I hope you are not saying that others presenting evidence in this case are "tendentious", "steeped in the original dispute", or "incoherent"?), or you are saying that this is not the case here, and that others can present evidence, in which case, I ask why Kirill has to present this evidence? Surely there are enough people that can present evidence that can be seen as objective? I would also respectfully point out that you (though you are not alone in this) have chosen to ignore my comments about case scope. Determining the scope of a case is one of the most powerful tools (apart from actually making a proposal and voting on it) at an arbitrator's disposal. It needs to be used judiciously and with care. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I only intended to indicate that the Arbitrators have never been constrained to only respond to evidence presented by others. Kirill is perfectly entitled to analyze and propose anything he wants, including but not limited to item relating to Giano rather than WMC or Geogre. It might be useful, for example, to create a case record that explains the background, so that the case stands on its own without requiring links to other cases for context. Or perhaps, recognizing the difficulty of blocking Giano for cause, he is laying the groundwork either for special enforcement or for a ban, either of which would solve the problem of wheel warring over future disputed blocks. Whatever the case, he is entitled to make proposals even if they do not flow from the evidence currently presented on the evidence page, and suggestions to the contrary are not informed with respect to longstanding arbcom practice and procedure. Thatcher 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not too far above here, we have a request for FT2 to recuse. This is met with by Thebainer saying "At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions". Now Kirill is making findings with respect to Giano. What's wrong with this picture? Franamax (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Man, arbcom really is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they make decisions on the mailing list it's a secret trial. If they hash it out on wiki they're blasted for inconsistency. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a case of being objective and not cherry-picking the evidence and ignoring the wider picture and context. I haven't yet examined Kirill's list in detail, but the "I think FT2 you have become rather fixated on me, your fixation is now bordering on obsession, and I'm wondering if it is healthy" comment, for one, really has to be seen in its proper context to be understood. There are also some points here where private evidence submission to ArbCom will be needed, though I'd rather not go into details here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Not to step on Carch's point, with which I wholeheartedly agree, yes inconsistency is an issue here, and no, mailing list discussions are not excluded. This case was entered into as a simple case of examining the surrounding admin actions, and the assurances were that it would be simple and quick, the logs and a limited set of diff's were open for all to see, no need for unholy delays of all of one whole week. Now we're seeing a whole new picture, the only significant sanction in the Proposed Decision so far is against Geogre, in the face of WMC's evident wheel-warring, and Kirill has now proposed a finding of fact on the Workshop page that bypasses Evidence and is novel theory introduced by a supposedly impartial arbitrator. At the very least, if Kirill's work goes forward, then FT2 should recuse. Further, if Kirill is presenting their own interpretations, they should not also be judging those interpretations. Anything less calls into question the propriety of this proceeding. Right now, it looks an awful lot like an attempt to solve the Giano problem, not the admin-conflict problem. Franamax (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If, in fact, there is a Giano problem, there is surely no time like the present to solve it. The procedural issues you are trying to raise here seem utterly vacuous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • This is looking like a tactic now Phil, just tell me I make no sense and leave it there, answer no substantive issues - bing! point scored I suppose. Leaving that aside, you are completely right - if there is a perceived Giano-problem and the opportunity arises, lets get the bugger solved. Niceties such as solving the actual subject of the case, the admin misconduct (remember that?), be damned - to hell with COI, recusals, prior statements of restraint or anything else, squash that bug. Would it also be vacuous of me to point out that the eyes of a large portion of the community are on ArbCom members right now, waiting for some sign that the community can still hold faith? Franamax (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          • As I have said, being the target of personal attacks does not mandate a recusal. The arguments for recusals have been specious. Similarly, your inflammatory rhetoric seems unhelpful - I see no evidence that admin misconduct and other issues are being dropped. Decisions frequently get written in dribs and drabs. There is no reason to suspect otherwise that I see. If you have concrete evidence that FT2, Kirill, or anyone else has a COI regarding this matter, please present it. Otherwise, you are raising objections with no substance in lieu of the real arguments - did Giano make personal attacks? Does he repeatedly do so? Has he been warned about this? Is there other visible misconduct? How rampant, and how serious? Have those parties been warned? Those are real questions that have genuine weight. The rest is bread and circuses, and contributes to the problem, not the solution. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Hmm, inflammatory? That was my mild rhetoric, so thank I guess :) Decisions do get written in dribs, but if you wish I can point you to an Arb Q&A where they speak of a main drafter of the case - so it seems the initial poster to Proposed Decision may be the one selected as the lead. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that those points will be salient ones, especially when some time goes by without alternate proposals forthcoming. That speaks more to confusion around transparency of ArbCom deliberations though, and the Q&A is quite illuminating on that subject - maillist vs. Arbwiki vs. Workshop vs. Decision.
