Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

Case name

What's with the cryptic case name? I have seen many past cases that use actual usernames of the main parties involved, and some that do not. Was there a request for such a cryptic name in this case? I scanned what I thought were the relevant pages but missed it. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no request for a cryptic name. The arbs didnt give much indication why they accepted the case, so the current list of parties may not be sufficient. I didnt see any previous cases where more than two parties were listed in the name, and I didnt want to pick only the initial two parties. An arb is more than welcome to suggest a rename, and I have no objection to a motion to rename the case, however I would like to see some comment from the arbs before a new name is given. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words it was your judgement call, perfectly innocuous, rather than some nefarious plot involving the events of August 19, 1994? Thanks for clearing that up! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I recognise the logic behind the naming, I don't think the initialising the party list for use as the case name is appropriate. Historically, to the best of my knowledge, arbitration cases are either named using the full accounts of the party (eg., Asgardian-Tenebrae), as they stood at the time of opening, or, more commonly (and more appropriately, in my opinion) the subject area in which the dispute is centred (eg., Palestine-Israel articles) or the nature of the incident (e.g., Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war).

I think a rename may be in order; although it's not of an urgent priority, it is warranted here.

Anthøny 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing sinister is going on here; move along please. :P

If the evidence and workshopping appears to be primarily about the named parties, "Cla68-FeloniousMonk-SlimVirgin" is a bit long, but acceptable. It is possible that this case is going to revolve around two groups of editors, and it is also possible that this is going to be about "Userspace RFCs". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We often rename cases at the close, or as they progress, when it's becoming obvious what the focus will be and who's central to it. There's still ambiguity there, so treat the current name as a "working name", for now, and change it later if needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear impression created that the name of this case has been chosen to protect certain members of the project and brush legitimate concerns under the carpet. I'm acutely aware of this practice of misleading names, since there is an ArbCom case that bears my name, which actually concerned a false (even fraudulent) perma-block on me and the likely gross abuse by the administrator who called for it (who is not named in the title). This naming both badly distorted the subsequent discussion and case, and has encouraged editors (some perhaps innocently) to bring it up again at intervals as if it concerned me. PR^talk 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The current name was not to protect anyone. I used it because it was short, and I suspected that the case was going to be renamed as it progressed, or that the case would involve many more parties than initially named. I did not want the case name to restrict the scope at this stage - I have explained my reasoning above. Please AGF - I acted alone in naming this arbcom case, and selected a name I thought was best at the time, without any discussion with any arbitrator - trust me, I would have liked to have been able to discuss it with them, but there was an urgency to open it as it was overdue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to AGF you as clerk trying to do your best. However, now you're informed that naming of ArbCom cases has been used in a highly contentious and apparently abusive fashion in the past (as I think I've demonstrated above), I would invite you to re-consider your action and remove the suspicion that will otherwise cloud this case. PR^talk 11:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not rename the case to "Cla68-FeloniousMonk-SlimVirgin" at this state, just so that the names are more explicit. As I have explained, and FT2 has commented on, the case may yet be renamed when the crux of the case has been identified.

Just because you have had a case named after you, with possible undesirable ramifications following, doesnt mean this case needs to be named after three parties that have been declared as parties.

I am quite surprised you would be wanting the name of the case to even mention the parties, since you seem unhappy to have a case named after you. I would be just as happy with a naming scheme like "2008-26" or "2008/26", for the 26th case in 2008, as the name of the case is too often misinterpreted.

The suspicion will only continue if people think that I am part of a sinister plot, and that I would lie about my rationale on the current naming of the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept your reasoning and good-faith. Please be aware that (as my rejected evidence pointed out), this ArbCom concerns individuals who may have acted without personal integrity. If the case looks tainted by the partisan actions of administrators at this stage, a severe chill will be cast over later stages. PR^talk 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment re: JzG

• To be found here...

Given that the RfAR specifically about JzG seems to be going to merged into this one, I would like to direct people to my comment there... discussion should, I guess, take place there rather than here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley section removed

As clerk, I have removed the William M. Connolley section from the Workshop page as it isnt remotely based on the evidence provided so far, and it seems to be a drive-by snipe at an Ncmvocalist, who is contributing to the case. If Ncmvocalist's contributions to this case are seen as a problem, that should be discussed on the talk page here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility remedy

I still haven't decided whether to remove the civility parole remedy or not. I understand (and am concerned by) the fact that it can be challenging to enforce the remedy, despite the intention for it to be simple and effective in application. But an ongoing problem of incivility needs to be dealt with somehow, and rather than having nothing, civility parole is probably best.

However, I do want to invite discussion on other suggestions worth considering - remedies that will be simple and effective in application in combatting incivility in particular. What else can be used to achieve the intended effect? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the intended effect? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A simple and effective way of preventing them from failing to comply with policy, should they continue to do so in the future. 'They' being those users who engaged in a pattern of not complying with policy, both in the past, and recently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a sweeping goal to be achieved by a specific remedy. Any "policy" in particular? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This specific remedy targets incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I trust you can get the links to the relevant pages? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (though the sarcasm in your concluding sentence is ironic given your concern for civility). Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as sarcasm - sorry if it seemed that way. I'll assume you can (to answer my question). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're an admin - I think that confirms my assumption then - Sorry again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been reams of ink expended on the topic of "enforcing" civility over the past few months. Personally, I think the idea of "enforcing" civility, particularly by a blunt mechanism such as blocks, is misguided. The penalty for incivility in a collaborative environment is that you become less effective and less credible. This punishment is instantaneous and doesn't require an admin to enforce. Editors who are chronically uncivil have hamstrung themselves in terms of accomplishing their actual goals. In terms of improving the environment, I'd suggest that we all focus on setting a good example ourselves, encourage others to ignore baiting and take the high road rather than respond in kind, and consider whether they're actually helping or hurting themselves by being uncivil - rather than blocks, bans, paroles, etc. Personal attacks are one thing, and may be valid grounds for blocks in some cases, but civility is just not enforceable in this manner. My 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors who are chronically uncivil have hamstrung themselves in terms of accomplishing their actual goals. I disagree. Editors who are chronically uncivil frequently succeed in driving other contributors out of the areas the former own, which is arguably one of their goals. This is something that does indeed need to be enforced by blocking, and those blocks should be respected, not undone because somebody else has different standards for incivility or couldnt be bothered to check area-specific history. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's accept for the moment that people have as a goal the expulsion of good-faith editors from specific content areas. Let's also accept that incivility is a common factor in driving good-faith editors away from specific articles. Even so, remedies like civility parole and blocks for incivility do not effectively address this issue. I am not aware of any examples in which civility parole was a success, measured over a reasonable time frame, while I'm quite familiar with several spectacular though ultimately unsurprising failures. Would you accept that if this is a major problem, we need to brainstorm a more effective way of dealing with it than blocks and civility parole? MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it work marginally with one or two nationalist editors who've at least learnt to be slightly polite. The examples you're thinking of are of well-established editors doing useful work, who're thus rapidly unblocked when they violate the parole. I don't think these are fair conditions under which to evaluate its effectiveness. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But those are exactly the kind of editors we're talking about here. It's good that it sometimes works on nationalist agenda accounts, and perhaps we should use it more often to deal with them, but this is a different kettle of monkeys. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol @ kettle of monkeys. This whole case has become like an circus lately :D animals, clowns, acrobats, swordsmen, and other amusing things.... But back to the topic (ahem!) - would you consider it worked against Giano? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If its intention was to provide a mechanism to periodically throw gasoline on a smoldering forest fire, then yes, it's worked. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We generally try to be tolerant of incivility, and there's various other ways of resolving it - WQA, RFC, ANI, and then finally ARB. What this remedy emphasizes is, civility is not an optional policy (if it were, there'd be a lot more damage), and admins are able to use their tools to deal with users subjected to an arbitration case found to have a consistent pattern in the past of being incivil, and making personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Having said that, I do acknowledge different standards of incivility, and on the odd occasion, admins may make poor decisions in understanding whether something is actually incivil. It can include whether a comment actually is inflaming a dispute, upsetting an editor, or maybe merely being unconstructive in personal dialogue with another user rather than staying on the topic of improving the article. Sometimes they are so minor, but it really does depend on the reviewing admin, the context and the circumstances. But, per any other block, if a request for unblock has been made by the blocked user, then an uninvolved admin may review the block per the usual method, and may adjust the length of the block. But the user shouldn't be reblocked after this, unless or until he engages in incivility again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Workshop drive-by comments