            • As far as concrete evidence goes, right off the bat I would point to: FT2 - this, looking at 18:20, 19 Apr08. From this you would have to work back through the links at the extensive attempt that FT2 made to "deal with" Giano, what appears to me to be an attempt to analyze Giano's motivations and posit ways to counter them. This was in-depth involvement going beyond target-of-an-attack; as to Kirill, the whole of this workshop section comes into play. This is novel theory, advanced by a judge of the case - "engaged in a concerted campaign" - a theory of mind is being formed, that's prosecution, not adjudication. Seems like a conflict to me.
            • I do like the way you rope in Giano, even though the case is titled "Geogre-William_M._Connolley". Any old excuse will do I guess. Franamax (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Giano's conduct, and the issues arising from attempts to implement a restriction intended to influence him in the direction of using restraint, is the greater part of the subject of this arbitration case. Since the current restriction isn't working, the question of what to do about that arises. One option would be to lift the restriction. In considering whether to do so, it is necessary to examine his conduct in the context of the restriction. There are some administrative and user conduct issues also, but they are relatively routine. --Jenny 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Past attempts to deal with something within the arbcom's remit are not grounds for recusal. On first glance I see nothing in the link that suggests anything other than FT2 working within what has historically been broadly construed as the arbcom's remit. To suggest that Kirill recuse himself on the evidence of his workshop proposals is simply absurd. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • So you think it is OK for an arbitrator to cast aspersions outside of the normal arbitration process? You have one arbitrator (Kirill) confirming that [9]: "statements made in our official capacity within the context of an arbitration proceeding are covered by the "appropriate forums" clause. Outside of that, of course, any comments we make are subject to this [casting aspersions principle]". What Franamax is saying is that FT2, in a laudable attempt to resolve some of this, wrote large amounts on his talk page about Giano's character and motivations (I contributed to this, actually), as opposed to his actions, and FloNight (another arbitrator) expressed unease at this. I acknowledged this and backed off. I can't remember what FT2 did. The point is that FT2's talk page monologue (sometimes a dialogue with me) could be seen to fall squarely under the "casting aspersions" principle: "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums, if at all" - the point here is that FT2 probably has not done this continually. But it is possible that a group of editors has, over several years, made concerted efforts to besmirch Giano's reputation. Giano should have some recourse to counter that, other than lashing out. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • As I understand it, FT2 was commenting on conduct traits already established by the arbitration committee, and certainly a widely known problem for the encyclopedia. I hope it will never be regarded as necessarily improper to discuss the established conduct problems of an editor (as always whether such a discussion is an attack depends on the context--as bringing it up out of context would be). If it should be regarded as improper, then we had better rethink our policies fast, because such a principle would make it all but impossible to discuss conduct issues relating to otherwise respected editors. --Jenny 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
                      • Brief discussions on talk pages, maybe, but formal or lengthy discussions should take place in a more public venue - ANI if it is an emergency, AN/RfC for more considered discussion, and finally arbitration if the conduct does not change. But not a steady besmirching of a reputation over years and building someone up to be some sort of "problem". There are problems on Wikipedia, but Giano is not one of them, or if he is it is much smaller than people make it out to be - too much time is being spent on it with too little return when other matters are more pressing. There should be a long-term strategy to deal with incidents like this - damp down the fires, and get productive editors back to writing the encyclopedia, while still dealing with genuine concerns raised. If you say that "dealing with Giano's incivility" is the most pressing problem facing this encyclopedia, and needs to be dealt with harshly, then I don't think further discussion will be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
                        • I'm not going to get into Wikipedian-relativism. Arbcom has identified his conduct as a problem for Wikipedia (and yes he is one among many). To suggest that FT2 was in any way motivated by a wish to besmirch Giano's reputation, or that his comments had that effect, seems far-fetched. Whilst I feel that the conduct of high value editors has become an obsession for some editors, it has become a blind-spot for others. Both are damaging to Wikipedia. --Jenny 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

sign

On of the arbs did not sign near the bottom. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed :) NonvocalScream (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 vs. Geogre

In re Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Geogre, yes FT2, I will make representation that you are incorrect in your interpretation. Try this: click on your own contributions and add up when you have ever done two separate things within five minutes! I mean that in a humourous sense but with serious meaning. Grave matters cannot be easily dispensed with in just a few minutes, each editor must choose their own method to explicate and move forward. Even taking the time to pull up (say) three important diffs for your next post can take a while, especially if the servers suddenly decide to cease cooperating. It's fine for you to outline the "natural" next step, but natural is defined by the nature of the person, not the reviewer.

As a humble peon, I can definitely say that it takes me many many minutes to do even the simplest things (I'm at about 2030 mins on this post alone :). I think that on reflection you might agree that a five-minute standard is unrealistic in the absence of evidence - did Geogre edit an article about flowers or frogs in that time? Make a cup of tea? Here's another test - time how long it takes you to respond to just this post.

Respectfully. Franamax (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, FT2's not the only one who has at least a potential problem with it. When you do an unblock, the very next screen you see after you undo the block has a button marked "re-block". You literally have to go off that screen to edit further. No, he didn't edit an article about flowers or frogs, but he did respond to Friday's post on Giano's page. So he did take actions in between unblocking Giano and Avraham reapplying the block. SirFozzie (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I blocked myself from my own localhost:wiki (it was a cool-down block, F-max is a real jerk doncha'kno :) and I don't recall that. Probably I was doing a different experiment and I certainly defer to actual experience.

However - how many windows do you have open right now? Which one are you planning to click to next? Which one will you use to gather your supporting information, in order to post to the current focus? Did you just check your watchlist?

I really don't mean this as any type of xx-lawyering - but come on, five minutes? I can't even tie my shoes that fast :) SirF, after making one major action, how long does it take you to take stock of the action you just made, think about its impacts, question yourself, look for a bit more evidence that you might be wrong. So yes, that screen may have been staring Geogre in the face - but setting the standard that the next screen must be completed within five minutes seems to be just a little steep. Twenty minutes, I'm with ya, two hours, no doubt at all. But five minutes - I hate using those TLA's, but that's within the realm of AGF, don't you think? Franamax (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, before I unblock to change duration, I already know what duration I'm going to put back in, and I certainly don't change windows and resume editing/arguing till I do the reblock. That's just me, though. SirFozzie (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely one ought to "take stock of the action... think about its impacts, question yourself, look for a bit more evidence that you might be wrong" before one takes the action? --bainer (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course and absolutely one ought to do this beforehand, whether admin, arb or editor. There remains the possibility of a somewhat insufficiently considered action where one must pause to consider the next step(s). Geogre (in my interpretation) has already described their intention to first, reverse the initial wrong; second, assess the potential for further damage; third, decide on the new course of action. Nothing in the timeline of events contradicts that explanation, and it would seem to be the simplest one. The main point here is that within all of five minutes, Geogre's intentions were rendered moot - whether good or ill, they were overtaken by events; and from Geogre's own description, they decided to walk away from the escalation. I still have to question FT2 (and others) interpretation of that five minutes on the grassy knoll ;) Franamax (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that whatever degree of eggshell-walking is appropriate apply equally to both sides, not only regarding Geogre's and William M. Connolley's and FT2's actions but generally? I've never been a fan of Meatball Wiki and this conflict exposes the flaws in their defend each other page. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest. I've sat at the block screen and adjusted block durations. You don't unblock then run off to make a cup of tea. You reapply the block as soon as possible. If you don't you're probably not fit to drive those buttons. --Jenny 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I really hate to say this, but it must be said. You are not an administrator, having relinquished your access under controversial circumstances some time ago. To suggest that an administrator is "not fit to drive those buttons" because they do not emulate the methods you employed whilst an administrator is probably not quite the point you want to be making here. Risker (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That may or may not be true in a general sense, but Tony's specific point here is a valid one which shouldn't be dismissed with reference to his personal circumstances. I've changed the duration of plenty of blocks, and the unblock is always followed immediately by the reblock. These are not really two separate actions requiring separate consideration, but a single action (changing block duration) which is technically split into two parts. I think Tony (and others in this thread) are describing a common-sense best practice, and I suspect most admins would agree. Geogre's talk-page comment certainly indicates that his intent was to unblock Giano, not to alter the block duration. in that context, FT2's comment seems reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem really doesn't fly well in arbitration cases. My point wil prevail: Geogre is a big boy, and I'm sure he won't try to hide behind the argument that he was caught napping. Having said that, I wouldn't push for more than a warning in this case. Please, Geogre, don't dabble with the button just because you think it might be fun. This case shows that it does have damaging effects. --Jenny 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd not consider that a an hominem, to be frank. The basis of your statement was your level of "skill" at driving the buttons, Risker called it into question. If you hadn't introduced the evidence, so to speak, by presenting opinion as fact and she'd said "you're not an admin, go away" it would be a different story. But I digress...

Five minutes is not a terrific amount of time, and we cannot read another person's mind. If we're going to introduce probabilistic findings of "most people unblock/reblock within X time period" than let's have some science behind it. I think the first unblock was a terrible idea, but do not have enough facts to support an opinion on the timing. I'll try to get some if anyone actually wants any analysis.

brenneman 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but Tony does have something of a point about ad hominem. It isn't very polite to raise an editor's former-admin status in rebuttal regarding use of the tools for decisions unrelated to the reasons that person relinquished the tools. That said, I wouldn't exactly agree with Tony's assertion either. What may be a more fruitful line of discussion is to first agree upon a general degree of strictness that's appropriate for this situation and apply it evenly: somewhere from nobody was quite at their best in this stressful situation and we'll try to work this out with a handshake and cautions to administrators are selected for their ability to keep calm in a crisis and dubious uses of the tools require remedies. One factor that inclines me toward the former is our community's tendency to wait until actual cases such as this one to define what a wheel war actually is; a factor that points the other way is both Geogre's and William M. Connolley's unwillingness thus far to step back and say maybe what I did looked dubious from your perspective, so I'll make these changes in future to be sure we don't have another incident like this one. Durova^Charge! 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2's clarification of remedy 1

Does anyone understand FT2's clarification of remedy 1? He seems to be saying that instead of the administrators being involved in the discussions, that their opinions need to be involved in the discussions. I don't get it. 87.254.72.195 (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy, it's a loophole fix. Here's the loophole.