Seriously, if you are going to !vote at least have the decency to explain why you voted that way. Some examples: [1][2][3][4] I hate to not assume good faith, but this is getting ridiculous. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• This shouldn't be a vote in anyway - people should be making highlighted support or opposes. If you've got something meaningful to add to the discussion then do, but don't stop by with one word. I very much doubt the arbs will be taking into account the support/oppose ratio here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• I support this idea but it may be appropriate to give some diffs to make it clear which comments are most problematic. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible addition of Crum375 as a party?

Resolved

 – Never mind. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to proceed on this, so I'll ask for opinions. I think Crum375 needs to be subject to some kind of remedy in order to prevent him from continuing to serve as SlimVirgin's right-hand man. I presented evidence that Crum375 wheel-warred in deleting User talk:SlimVirgin for a second time two hours after User:Prodego undeleted it. I also presented evidence that Crum375 made inappropriate comments in the January unban discussion for User:Piperdown. Mackan79 and Cla68 have presented evidence that Crum375 tag-teamed with SlimVirgin in edit wars.

I would support a remedy that reminds Crum375 to use civil language, reminds him not to wheel-war. He should also be advised not to protect, unprotect, delete or undelete any page where SlimVirgin is a substantially active editor. Especially if SlimVirgin is desysopped, as I think she should be, it would be counterproductive if she could evade the letter of the law by asking Crum375 to act on her behalf, as she has done in the past. Leaving that aside, though, I feel that the reminders about civility and wheel-warring need to be stated explicitly by ArbCom based on past behavior.

How should I proceed? I'll invite Crum375 to respond here, but what then? Should he be added as a party to this case? I don't want to overwork the arbitrators, who are already dealing with four named parties in this case, but I also don't want to accuse Crum375 of violating policies without offering him a fair chance to defend himself. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's 6 parties at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See bullet item 3, Serial tandem edit warring enforcement, of my proposed enforcement section. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(ec)I am not sure that the committee will entertain the prospect of any sanctions on Crum in the absence of stronger evidence indicating that it is a pattern of behavior that composes a significant proportion of their on-wiki actions, and not confirmation bias or just two friends who happen to agree frequently. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata refero; if you think Crum is systematically abusing admin rights, present evidence sections to that effect. I see a few mentions of Crum on the Evidence page, but would like to see more varied evidence before Crum is considered a party to the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I third.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I agree with you. Crum375 hasn't systematically done anything wrong. He's made a couple of mistakes, and I'll explain that to him on his talk page. ArbCom doesn't need to get involved with him except perhaps to consider the remedy suggested by SqueakBox. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox??? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant SchmuckyTheCat. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

asking parties to comment regarding the presented evidence

Could someone, preferably a clerk, contact the parties, asking them to comment regarding the presented evidence? Cla68 has already done so and apologised for several things he recognised as inappropriate, which imho is a very positive move. Before making up mind on the proposed remedies, I'd like to hear each party weigh in personally on the evidence presented against their behaviour, acknowledging and (if and where they themselves deem appropriate) apologising so as to get a more conclusive picture of what to expect from them in the future. dorftrottel (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out where Cla68 has done this, so i can get a feel for what format you found beneficial, and perhaps direct other parties to add their own comments in a similar fashion in order to assist others find these post-evidence statements. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to link it: Here it is. As to format or place, I had nothing specific in mind, but I suppose the evidence page is as good a place as any for a party to post something like this, since I for one am more than willing to consider this very important, possibly decisive evidence. dorftrottel (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new area for this, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties, and asked all parties to consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope there's a firm word limit enforced by the official clerks.... Unreasonably long reflections that may go so far as including chunks from the evidence might be problematic on the page itself - unless a link was given and the actual text was in a particular section on the talk page of evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that will be a problem. Let's see if anyone besides Cla68 will post anything to that section. dorftrottel (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dorftrottel. Cla68's statement is what he seems to always do, which is appologize for inappropriate behavior when it's pointed out to him. The other parties seem to do less of that. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Locus of Dispute?

I was reading the interesting remarks by Analyst, and thinking... what is this whole dispute all about? :) Seriously, the incidents at Cla's RfA seems central to be where the animosity surfaced, so WR and outing may be at the heart of this, but then, Sandy's evidence is not that much related to WR, etc... Does anyone dare try identify the locus/loci of this dispute? Does such a finding even make sense? Merzul (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not since the JzG case was merged into this one, which was a singularly bad decision. dorftrottel (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have some thoughts about the locus of the dispute, which I will hold for when I have more time. But I would really like to know... what exactly would it take to unmerge the cases? It was indeed, to this observer at least, an ill advised merger. Marry in haste, repent at leisure. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My observation is that the 'locus of dispute' is a moving target here as it's personal and not content related. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

is sysopped/is desysopped solutions

Because adminship is a big deal, and RfA is a minefield for electing a prom queen, these solutions don't seem to be likely in the end. If you really support that it should be easier to gain, lose, or re-gain admin tools, the answer is to fix RfA. This is neither evidence, nor workshop idea, but it needs to be said in this giant mess of conversations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, many many many RfA reform and desysop process proposals have been made in the past, and each and every single last one of them has been refuted by the community, at least also with the argument that with ArbCom, we do already have a process in place to desysop admins where needed (which, in turn, should include cases where an admin has lost community trust through doubtful behaviour of theirs, even if it doesn't include clearcut abuse of the admin tools). dorftrottel (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the impasse at RfA and arguments to and fro are perennial losing proposals. I'm just making a point to state the obvious. Asking ArbCom to be RfDA isn't scalable and RfA went off the rails a long time ago. ArbCom, especially the most recent set, seems loathe to implement de-sysop actions. It's pretty much a sentence to forever be without the tools with the current condition of RfA. It should instead be a learning experience for those losing the tools. Everyone sees the problem, but the way the community works, it won't ever get fixed because no proposed solution will ever make a consensus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

SV's talk page

One of the unusual issues here has been the long term deletion of much of SV's user talk page history, since at least July 2007.[5] I see some more of it has just now been replaced, but I am wondering whether this should not be done now while the case is ongoing. Of course, much of the history includes attempts to address SV's editing, including at least one of my edits that I've asked ElinorD about.[6] The link above also shows that people have asked about this since last July and have been told the history will be replaced, while SV has continued to make the page less welcome to concerns with a moving banner and I believe the most broadly worded request not to leave comments I have seen (including any issue she's involved with elsewhere).[7] This is partly a general issue and partly procedural, but an update on the status of this would seem appropriate. Mackan79 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. that is really irritating (the moving please don't leave comments here note). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A few people carry this on their user page explicitly, and most do not, but it applies to each and every userpage, whether the user explicitly agrees it does or not. I find that page not particularly welcoming or easy to read, compared to the average user page. It's by far not the worst I've ever seen though. But the appearance of the page is a minor issue at best. The unwelcomingness of the message is perhaps more concerning than how it displays. And even so, I'd say it's not a bad approach to encourage most discussion to happen on the relevant (article, policy, etc) talk page. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process specifies that resolution must have been attempted on the talk page of the editor in question. So for an editor to tell other editors not to comment on his/her talk page about disputes that he/she may be involved in is of concern, especially since some editors may not be familiar with the dispute resolution policy. Cla68 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nod. However, I'd IAR something or another in that case. Either drop the user a quick note that there is something going on they need to be aware of, or state some sort of formalism or whatever. Good faith attempts to resolve disputes matter more than the exact forms being obeyed. Or I hope they do anyway. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned the banner as one part of the issue; I've seen some that ask for discussion of article content to be carried out on the articles, but none that say this about all discussion relating to another page. But I think the more important question is whether the page history will be restored during this case. Large portions are still deleted, including much of the time leading up to SV's recent drawbacks in editing. Besides that this is unusual (I understand there are reasons it is difficult, but it's been nearly a year), the history seems particularly necessary for this case. Mackan79 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are people really complaining about "Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. Many thanks."? Thats a non-issue. It seems to me completely fair. I might even copy it, though I don't like the hovering. Stick to stuff of substance, like deleting history, and don't get side-tracked by irrelevancies William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with William M. Connolley. The floating is a tad annoying, but honestly, what's wrong with asking people to comment at the approporiate, centralised location? dorftrottel (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the failure to distinguish between behavioral issues and content that strikes me. I don't think it's a good sign or entirely trivial, but of course I agree the talk page history is the more pressing issue. Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may try to clarify here, the situation is that SV has a long history of immediately deleting criticism from her talk page, including fair and reasonable comments. In June 2007 amidst significant controversy including the first questions about Crum375, Crum375 deleted the entire talk page history. Over the coming weeks, they said it would be replaced, but this didn’t happen. SV then put up a moving banner making it all the more difficult for people to comment on her page. She’s also stopped archiving, commenting in places that archiving isn’t necessary because you always have the page history. Although no reason for keeping it deleted has been presented other than that ElinorD hasn’t been able to do it, offers to help don’t appear to have been accepted. As B has noted it’s impossible to know what ArbCom should do about something like this without knowing what direction it’s headed, but I think it should consider whether all of this squares. Mackan79 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Working the referees or mooning the jury?

People are already complaining that the decision will be disappointing. I guess we'll see the effect that has shortly, but I totally agree with Tony. This case is so incredibly difficult that the Committee need our support and assistance, not manipulative statements and ridicule of their previous actions.

I have to admit I don't know what would be the correct remedies in this case. I do see the problems with SV and FM. I'm particularly annoyed that they find it so hard to apologize to people like SandyGeorgia, Mackan79, and perhaps even to Cla68 for his RfA; however, it is disappointing that many workshoppers fail to review the problems in Cla68's behaviour properly. It's not the incivility he has admitted to above, rather the more subtle actions that is perceived as "attacks" by his targets. Take for example the compliment to Tim Vickers for his "patience". Well, in that context, what does that imply? What kind of monster was Tim facing that tried his patience so?

And what puzzles me is this. How come Tim Vickers and Coppertwig get along just fine with SV in spite of their previous disagreements?

And I wonder how much experience Cla68 has with the dynamics of controversial articles. How much of the trolls that provoke FM and JzG does he actually take into account when drafting the RfCs. What we really need are people that help out on controversial articles, both in dealing with POV-pushers and also in providing rational policy-based counter-arguments when the defenders of the Wiki go too far. Maybe a bit of lecturing and hitting people like JzG in the head for losing his temper is useful, and of course we need assertive editors like Tim Vickers that stand up to SV when she pushes her POV.

However, do we really need these prolonged campaigns against otherwise well-meaning contributors? These editors are in fact defending controversial topics from POV-pushers and blatant trolls, so that the rest of us can be proud over the accuracy of the encyclopaedia, while happily editing our non-controversial topics in relative peace ... Merzul (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I tire of this excessive deference to those who may have behaved badly in editing controversial articles. I see User:DGG has commented on this arbitration at places, and there's an editor who regularly intervenes in difficult areas - as a consequence of his work at AFd, especially - without ever once being less than respectful or on-point. There are dozens such I could name. The problem is personalisation of disputes, or excessive, gleeful, inept zest when troll-whacking. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Vickers' forbearance with some of the editors whose names have been prominently discussed in this case is definitely an example to us all, including myself of course. Even Tim, however, has had occasion to comment on the quality of the behavior of one of the parties to this case [8]. Because of what we know of the exemplary nature of Tim's conduct and participation in the project, his comment may be as telling as any other comment left in this case by anyone else. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merzul, what is needed isn't people "helping out on controversial articles", what is needed to have proper policies so that people can draft them in peace. There are some ideas tossed around here to combat the behaviour so amply documented on the evidence page, and the Arbcom would do well to take a look at them. Arbcom, here's your chance. Waste it! 129.170.84.144 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please also do look at the talkpage of that brainstorming page for some reason why there's a lot of fringe-y rot being tossed around about the problem. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Merzul, it's all the more telling how even an editor as friendly and balanced and hardwording as Tim Vickers was attacked in the first place. Using him as a positive example in this context is guaranteed to backfire. dorftrottel (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, quite some replies. First, Cla68, that's indeed true, and yes, SV does personalize conflicts, which I've experienced myself, but I still maintain that it is possible to talk directly with her. I hope ArbCom can find some kind of compulsory mediation process rather than punitive remedies, because I think that will only divide the project further. I'm quite convinced that all parties in this case do intend the best for the project, and that mending the wounds could still be possible. Perhaps, I am extremely naive, but sometimes one has to hope, right?

Second, Dorftrottel may be right, but I actually think we are somehow all guilty of feeding a certain Defender of the Wiki mentality. This mentality sometimes lashes out on innocent well-meaning editors. For example, the ID articles have a long history of pro-ID POV-pushers coming and going, so the policy-oriented editors there keep fighting and fighting. That cements the picture in their mind that some editors are the good guys and others are the bad guys; and when an innocent editor happens to raise similar objection, she will get hit hard.

I don't understand this WikiPsychology myself, but I know it is true, because I have done it myself. I said nasty things to a certain user that I deeply regret. I said it all because he was a "POV-pusher" and I was the good guy. Except one day I imagined meeting this gentleman in person, member of British nobility he is in fact, and I was thinking I would never say things like this in real life, so why did I do that on the Wiki? Well... I was defending the Wiki...