The aim of the proposed remedy as it was drafted, is obviously, to ensure there is good quality consensus, and not some rush by 2 or 3 people on one or the other side who then get to agree there's a consensus favoring whatever they feel like. A good quality consensus is intended to consider all views, not just the first few to get there if all holding the same viewpoiint (whichever view that may be). This has happened in the past. The aim here is to enforece that a reasonable number of admins are in the discussion, to procure reasonably wide input, before a "consensus" is called on it.

The loophole in the wording is that it the decision of a consensus will be accepted if it is the result of "a discussion involving at least five administrators". Without accusing any side of anything, I will admit to an eye for gaming loopholes -- in fact I wrote WP:GAME. I see this scenario:

• Admin 1 blocks and explains their block
• Admin 2 objects
• Two users join admin 2 in objecting
• Three further admins comment to say "keep it calm" or other general comment
• Someone claims this is now a "discussion involving at least five administrators" at which admin 1 blocked and 3 users (admin 2 and two others) objected, and the block is overturned 5 minutes after enacting, well before any balanced and wider consensus can be considered. Something like this has happened before in some disputes. (Indeed this is exactly why this remedy is proposed by my colleague in the first place.)

The point is, the aim of the proposed remedy is not that 5 admins have just turned up, posted something ("keep it calm", "this was the diff", or whatever). It was intended to ensure good quality discussion existed before consensus is called (by anyone). For this purpose, the "five admins" need to have done more than just "posted something" or "been involved" -- they need to be actually discussing the issue and giving an opinion. At that point, if at least 5 admins have given an opinion, then one might say it is likely the discussion overall (whoever is in it) has had enough contribution to say the consensus is plausible. But just requiring "5 admins involved", that could mean anything from fixing typos upwards.

By itself therefore the original wording would do nothing to protect either side from bad consensus calls, gaming, or abuse concerns. So often it's the minor points that end up as the cause of bitter future debate. It's best to prevent that happening (given how bitterly "was this a breach of a sanction" can be argued), by closing the potential for a loophole up front and on sight, when it's a predictably heated matter, just for the sake of reducing the potential for more future conflict. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Predictably stupid remedy 1-choices - losing the value of having them in the first place. The moment we have two admins who can't control themselves with this user, we have (a) certain member/s of the Committee throwing both hands in the air and not just missing the entire cause (without any findings), but also failing to acknowledge how sick the community is of having to deal with it over and over, again and again, whether as individuals, or as a small group. There should've been no reason or cause for blocks to be considered in the first place for this same problem behaviour - its pattern is glaringly obvious, yet, nothing has been done to fix it in the long term. Please wake up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't formed a view on remedy 1 yet, myself, as I don't have much net access back yet after the last week; the edit fixes a loophole in the event it might pass. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators please consider new evidence and proposed remedies

Arbitrators, please consider the new evidence and proposed remedies. Thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

During this very arbcom, William is blocking User:Bardcom in an edit war, abusing his administrative powers yet again User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Polite_notice Perma-link: [10]. There is a terrible pattern of abuse here, which no one seems to care about. Inclusionist (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Credit where it's due

I note that there is a proposed FoF about WMC's extension of Giano's incivility block.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to also have a finding that WMC took steps to correct his error in getting sucked into the incivility → block – incivility → block extension – incivility → block extension → etc. spiral. It was, after all, WMC who shortened Giano's block from 48 hours to 24 hours, undoing his own (second) extension (full block log). While no participant in this case has covered himself in glory, I think it would be fair to acknowledge that WMC accepted that he erred and took a reasonable corrective step. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ten here. With all of the talk of context here, why is there no mention of WMC self-reverting his block extension in that finding of fact? R. Baley (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. And FT2's understanding of the "extension due to incivility" finding of fact is wrong as well. See here. To be fair, FT2 does have a backlog to catch up with. Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate FT2's attempt to clarify the record by making the following addendum (diff link):

. . .to the blocking admin who then extended it to other users, an initial block extension to 24 hours, leading to further incivility to the blocking admin, who then re-extended it to 48 hours). . .

However, this still appears to leave out that WMC then reduced the 48 hour block (extra 24 hrs for incivility directed to himself) back to the 24 hour block (for further incivility directed at others). Any chance that could be reflected in the FOF? R. Baley (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is always positive to assume good faith, one must point out that by the time WMC had reduced the block to 24 hours, this case was already filed and multiple administrators and editors had pointed out the Tango decision to him. Risker (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The sign of a wise man, I think. He learns from his mistakes. --Jenny 18:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's give that more time, yes? Lessons learned have to be remembered and not forgotten a few weeks or months later. Carcharoth (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has to assume anything. . .I'm just pointing out the facts, not assigning motive. Besides, you make a mistake, others point it out, if you agree, you fix it. R. Baley (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If there are any other parties to this case who have made errors, acknowledged those errors, and taken concrete steps to correct themselves – at any time, right up to now – I would welcome and encourage appropriate findings of fact to that effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that no arbitrator has seen fit to correct or expand the FoF to acknowledge WMC's own effort to correct his error. I'm also saddened that no one has come forward with any suggestion that any other party to this arbitration made any acknowledgement of their own errors, nor took any step to ameliorate the harm they caused. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Context and community

Some points in response to what Kirill has recently posted.

• Giano in arbitration - Kirill describes this as "context". I find it to be limited context. A broader picture would be obtained if a finding of fact were passed concerning "Giano in article space". I said in all the previous cases that if there is a problem with Giano's overall behaviour, it should be brought up as its own case, and the scope made clear from the beginning, not tacked on to an existing case.
• Giano's comments - Kirill describes this as "more context". When he initially raised this on the workshop, I pointed out that what he has posted was poorly presented and lacked context. He admitted that the evidence had been gathered in "about 20 minutes (which is why it's quite disorganized and only goes back a little while [...])". Kirill then said "I have every intention of allowing adequate time for evidence presentation and discussion here". I then rearranged the evidence and presented in a form where context could be added. See here. I notified Kirill of this, and presumed that he would participate in the discussion. It seems that he had no intention of doing so, and has just pasted his initial "20 minutes" of evidence gathering straight across to the proposed decision page, still describing it as "context", when I would describe it as taking comments out of context. Some note has been taken of the discussion and analysis, but there is no effort at analysis or adding of context, or participation in the analysis, as most people submitting evidence would do, that is, if they were not themselves voting on said evidence. If arbitrators are going to present evidence like this, then I would hope they would do so in a more professional manner, like the timeline presented in one case by the bainer, and not in this poorly presented manner (no dates, no indication of the issues involved, no indication of what had happened before or after, no indication of the location, not arranged in any obvious or indicated order). At the very least, I feel, Kirill could have provided a link to the analysis and the attempt to provide better context.
• As far as Existing remedy vacated and Question remanded go, I'm not yet certain whether this is releasing Giano to well-deserved freedom, while saving face for the committee, or whether it is throwing Giano to the wolves. If there are future problems, I hope the committee will remember the effect their actions have had, and may continue to have, on the reputation of an editor (and I don't just mean Giano here). See Myth-making and double jeopardy for more on this effect.

I think that covers my responses so far. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your second point, I should point out that the evidence for presented for voting here is not the "initial '20 minutes' of evidence gathering [pasted] straight across to the proposed decision page"; a number of points have been omitted from the original version based on the analysis you refer to, and the quotes are presented here in the same (chronological) order as they were in said analysis. Kirill ^(prof) 11:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point Kirill, if you and your colleagues addressed the IRC problem, then there would not be a Giano problem, and please don't repeat the rubbish you posted on my page about not being able to do so [11] because you can. Jimbo, himself, said so quite clearly [12] (with a proviso for me to take special note). I am sure the Arbcom has its reasons for failing even to carry out the motions it passed at the end of the IRC case, but "not having power over #Admins", is not one of the one. As long as Wikipedia is policed from a place over which it says it has no control, then you will always have problems and they will not just be one's of my making. Tacking me onto the bottom of this case because you could not "get" me any other way, was cheap, nasty and pretty low by amnyone's standards, people wonder why I don't trust the Arbcom, one minute I read this [13], the next moment is you posting evidence on the workshop page about. I don't think you lot know your right hands from your left.Giano (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vacating the only sanction imposed on you and explicitly taking the matter out of our hands seems like a rather peculiar way of trying to "get" you, no? Kirill ^(prof) 12:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He has a point. If you are happy with that, Giano, just wait and see how the voting goes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No I am happy with anything Kirill does now. He and his colleagues have tried to damage me for their own ends, posting this and that, and trying to involve me in this case. He then posted further lies on my page, in direct contrast to what Jimbo has said, and thinks he can now wash his hands, by suggesting a free-for-all after having posted his "evidence" with the intention of....well, we can all work that out for ourselves. He should resign for stooping so low. Giano (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How is posting an account of your actions stooping low? Your the one that did all those edits, he is just pointing them out. Give yourself some credit. _{1 != 2} 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Go discuss it on IRC. like you usually do.[14] you'll get more agreement there. Giano (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought go and discuss it here [15] an environment the Arbs have fostered just for you. Giano (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's actually worse. By omitting the initial "gnome-like stalker" comment that triggered the block that led to all the subsequent stuff, you have managed to reduce the context (and no, I'm not asking for it to be put back in, more work than that would be needed, I'm pointing out that you are failing to understand what I mean by context). Thank-you, though, for removing the comments surrounding FT2's talk page thread, and the ones that Risker e-mailed Paul August about. I apologise for not looking closely at the differences - at first glance it looked the same. I've struck through above and rephrased myself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