My point?? It is so incredibly easy to fall into this kind of behaviour on controversial articles, where your sanity is constantly tested. We need to help each other avoid falling into these behaviours, where one places the Wiki higher than a dignified human interaction. In the end, we are not here to win or lose arguments, but to create quality content for other human beings. That's not easy, so we need to help each other, rather than fight, I think, Merzul (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

we are somehow all guilty of feeding a certain Defender of the Wiki mentality — I hate to say it, but you're probably right. But far worse is that the Workshop page is currently a big mess imho. People seem reluctant to join in and we're not giving the arbitrators a good basis for their interpretation of the evidence. (The latter is completely unrelated to anything said before, just felt it had to be said.) dorftrottel (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

what is needed isn't people "helping out on controversial articles", what is needed to have proper policies so that people can draft them in peace - this is laughably naive. What we need is precisely people helping on controversial articles. Any number of policies - we all ready have any number of policies - will never allow them to de drafted in peace: policies always have loopsholes, ambiguity, or interpretation issues. What will allow peace is permitting admins to block people for abusive behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with WMC here on the first point. I'd like to point out that when I once disagreed with one of his actions on an article talkpage, his response was to request me to participate in the process, and bring my friends. That is precisely the attitude we need. On the second, please everyone remember that wikilawyering about the nature of "uninvolved" is laughable. Everyone knows who is involved with what, even if they haven't edited that specific article for six months. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

William, it's you that's naive. Policy on Wikipedia is what people do. If people don't hand out the topic bans or blocks that are sorely needed to allow articles to settle down and put a stop to the inane posturing and cliquishness then the arbcom has to step in. It's long overdue for them to do it. 129.170.90.97 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A few points re Merzul: 1. I do appreciate the sentiment, but I think you may gloss the point of some of our evidence, which likely isn't what we would present if we were simply annoyed over personal treatment. My evidence isn't that SV has bad intentions, but that she repeatedly breaches basic community principles and at some point that this can't be accepted. 2. Tim Vickers' approach is admirable, but of course also extraordinary in some ways. His ability to work with SV (to the extent that's happened) appears to have been against her will,[9] while I saw today Bastique commented on this point back in 2006.[10] The fact is it shouldn't be that difficult, and at some point mistreating editor after editor has to become inexcusable. 3. While SV is undoubtedly capable of good editing, her work in fighting POV pushers hasn't been presented (time spent countering pro-Larouche editors some time ago seems to be widely acknowledged). I believe JzG fights POV pushers; I don't agree with how he does it, but then I wouldn't take his place. But I don't believe SV's editing at least in my two years has consistently sought or resulted in NPOV, or even for that matter the good of the project in any way that could justify her actions. 4. The idea that an ironic comment from Cla68 here or there has been significant is in my view a misreading.

Not that any of this precludes more creative approaches. However, I think ArbCom can simply say, clearly, that much of the evidence presented here shows editing that is simply wrong. Making accusations without evidence is wrong. Tag-team revert warring is wrong. Constantly personalizing disputes with established editors is wrong. Abusing and gaming new editors is wrong. Misrepresenting oversighted edits is wrong. Tactical archiving of pages is wrong. Making Wikipedia a battleground is wrong. In general, assuming or claiming bad faith in one's opponents is not an excuse for breaching basic community values. At least in my view these basic recognitions are the most important part. Mackan79 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Merzul, somewhat. My modestly inflamatory comments on the nature of the proposed decision are intended to encourage the committee to be aggressive in dealing with longstanding disrupitve problems with the encyclopedia. My orginal research observation is that they would rather not be aggressive with the axe (deadmin), and that it their perogative. As has been observed however, when the evidence points to a few direct problems, and excesive good faith is extended it doesn't work out in the long run. The workshop page is not convoluted, just long, with lots of creative suggestions. It doesn't get a lot of external attention, because long time users are wary of getting on SV's enemies list and having to defend themselves from the behavior shown on the evidence page based on the expectation of a limited decision from the committee. I do agree with William C, remove abusive people from editing, our policies and rules are well enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(William) "What will allow peace is permitting admins to block people for abusive behaviour." I believe uninvolved administrators are currently permitted to block users for abusive behavior. Your statement also fails to define the term "abusive behaviour". Admins are simply editors (with their own interests and agendas) possessing a set of extra tools. Those tools should not be used to advance one's own interests or agendas. --SimpleParadox 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but use of the admin tools notwithstanding, admins can and should be held to higher behavioural standards. If and when the trust placed in them by the community expires for whatever neutrally demonstrable reasons (i.e. even if it's completely unrelated to the use of the admin tools), it's time to give the community another go at evaluating whether or not they do in fact still trust that user, even if it's just to prevent the impression that Wikipedia is a 'cliquocracy', or a 'claquocracy', for that matter. dorftrottel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

SP: unfortately, uninvolved admins don't know whats going on. If you think the system is working well, I invite you to review Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. D: taking tools away from people who are using them usefully merely to prevent "impressions" doesn't seem very sensible to me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "even if it's just". In this case, there are long-term behavioural issues that need to be addressed that merit desysopping several times over. dorftrottel (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence so strong that you're convinced that it merits desysopping several times over, then (a) don't waste your time on trivia like impressions (b) don't waste your time arguing here - your case is won, no? OTOH, if (as seems rather more likely) your evidence is nowhere near as strong as you're asserting, you'll need to keep talking here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To interject (again) I think the problem is that some people believe that regardless of the strength of the case, ArbCom is not coming out from under the bed until the nasty peoples goes away. That is an unfortunate side-effect of MML among others. (Also Hkelkar, Apartheid, and one or two others.) --Relata refero (disp.) 10:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, no? And yes, the presented evidence is making a strong case for strong measures. I am very much in favour of Alanyst's proposal. Simply make all of the involved admins go through RfA again. Let the community determine if they still trust the candidates. If there really is nothing wrong, they should easily pass again. dorftrottel (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you have to defend your argument, you must be wrong." So, are you presenting a false dichotomy, or do you truly base all your arguments on the power of belief؟

--129.67.162.133 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

William, one concern is long-term editors who seem to have an opinion, possibly formed years ago, independent of any evidence that has been or could be presented. I read you to have said above that if SV were more able to block editors we wouldn't have a problem. Is this really your assessment? I'm not sure how it has anything to do with any of the evidence presented or any situation SV has found herself in the last couple of years. Mackan79 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly which of my statements you mean. Nothing I've said applies to SV especially. If you mean What will allow peace is permitting admins to block people for abusive behaviour then I'd qualify that as being over-optimistic. It won't bring peace by itself, but it will certainly help. It isn't even particularly applicable to this case - have we/I got sidetracked? Probably the only relevance is that I'd like it to be a principle that arbcomm should estalish William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) WMC: I am fairly aware of most of the issues surrounding that particular article, including but not limited to the recently declined request for arbitration. I understand frustration with the apparent inefficiency of policy strongly discouraging a block of a disruptive user on an article with which an admin is involved or policy stating that edits to a fully protected page should be done only when clear consensus is reached on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, while your particular actions may be for the betterment of that specific article, the temptation to use the tools in order to advance one's own understanding of NPOV (which is generally painted by one's own interests, opinions, and agendas) on any given article may be too great if those policies were not in place. In light of the importance of preventing the intentional or unintentional misuse of tools in those cases, I think a little bit of inefficiency and the 'trouble' of creating an "impression" of propriety is a small price to pay. --SimpleParadox 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The inefficiency of the policy is all to apparent. Your description of the problems at Allegations as "a little bit of inefficiency" is incomprehensible to me. That it has had to escalate to a vast waste of arbcomm/everyones time is deeply inefficient; and you are neglecting the burn-out issues that have been all too well documented William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Long Pages, functionality and clerking

Ironically, this discussion was started on the Workshop page. The clerk has moved it here as it is discussion about the page rather than discussing the meat of the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that (very) long pages like this serve a useful purpose. I've noticed that threads tend to have a period of activity, followed by atrophy - there are many such examples above. Quite what the time period for a 'thread lifecycle' is, I'm totally unsure about, but I am sure that it's bloomin hard to sort the wood from the trees, and I've got a few ideas about what might help;

How about far more agressive clerking? - some sort of subpage sorting? How about specific editors offering to lead discussions (kinda like Analyst above) - and defined areas for this to occur?