Some diffs of the case point to the secure server, which is not used by a majority of readers (secure.wikimedia...), could a clerk (or an arb) refactor them using {{fullurl}} (eg: [16]) to make these links more accessible? Thanks! I'd do it myself but I'm sure I'd get a slap on the fingers for that :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Remanded

Since the community has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "Giano problem" (i.e. an approach that has broad consensus and avoids drama), the suggestion that Arbcom, "the final step in dispute resolution," would toss the issue back to the community is profoundly disfunctional. Thatcher 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I regard as silly the idea that a block/uncivil/extend block spiral is in any way the fault of the blocking admin. Responding to an incivility block with more incivility should always meet with an extended block. It shows that the contributor not only isn't able to follow the rule, but rebels against any enforcement of the rules. Thus a personal attack on the admin is by extension an attack on the entire project community.

Apparently, the principle of "do not defend yourself" takes priority over "defend the mothership" (i.e., don't block when you are attacked for blocking). This would seem to stem from the "no unilateral action" idea, i.e., consensus in all things. So, I can see why we'd expect William C. to ask another sysop to extend the block. I'm okay with that, and I think it will work here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to but in here, not that it's anything to do with me, but the Arbs tried that solution today here [17] or at least did nothing to stop it. As I told Tony the hired thugs would have to be rewarded [18], well we have seen that (Thank you Kirill). So now having now had the ritualistic chanting and tribal dancing as the warm up act to the forum games, what are they planing next - I wonder? I feel another of my prophesies coming on. Giano (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Prophecies? Well, the atmosphere at present is certainly noxious enough all around to inspire a Delphic trance... MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a founding member of the medcom, I would like to point out that a noxious atmosphere can only add fuel to the Wikipedia:Drama so beloved by many otherwise idle contributors. I don't blame anyone; I myself frequently find it hard to concentrate on simple writing tasks. And research can be an awful bore. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To return to your critique of the "block/uncivil/extend block spiral", it is a basic principle of de-escalation to put the response to a block in its context and to rise above it and not respond to it in turn. No-one is saying that a "block/uncivil/extend block spiral" is the fault of the admin, but rather that it may be a failure of imagination on the part of the admin to merely respond by extending the block (invariably this is a one-dimensional response). There are more tools available to an admin than just the block button, namely the power of words, or bringing in second or third opinions. Engaging with the blocked editor and explaining things to them, while not being condescending or patronising, is all part of the skills any reasonably compentent admin should develop. It is surprising how many times, if you show a bit of good faith towards an angry blocked editor, that they will calm down when they realise you are listening to them. It is also predictable that a good-faith user will get angry if they see that no-one is listening to them and they are getting the brush-off, or a hardline block-extension approach. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that responding towards incivility directed at yourself when taking an admin action is a failure because it makes it more difficult to achieve a satisfactory solution. Sure, some block-extensions or further blocks are necessary, but you have to keep your eye on the ball and work towards the ultimate aim, which is getting people back to working productively on the encyclopedia. Sometimes incivility has to be addressed, but don't let it move to centre stage. Keep the encyclopedia centre stage. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You just engaged and explained, in just the way you advocate. No better model could be imagined.

I'll try that (at my other wiki encyclopedia). :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

The problem with enforcing provisions regarding Giano at present seems to be twofold - concerns about ill-advised blocks (which have happened, such as the attempted indefinite block, and WMC's extensions here), and concerns about protective unblocks - particularly ones claiming a "consensus" to unblock that forms in 30-40 minutes. Notably, no substantive block has been allowed to stand, despite a long record of incivility as demonstrated in this case.

Perhaps the best solution is to leave the IRC remedy in place, and add a note that the arbcom will immediately and without a full case consider de-sysoppings of, say, a week (or whatever they prefer) for either blocks for behavior that is not incivil, or removals of valid blocks. If the arbcom were actually willing to fast-track abuses on both sides of the issue it could, perhaps, effectively stem the drama, allowing the main issue to finally be dealt with. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No admin in their right mind would enforce a remedy as subjective as "civility parole", knowing that ArbCom was looking over their shoulder ready to drop the hammer if they disagreed post hoc about what constituted "incivility". Who wants the aggravation and potential desysopping when one person's "actionable incivility" is another's "refreshing bluntness"?