I'd happily support anyone shuffling this single page into, oh, about 10 subpages, each linked to clearly from here - maybe that'll help? thoughts most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am having greta trouble finding section srelevant to my part of the case, I must say. Viridae^Talk 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That greta ... she's nothing but trouble so it's no wonder! As to what the relevance of most of the sections to your part of the case is... got me. I think I've said more than once, I feel merging these cases is a mistake and wish it could be undone. I think my analysis (in evidence) of the JzG RfC was intended more to show that it was a valid and useful RfC and Cla68 did the wiki a service by bringing it (contrary to the assertions of some), rather than to analyse what transpired afterwards, which I have not, as it is tangential to that point. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know once there is a workable plan to reshuffle the page, after it has some consensus. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• How about spinning out the Jzg/Viridae part for starters? dorftrottel (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. As time goes by it is more and more apparent that the cases have no relation. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It was apparent from the start, Lar. I'm a great believer in assuming good faith, but this merging of the cases reeks, to me, of deliberate obfuscation. Muddy waters are very hard to peer through with any hope of seeing clearly what lies at the bottom. One brief and hasty comment by JF, without substantive argument for the merge, followed by some "me too" endorsements was rather rapidly closed as an acceptance of the merging of JzG into this case. I think there are roughly 12 active arbitrators (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, why weren't all their voices heard before the JzG case was merged, because there was significant opposition to that particular course of action. I strongly urge unmerging the cases. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Over ten days ago I asked for an explanation of the merge, None has been forthcoming. We now have a terrible dog's dinner of a case, which could not have been better designed if the intent was to prevent any meaningful discussion or scrutiny. DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • reeks, to me, of deliberate obfuscation — I'm glad I'm not the only one who is left with that bad aftertaste. dorftrottel (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• See also the proposal to unmerge the cases. dorftrottel (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Foundation-l thread about stalking

I've put this in talk because I'm not sure where it should go... stalking is a real problem, and anyone who says it doesn't happen at all has their head in the sand. SlimVirgin has been the victim in the past of multiple attempts by people to out her, to harass her on wiki by posting personal information, and the like. That is not acceptable, and it should be taken very seriously. But, perhaps because she's been victimised more than average, or perhaps for other reasons, I think she has a tendency to see every (or at least many) disagreement(s) with others as potentially a case of someone stalking her. I presented evidence to that effect last nite, and there is more to be had, if there's a question about that, I'll present more. There is a thread started now on the Foundation-l mailing list. It started with this post, but has went on to quite some considerable length. Cla68, in a recent evidence posting, refers to some of the posts by SlimVirgin on this list. I feel SlimVirgin is painting with far too broad a brush. I think if you review the thread (there is a lot to review) you will find I am not alone in that. In particular, I think this post by SirFozzie says things very well. People should read it and think about it... and think about whether it is true, as some suggest, that SlimVirgin is trying to do an end run around this arbitration process by making her points in another forum, one perhaps not as visible to participants here. I apparently am one of the people being referred to. I'll say again: I participate at WR, as do many other WP contributors. I will make no excuses for that participation. I think it is beneficial to WMF projects to do so. I think I clear up a lot of misconceptions by doing so. I think I find out things that need correction on WP by reading threads at WR. For those reasons, I reject the notion that mere participation at WR is prima facie evidence of anything (other than a sincere desire to gather all viewpoints and provide useful and legitimate information) ... much less stalking or anything of the sort. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the thread yet, but the irony in the situation with SV is that, although she should understand how it feels to be stalked and harassed, she unblocked a person who had done just that, without requesting she refrain from attacks, remove attacks or monitoring her edits after she was unblocked, and SV has since shown little sympathy for my efforts to protect the actual victim of harassment and stalking in the Z ArbCom. I suspect many of us would be more sympathetic to SV's concerns about stalking if she reciprocated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I read the evidence and discussion of this case, the more I simply do not understand the choices she's made regarding participation at en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is right. If the individual projects cannot handle the harassment and stalking of their members, the Foundation may have to intervene. I don't see that as particularly germaine to this arbitration, which is about conduct which is covered by existing policies and arbitration findings and doesn't involved (yet) anything resembling stalking. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, possibly so, as long as SV's frequent charges of wikistalking whenever anyone edits a policy or guideline page where she edits can be dealt with separately, no different than the frequent claims of personal attacks where none have occurred, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That, and walking away is always an option. dorftrottel (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read Slim's messages? She seems to be demanding that the Foundation override the community on anything she regards as pertaining to "stalking" or "harassing", for which she uses a definition that goes way beyond true harassment and stalking to encompass such things as granting admin or bureaucrat status to somebody she personally dislikes, or bring RFCs or RFAr cases against her or her friends. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ant's comment I don't see that as particularly germaine to this arbitration, which is about conduct which is covered by existing policies and arbitration findings and doesn't involved (yet) anything resembling stalking. The only stalking discussed in this case is that alleged by some folks, and their appears to be very limited evidence for it. However, this section does get at some of the other allegations of inappropriate behavior by SV, is it important? who can tell. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Lar, not sure there's much more to add. Mackan79 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerk action

Semantic pedantry, section "JzG-Viridae case shelved" is a motion, not an injunction. If whoever is clerking this feels like being a pedant and moving the section... SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No, it is fine. It is an injunction on one half of this omnibus case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unrealistic expectations

Thread header comment was originally misposted here. Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision#Unrealistic_expectations with apologies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cull a bit of the stagnating info?

I think it would be a great idea for a clerk, or anyone really, to re-factor this page (possibly moving older sections into a subpage?) in such a way as to make it less cumbersome... either that or I'd support a move to the 'Doesn't really Workshop' ;-) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been getting a bit cumbersome, yeah. Might be best if an arbitrator did it or told the clerk to do it, as a sort of reassurance that the stuff has been read and considered. Like how deleting talk page notices is considered proof of having read them. Dr. eXtreme 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on this idea. The arbs may not even have read all this yet. They should. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - maybe the task should be seen as purely structural? The truth is that the page is a godawful mess! - and does a pretty poor job at communicating... well... anything really... I'd support a re-organisation... p'raps I should try and demonstrate in my userspace... I'll see if I get time.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged

Please review this summary of the workshop page's proposals. I think the next step would be to link each finding of fact to the specific evidence sections that support it. If folks have discusion, please set up talk page sections for them, I think this would be most useful to help the committee work with the info. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise “solutions”

Many or all of the parties to this dispute display a high degree of commitment to the dispute(s) and to the principles which underlie it/them. (I conceptualize principles broadly.) Part-way measures may produce a period of quiescence, but eventually there will be a return to warring (cold or hot). —SlamDiego_←T 06:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG wikibreak

Not sure if anyone has noticed, so dropping off a note here. JzG has announced a long wikibreak, possibly until September. See here. Does this affect this case? Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that he was on break even before he declared it, and suggested shelving the relevant portion of the case. I can't say that those commenting overwhelmingly agreed with me. I don't think the declaration of the break is likely to change the comments of anyone that already left them. GRBerry 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My impression from reading this "Wiki-War-and-Peace" - as well as the preceding RfC on JzG - was that a sizeable proportion of commentators thought that a wikibreak would would be a great help to Guy and go a long way to solving the concerns. Shelving half of the case looks increasingly sensible. Much as I believe that a conclusion to this RfAr (with appropriate remedies) will be of wiki-benefit, I also have great hopes that the JzG/Viridae part (which should have been kept separate in the first place) will solve itself after Guy's break. Optimistically, --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have long thought he needed a break and probably would be able to return better able to edit at his best. Some companies have mandatory vacations. I have often thought all admins should have one month a year mandatory vacation from their admin tools. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal of a large part of the Workshop

See this diff [11] - why? DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, striking/retracting the proposal would be better. user:Everyme 10:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If there is wholesale removal, I'd call for a clerk, and meanwhile revert. Once anyway. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What was that removal about? What is going on? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think/assume that Ncmvocalist has changed his mind about the appropriateness of desysopping JzG and wants to remove that proposal from his list of proposals. An alternative to removing it, if there is some value in that discussion, is to just move it to a section called "other proposals". I don't think there is any serious chance that arbcom would consider desysopping JzG do removing it probably wouldn't hurt anything ... although it's useful inasmuch as it is a record that it has already been discussed. --21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (that was User:B)

It's already a record item and has been discussed. I'm reinstating it and telling him not to remove it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I was considering withdrawing and deleting my recent "Gordian knot" proposal since it had no support and some friendly opposition, and to give back some space on the Workshop page. If a clerk wants to do this, I'll gladly support it; if it should be kept for the record, I'm fine with that too. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ALanyst and Ncmvocalist-Strike out the proposal (but not commentary) if you like, but don't remove it. A collapsible box is okay too. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A special thanks to User:Everyme for contacting me and making the box suggestion that addressed both my concerns, and those expressed here. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think every proposal (principle, finding, remedy, what have you) offered in good faith should remain part of the record of the case, whether or not I personally agree with the proposal or its merits. If there is a space problem to the point of the page not being openable, subpage things as needed, sure. If there is a navigation problem, collapsable boxes are OK too, although I'm not a fan of adding them "too early" in discussions, or at all on workshop pages, really. So I would advocate retention, even if it weren't the norm.++Lar: t/c 13:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, by the way, if collapsible boxes are going to be used on ArbCom cases, I suggest reviewing the problems we've had with them at FAC. First, I suggest that the cap should always include the signature of the person doing the capping, so we don't have to step back through edit summaries to find out who added a collapsible box. When I read an ArbCom page, I want to know if the collapsible box was added by a clerk, an arbitrator, or the original poster, for example. The person adding the cap can sign the commentary that shows in the cap subject line. Second, we've said at FAC that an editor can only cap his/her own commentary, never someone else's, easier to verify if they sign. Third, they generate a serious problem in archives with Wikipedia:Template limits, resulting in dropped content from archives. See Wikipedia talk:FAC#Template limit again; we've had to discourage overuse of collapsible boxes at FAC, as they were causing text to be lost in the FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good points Sandy. I'll have to think this over. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We're no longer in the old system where we have random proposals made by randoms in random spaces/sections - if we were, that'd make sense, although every adjustment would probably end up being tested there. However, a set of proposals are made by each user, in their own individual section - i.e. they choose the proposals they make in their own section, and commentators are well aware of the fact that when commenting. If a user feels a particular proposal is no longer appropriate or necessary, they're entitled to withdraw it completely - just as any arbitrator can withdraw a proposal with the header "removed", even if votes were cast on it earlier (and without a collapsible box for that matter). The original clerk quite rightly followed the same precedent because several earlier proposals were discarded in the same way. If for some reason, there is a change to this precedent, I know I would no longer be willing to participate at workshops in their current format. I certainly don't want outdated proposals still under my name. If a user wants to advocate retention, whomever it is, then they would ask to go back to the old system of workshops mentioned above, in the appropriate forum (not here) - but even so, one would need to consider why we have the new system as opposed to the old system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think strikethroughs address the concern of "outdated proposals still under my name" just fine. Per Sandy, when you put a collapsable box on a proposal, you're collapsing my words too, if I happened to comment or oppose. The collapsable box also means that doing a cntl-F to search for text will fail unless you're in edit mode, as the text inside the box will not be returned. All in all, I think collapsable boxes are a bad idea. Not a hugely bad one, but bad enough that I think maybe strikeouts are the better way to go. It's a wiki. If you're so concerned about a proposal that you don't even want it seen, perhaps not making it in the first place might be a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to reexamine what was said - we're no longer in the old system, and the original clerk was right in following precedent of previous arbitrations where arbitrators have removed their proposals (even with other arbs votes) in the manner I highlighted earlier. If you want to make a proposal under your name, that's your choice - it's as simple as that. Don't start complaining about your comments (or the proposal) being hidden when it's not even in your set of proposals. When a case drags on for as long as this, proposals might change as the conduct of the parties change, and it's the individual's opinion and choice of what to propose (if anything) and if anything is appropriate to remain - it never will be someone else's choice of what remains in your section. I'd agree with you under the old system, but again, you might want to think why it was withdrawn. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did "reexamine what was said", and refuted it, I have to wonder if you read what I said carefully. What system we are under, how the proposals are organized, etc. is not really relevant to my point. Showhide interferes with the find function, while strikeouts do not. If you do not care for a proposal you made, or a comment you made in support or opposition or whatever, strike it out. If the proposal itself is removed by a clerk, that's different. You are, as far as I know, not a clerk in this case, are you? ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• An alternative would be to rely on {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}}, with an additional note at the top (right above Archive top) by the user placing the templates, in explanation of why he is "deactivating" that thread. user:Everyme 06:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's an idea, except, it still clogs up the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Archive boxes can be collapsed or hidden entirely with user CSS if desired; I do this when browsing AFD archives with still-open entries. Can someone explain how a collapse box affects template limits in a way that {{Archive top}} does not? --Random832 (contribs) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • See Gimmetrow's post about double counting here:

        "Capped" comments use a content= parameter. I think that makes them count twice, since the size is included as a transclusion in the "cap" and then when the FAC page is trancluded. They could be noincluded, which would then only count for the FAC page and not the archive. Gimmetrow 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

      • Greek to me; I just know I have to remove them from archives or the archives bomb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make any wholesale changes to the workshop or evidence pages, which I am using in reviewing the case. Strikethroughs are probably the best means of reflecting changes of position. Having said that, if something was already removed from the workshop, it doesn't matter much; I've had more than enough to read as it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Shii

While we're on the subject of removing portions of the workshop, can a clerk deal with Modest_proposals_by_User:Shii? This case is complicated enough without more trolling proposals. --B (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it, Nishkid. I would never condone allowing certain misguided editors to compulsively derail an entire discussion with endless tangents and irrelevancies, but for Pete's sake, let a few kids have their mildly satirical yuks--it's better reading than some of the "serious" proposals. The ArbCom isn't looking at this stuff anyway.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not too fond of using the Workshop page to make "joke" proposals, Shii's proposals lighten the mood in a seemingly heated environment. The proposals are harmless; I'll let them stay. Besides, as TFMWNCB stated, the arbitrators won't be looking seriously at these proposals. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, the United States Supreme Court takes itself less seriously than this Internet moot court. Shii (tock) 03:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Late entrant.

I realize that it is late-in-the-day, but I offered a proposed remedy of mutual non-administration. —SlamDiego_←T 00:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's proposals

Hopefully I'm not missing another general discussion, but I'll say here that I support Brad's proposals. I see a couple points I would stress more, for instances the extent to which editors and admins are expected to participate in dispute resolution and/or respond to concerns, but in general these seem more than fair. I'm also impressed that it was brought to the workshop page. Of course that leaves plenty to decide, but I think it's a good start. Mackan79 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

207.112.104.177 disruption and possible sockpuppetry

Could someone review 207.112.104.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Contributions like do it, faggot, saying You suck to Newyorkbrad, and dan tobias is full of shit are not helpful. He's obviously someone, so a checkuser may be helpful, however. rootology (T) 18:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see Jehochman just got him, but why anon only? Whomever it is, if theres an account behind it, shouldn't they be locked out also by autoblock? For example, here. rootology (T) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, not if they're an admin, or not if they're able to quickly move to a new IP. Given Thatcher blocked this IP a couple of days ago for disruption, I suspect he's looked into sock claims. Checkuser doesn't show everything unfortunately. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, if he's been CU'd. rootology (T) 18:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher blocked anon only, so I repeated that, assuming that checkusers have better than average clue levels. This could be a shared IP. Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered workshop requests

Would any of the arbitrators be willing or able to answer request numbers 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 on the Workshop page? Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussing "Circumstances and sanctions" proposal

22) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of contributions and other surrounding circumstances. Editors who are sanctioned are expected to take the decision into account in their future conduct, to abide by any sanctions imposed, and to address the issues identified. The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction, in any arbitration case, to reopen the case and to impose further and additional, and often much more severe, sanctions if behavior issues addressed in the initial decision are not resolved.