Actually, I think no admin in their right mind should enforce civility parole, period. Could any payoff (not that there has ever been any) possibly justify the amount of angst and bad feeling generated by this situation alone, much less ScienceApologist's? Even if Giano acquired the public manners of the Queen of England tomorrow, would that payoff justify the preceding sequence of train wrecks? MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have something there. Instead of admins enforcing civility parole, what a civility parole should be for is to draw attention to incivil behaviour without judging it. Allow any editor (including admins, and including the editor under civility sanctions - similar to a self-revert) to add diffs to a log page. Additions are allowed, as are strike-throughs and annotations, but no reverts or removals. That way, the whole history is more easily reviewed, and if necessary, arbcom can step in and apply further sanctions based on the log page, or review it and say "good behaviour over the past year/months/whatever, this page can be blanked and the civility parole is lifted". That way, you have a record of "breaches" of the civility parole, plus a record of whether certain people are acting as "civility police" (ie. following someone around to ensure their civility), and you avoid the drama of blocks. You would also have a note saying that if a review took place, arbcom would review the actions of those who logged the allegations of incivility as well. Note that this approach of having a log page (a "rap sheet") should only be taken if arbcom have placed someone on civility parole. The community and individual admins should not be able to start this process. It should be started, reviewed by, and ended by Arbcom. Might this get us out of the dramafests? Those who see rampant incivility would have somewhere to log it, safe in the knowledge that ArbCom will eventually review it. Those who wish to add context to mitigate the incivility accusations can do so. Might work, might not. The key point is that something still gets done, but blocks are avoided. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea. As long as no prohibition against blocks for personal attacks and/or disruption is included, I think something like this might be good for several users. In the case of giano, it's rarely real personal attacks, but rather snarky commentary and disruptive questions that get under people skins. With SA (noted above), it's tenditious editwarring and personal attacks, so not quite the same, but this idea might reduce drama surrounding both editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... how would you react to having every remark which anyone found uncivil for any reason catalogued on a Google-indexed ArbCom page for the peanut gallery to dissect and argue over? I don't think it would make me more likely to be civil, but I could be wrong. I'm sorry to be negative - I don't mean to reflexively shoot down new ideas, but I think that the fundamental idea of "enforcing" civility like this is flawed. If someone's uncivil, ignore them. Pretty soon, they'll find they can't get anything done around here because no one pays attention to their antics, and they'll adopt more constructive modes of engagement because they work. If civility really is essential to a collaborative project, as we claim (and as I believe), then we shouldn't need to set up a huge bureacratic apparatus to prove it. It should enforce itself. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but how do you get folks to ignore and collaborate, when the issues are far more complicated than 'uncivil' comments. In the case of Giano, there are folks who, for reasons unknown to me, take every comment he makes in a non-article context as a personal attack. There are other users who claim harrassment whenever any user disagrees with thier ideas or edits. I don't know what the solution is. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there's a problem of over-reaction with Giano. There's also a problem of under-reaction, and of protection. If a civility parole does not work, what measure would people propose? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you all say, if I told you I was prepared to drop the whole the IRC matter, and just write beautiful pages full of beautiful pictures of beautiful buildings, and only comment on beautiful subjects and beautiful people, like myself? Giano (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's wonderful news, and hope that it can put an end to the ongoing drama that surrounds you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so would most people, but sadly the arbcom declined the offer. Giano (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil's ideas are often worthy of consideration (well, to be honest, I've never known him to come up with an idea that wasn't). A note to all admins involved to the effect that only the highest standards of adminship are acceptable in highly contentious cases, might be very helpful. It doesn't matter who this is about, it does matter that we all recognise the immense costs to the encyclopedia that would be incurred by an error, in either direction, in handling a beloved problem child. --Jenny 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• On July 8th, on the Workshop page, I asked for examples of "any ArbComm imposed editor specific civility paroles that are working?" MastCell said it was an excellent question. It is also, at this time, an unanswered question. The only other ArbComm imposed paroles that I am currently aware of is definitely not working. If there aren't any that work, then the problem with them is not editor specific, and the change should not be. So I ask again - are there any ArbComm imposed civility paroles that have worked? GRBerry 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Everyking has improved noticeably. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Glad to hear that. I've now read the 1, 2, 3 - three - cases, and don't see anything equivalent to the broad civility parole that Giano and the other editor I'm thinking about were subjected to. Everything in the three cases appears either topic specific or completely unrelated to civility. GRBerry 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, Carcharoth! The best remedy for Wikipedia:Drama I've seen in several years ... and I've been around since 2001. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Some comments by William M. Connolley

Use of administrative tools in a dispute - this is all motherhood and apple pie. Its almost harmless, but also almost meaningless, and to that extent its harmful: it blurs what this case is about. can anyone tell me what relevance it has to the current case?

Wheel warring - the arbs have, notably, failed to grasp the nettle of providing an explicit defn of wheel warring, despite (at least my) request to do so. Perhaps this is deliberate. But, will this finding help? Consider, being devils advocate here, my position if this finding (In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion) was in place: I find that Geogre has undone my block, in clear violation of this principle. Aha! Geogre's unblock is therefore invalid, therefore my re-block is perfectly valid. See? This finding is useless William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Extending blocks - this section is so full of weasel words as to be useless. ideally - what does this mean? great care should be taken - what does this mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Ideally" means "unless you want to cause major unnecessary drama, with yourself as the main character, err on the side of caution." "Ideally" means "there's many hundreds of admins here; find someone less pissed off than yourself to wield the blocking weapon." It's quite deliberately vague; the more precise it is, the more people will attempt to rules-lawyer around it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're making quite a serious mistake in thinking that undoing an "invalid" action by another must always be a valid action for you. 87.254.74.156 (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, surely an admin should know that violating 3RR because you're simply reverting someone who violated 3RR is not an acceptable defence. Remember we're all supposed to act like mature adults here. It doesn't matter who did it first or who started it! Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Remedy 1 - which is passing?

Which of the versions of remedy 1 have the most support? 1.1, 1.2? What method do you use for assigning weight to the preference votes? Avruch ^T 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In Instant-runoff voting, consider only everyone's first choice and count them as opposing everything but their first choice. If nobody has a majority, then eliminate the lowest-ranked proposal and redistribute everyone who had that as their first choice to their second choice. Continue until you have a winner. So here, we have this table:

	1	1.1	1.2	1.3
Round 1	2-3-1	1-5-0	1-5-0	2-2-0
Round 2	3-2-1	DROPPED	DROPPED	3-1-0

So if I do the math right, 1.3 passes as of right now is the preferred choice right now, though per bainer, nothing has sufficient affirmative votes to pass. --B (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

None yet pass. All elements of the proposed decision must attract a number of votes equal or greater to than the next whole number larger than half the number of arbitrators active on the case in order to pass (ie, eleven arbs active here, each item needs six supports to pass). If multiple alternatives pass, then the next step is to look at which was the more preferred, but not until then. --bainer (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the case where some large number of arbiters abstain or just don't express an opinion? (E.g. 5-0-6 or 5-0-0)? --B (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In those situations, the item still passes. This is why 'abstentions' not neutral, something on which I've mused before.

James F. (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

5-0-6 passes since abstentions reduce the necessary majority, however 5-0-0 does not pass unless the active number of arbs is only 9 or less. Paul August ☎ 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed

This [19], the very last "general" section. I corrected errors; those I corrected raised no complaints. As far as I'm concerned, thats just tB's personal opinion and non-binding, unless the arbcomm care to raise it to a finding William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

strange way to count the votes

I have got as far as this page with some surfing, the bizarre inner workings of wikipedia :-) wow this is a different world from the articles :-)

I've no particular ax to grind in this dispute, just interested how your system works.

It is very odd how you count the votes. At the top it says "For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority."

Which is fine, but then let's look at the section called proposed finding of facts, number 5. You have so far 6 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstain, which appears on the surface to be not yet a majority. But then it is clear from the comment accompanying one the abstentions that it is actually a recusal as regards this section, so the count should really be 6 out of 11 which IS a majority...

Your system only has a way to handle recusal from the entire case, you need to have "recuse" sections under each finding so that you can count the votes properly for such partial recusals and not just count them the same way as "normal" abstentions.

Hope that makes sense

M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike at the mic (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about it, no one takes the findings seriously anyway. Giano (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does make sense. "Recuse" and "abstain" both work the same way -- they lower the number of active arbitrators on a case or on a question, thus possibly decreasing the number of votes required to pass a decision or piece thereof. So on FoF #5, there are two abstentions/recusals/whatever, bringing the number of active arbitrators to ten, so six is the passing majority on that finding. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If only there were a mathematician on the Committee... :) MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, I do have a math degree, so I can at least remotely refer to myself as a mathematician. Am I missing something here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different tangent - is it standard procedure to change ArbCom members in the middle of a case? I can see where if an Arb needed to step down for Real Life issues or somehow an Arb decides to recuse him/herself when new facts surface a potential conflict of interest. But a new member being added in the middle of the matter after the evidence has been produced - that seems odd. Juries have alternate members who step in if a member of the jury needs to leave, but they have officially been a part of the case from the begining. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito who joined the court mid term did not vote on cases that he had not been present to hear. Is this change of Arbs within an ongoing matter a standard ArbCom procedure or a new event here in Wikipedia? -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrator's obligation is to read and consider the statements, the evidence, and the workshop discussion before voting on the case, which I (I assume this is a reference to me) certainly did. In response to your question, arbitrators who join the committee on January 1 following the election have always had the option of activating themselves on cases that were accepted and in the evidence phase from the year before, pursuant to longstanding precedent and practice. I did this myself in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema, which was the first decision I wrote this year. The analogy to the real-world U.S. Supreme Court, while understandable, is flawed: newly appointed Justices do not vote on cases argued before they joined the Court because (1) they did not participate in the oral argument itself, which has no analog in Wikipedia arbitration, and (2) they are inundated the moment they are sworn in with a massive backlog of pending cases and certiorari petitions, so they have to draw a line as to which cases they will participate in, which also has no analog given that the current ArbCom caseload is at a historically low level. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of precedent. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)