I'm put this on the discussion, because I'm going to break NYB wise suggestion that we talk about the principles in the abstract, without reference to how they affect the current case. I think that's an excellent principle, and one we should stick to. But for the purposes of trying to find a better wording, let me break this apart and hopefully find a better way to word this that will have the same effect in this particular case without being based on principles that will be troublesome in the future.

As I see it, the situation is this:

1. SV has been a very controversial user and there's been a lot of stife due to her actions. It's a problem, and one we want to solve.
2. BUT-- most of her behavior hasn't crossed any clear black-and-white lines of rules. Taken in total, it's easy to see a pattern of "unnecessary roughness", factionalism, cabalism, meatpuppetry, or other behaviors-- but it's hard to list just one diff and say "This was completely unacceptable and she should have known it was against the rules when she did it.
3. Furthermore, it's not at all clear she's "acting in bad faith". Rather, she's probably acting in good faith attempts to improve the project, but is engaging in "unnecessary roughness"-- playing WAY too hard.
4. We want her to stop the problematic behavior. We don't want her to be banished, we don't want her crushed, we just want the problem to end, and a firm warning to back off and stop being might do that.
5. More than anything, there just isn't the political will on the committee for any stronger sanction anyway. I personally would argue this is acceptable-- saying "Okay, you need to stop" is, I think, an okay outcome in with regards to SV. So far, no authoritative body has yet said this to her, many very high-up people have endorsed her way of doing things, and so it seems like sheer fairness owes her a statement that "you need to stop now".

The problem is, the current wording of principle 22 is basically saying "Given that she does so much good around here and given that bad people have done bad things to her and we feel sorry for her, we've decided not to punish her".

The irony is, I can agree with the ultimate outcome, but I think the listed reasoning is a very bad one. Is there any other way we can accomplish this piece of logic-- SV is given a firm "you need to stop" but isn't desysopped at this time.

My idea is to word it in terms of either "relative lack of clear-cut behavior problems" or "violating standards that are sufficently gray" or "doing harm to the project but perhaps not realizing it". None of these wordings are very good, but they're better than "Good overall contributions entitle someone to break the rules and get a warning". I'm sure that's not what NYB means, but I think the current wording of 22) will be read that way.

Can anyone suggest other general principles that might justify the same clemency, without having to resort to "Good overall contributions"? --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing left to add, I feel. Each one of your above points is spot-on. Thank you for posting this, it reflects my feelings far better than anything I could have formulated. user:Everyme 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The decision whether to warn or to impose a stricter sanction should be based on the Committee's judgment whether the editor is likely to change their bad behavior in response to a warning. In other words, choose the lightest remedy most likely to accomplish a change of behavior. A strong history of positive contribution can be evidence that the editor shares the values of the community and project, and thus would be receptive to a warning. With this reasoning, the editor's record of contributions should factor into the choice of a sanction. But other factors can negatively influence that judgment: obstinacy, wikilawyering, obstructiveness, or other efforts not to cooperate can be much stronger signs of whether a warning will be heeded or not. alanyst ^/talk/ 13:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Also note that our primary objective is to achieve a positive net outcome for the project, which at times means that we have "forgiven the unforgivable" - and, indeed, on occasion, been particularly close in our application of policy and philosophy to ensure that people are aware of just how important the issue is.

James F. (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and in that context, maybe consider also how many valued former contributors would come back when SV would be desysoped.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom seems to have persisted to 'consider the past contributions', even when a pattern of poor behaviour has become well established. Resulting in weak rulings that "if this continues that they might consider doing something maybe". The ArbCom have essentially declared that this group of Admin are out-of-bounds for any punitive action.

Which has lead to certain Admins believing that they *are* an Elite Cadre, and who need to have their permission asked for reversal of their edicts, such as allowing an unblocked editor access to arbitration cases.--Barberio (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to assume that the Committee members try not to let political considerations influence their judgment, though perhaps some members are more conscientious about this than others. The problem is when they "forgive the unforgivable", but the decision to do so is insufficiently explained. That leaves a vacuum of rationale which can be filled with all sorts of suspicions, whether fair or not. Since the usual presumption is that enforcement of Wikipedia policies is the way to accomplish a positive net outcome for the project, if the Committee decides that exceptional leniency is merited in a particular case, I think they are obliged to give a solid rationale, supported by specifics, for that decision. A decision that says little more than "stricter sanctions would harm the project", without specifically stating why, would itself be harmful to the project by causing more damage to the relationship between the community and the Committee. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The big problem here is that it creates a new class of users whose "overall record of contributions" is sufficiently strong to give them a bit of a free pass. With some reservations, I roughly agree with Alec's points 1, 3, 4 and 5. However I think the evidence does not support point 2 because she has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the complaints about her past behavior. Once you're told that you're bending the rules and playing too hard, you should take that into account and adjust. One might argue that there is no one diff that is particularly unacceptable but actually one really bad diff is less of a problem than a recurring pattern of very questionable decisions, especially in the face of constant calls to play fair.

Point 5 also bothers me because it accepts the top-down power structure of Wikipedia. That structure exists of course but we know that it doesn't do the project much good. It's a pretty classical socio-political phenomenon. Initially, a well-intentioned group of people join forces to push a society forward but as they gain influence, they slowly begin to think of themselves as an irreplaceable elite whose leadership is so important that it has to be protected, even if that means bending the rules and principles that they helped put in place. In turn, this creates an increasing sense of impunity from the elite and increasing frustration from the base and the gap between the two group widens. Let's face it: it's hard to not read "overall record of contributions" as "part of the elite". If political pressure is tying up the hands of ArbCom, then I hope it will have the decency, courage and wisdom to either free itself from it or acknowledge it because every watered-down decision will reduce its independence. If arbitrators need help protecting their independence, they certainly cannot count on those who apply that pressure. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit, there's arguments that can be made on the points-- but the main issue is that clemency should probably be based on the nature of the infractions, not the identity of the individuals. I agree that SV has gotten a lot of feedback that her behavior should change, but she's also gotten a lot of feedback that her behavior is exactly what the project needs. There is almost an pseudo-insanity defense here-- if she genuinely doesn't know that her behavior is inappropriate, maybe there's reason to believe that a sufficiently strongly-worded statement might have an effect. Ultimately, the proof shall be in the pudding. If, whatever decision is rendered, the problem behavior stops, then the decision is probably a good one. If the behavior continues, then the arbs probably fumbled this one.

But as to trying to detect a double standard-- How Arbcom treats some of the other editors under consideration in this case will give us a much clearer view of whether the arbcom sees some admins more equal than others. While SV is somewhat gray, the behavior problems exhibited by others is almost comically cut and dry. How Arbcom handles them will show us whether Arbcom is being cautious in case riddled with shades of gray or whether they're blatantly just going to refuse to enforce policies against some people who have a lot of wikiclout. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a double standard, rather it is a uniform standard that overall contributions play a part in deciding clemency. Both as admin and editor. This is the basic definition of extenuating circumstances and is the basis of for reduced sentences. Justice should be blind in establishing innocence or guilt but certainly not blind when establishing punishment. It's interesting that this basic philosophy is applied everyday in it's application to vandals (i.e. no contributions and a couple bad edits will lead to a block but the same action by established editors is certainly given more leeway.). It is certainly within ArbComs perogative to evaluate each editor in this case and decide if they are net positive or net negative as editors or admins. The total contributions is certainly part of that equation. They can certainly delve into different actions as being either net positive or net negative contributions for establishing topic bans, desysopping and the like. If the definition of "wikiclout" is warning a net positive admin while desysopping a net negative admin even though they come before arbcom with the same infraction (e.g. a improper page protection), then every editor/admin should be striving for wikiclout and every wikipedian should support the concept. Any editor with extensive edits to controversial subjects will develop detractors and supportors (except NYB who only has supporters). The fact that the list of detractors is long or that the editor in question has so many contributions that their detractors have formed a type of "pappapediazzi" and coordinate their sightings off-site, should be completely discounted. This type of action simply doesn't happen to low level contributors. The end result of your proposal is that anyone with any amount of edits will ultimately be banned. --DHeyward (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All admins are equal, but some admins are more equal than others

The proposal to judge admins differential based on the subjective criterion who is more valuable than others for the project, introduces nothing else than a privileged class of admins. Many editors do already have the feeling this is reality, and the acceptance of this as a rule to determine who gets punished and who walks free, will only strengthen this. Unfortunately, it seems unavoidable in any self-organizing structure that differential treatment of the members gets introduced, sometime, somehow. It was already introduced in en.wikipedia a long time ago when several of the admins that are once again parties of a ArbCom case were mildly trout slapped while much more severe sanctions would be in order. Maybe this ArbCom has at least the ball to formally indicate that they indeed will treat some Admins more lenient than others. maybe it is for the better of the project that the rule that some admins are more equal than other gets formalized. Maybe it is time that the people in power at en.wikipedia stop pretending that there is no differentiation, lets make a special class for the untouchables. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe many of us agree in principle that the idea of a ruling elite is highly detrimental to the project, but tell that to Jimbo. Also, it's not easy to judge over the behaviour of people who no doubt have their own version of the best of the project in mind (which is imho relatively agreeable in SV's case) and who also have received mixed feedback, which also includes much agreement. To quote Alanyst from above, the lightest remedy that promises an effect should be the weapon of choice here. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. If there is any chance to drive the message of a dire need of behavioral adjustment home without driving off someone who has after all contributed featured content and proven to be both capable of and willing to do good work on the encyclopedia, we should of course go for that and leave the pitchforks in the shed (that is to say that any variant of the idea of punishment or vengeance should be absent from this discussion, it's strictly about what can reasonably be expected for the future, and how that can best be influenced).

Note that if it is determined (now or at some later time) that the lightest effective remedy is to desysop her, so be it. But since that is unlikely to happen for the time being for a variety of reasons (some of them plausible, others arguably less so), it needs to be stressed, as Alec is excellently doing above, that it's merely a matter of the most promising remedy. What is clear however is the underlying issue of a need to categorical behavioral adjustments on SV's part and therefore the need to issue an effective message to that effect, in the final decision of this case. Considering past AC decisions and that certain sense of an untouchable but unfortunately sometimes less than 100% wise and considering elite and an according querulousness that pervades parts of the community, that alone would mean a lot and might even accomplish a lot, not only with regard to SV herself.

(My personal opinion still is that desysopping SV is not that much of a big deal since she's never been terribly active as a janitor, i.e. cleaning backlogs etc. Non-reasons like wikipolitical considerations are constantly given undue weight imho, which isn't entirely without irony (or something far worse), since it's the notion of WikiPolitics^TM which, more for SlimVirgin than for any other single user or even group of users, has turned out too seductive a way of enforcing and pushing through her —sometimes very agreeable, at least in principle— desired changes.) user:Everyme 18:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough soul searching on the part of those who've condoned poor behavior in the name of the greater good. The bunker mentality is still very prevalent among some of the most influential admins, leading them to believe that they're allowed to cross the line because they have the project's best interests at heart. They tend to forget that their idea of "best interest" is not necessarily inline with others' ideas or, in the Mantanmoreland case, that they might be working with incorrect assumptions.

Making sure that problems are solved in uncontroversial and transparent ways is everybody's responsibility. When you give wink and nudge support to questionable practices because "hey, in the end it's the right decision", you deserve a part of the blame when these practices continue. When you unblock a friend, you hurt the project more than you help it. Someone who asks for support off-wiki deserves a huge trout slap but so does anyone who responds to that request and in fact, so is anyone who knows that this is going on and looks the other way. And I can't help feeling that some of the admins involved in these shenanigans will read this and snicker. The ArbCom could certainly introduce in their proposed principles the mention that support for very questionable behavior is, well, very questionable.

As for the "tell that to Jimbo", well, I'm certainly happy to say once again that there's no good reason for the en.wiki to accept the authority of someone who's barely part of the community and hasn't really displayed any sort of deep wisdom. Jimbo is only able to keep that clout because he rules that self-appointed elite. There's no Jimbo on the German wiki and they seem to be doing just fine. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, needless to say (or so I believe) I largely agree both with you and Kim. But every little move in the right direction is a good move, and I daresay that during my almost 2 years with the project common-sense has somewhat increased. I vividly remember times when so much as mentioning WR or antisocialmedia.net by name or implication inevitably led to a harsh warning, if not an immediate block by the usual crumspects. We've come a long way since then, and since Jimbo is who he is and makes excellent decisions like he does, his waning authority isn't as harmful as it used to be.

But: I still believe that while it is absolutely true that laughably obvious double standards have been at play for far too long, it's not a worthwhile or workable compromise to argue for applying the same overtly rigid rulings to members of what some might prefer to call the elite/self-styled elite. We should go straight for what should have been done all along, which certainly includes taking a user's contrib history into account when determining the most useful remedy. May I remind you that someone actually (and with a straight face, I suppose) proposed remedies like commending those admins, in this very case? Now we're talking about how best to go about the obviously necessary behavioral changes they need to undertake. That's actual progress in a system with Wikipedia's inertia. (See also my comments here.) And to clarify upon something else: There has never been a doubt in my mind that if SV and some others continued their high-handed approach, they would eventually be banned. The only question and only point of interest for me was whether or not it would have to come to that, and how fast a serious change one way or the other would occur. user:Everyme 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't really disagree but note the difference between "sanctions" and "remedies": I'd be more comfortable if Brad's proposal mentioned the latter. Of course if the decision, whatever it is, is successful in curtailing the problems described in the case then that's good news. But I don't think we can view it as significant progress if ArbCom's political position is so weak that it can't point out that the failure here is not that of a sole individual. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's not a double standard. It's a standard that your net contributions will be weighed when deciding sanctions. Not guilt or innocence, just sanctions. This is common sense. Your 3rd drunk driving conviction at 0.10 BAC will not have the same punishment as someone elses 1st 0.10 BAC DUI. A second DUI that is 20 years removed from the first is not treated the same as when they are 6 months apart. That isn't Animal Farm dichotomoy but a rational system of justice. In Wikipedia, time between infractions is measured in edits. If an admin makes only 5 blocks and all 5 are bad, it is quite a bit different than an admin that makes 1000 blocks and only 5 are bad. The infraciton of "5 bad blocks" is certainly not to be evaluated in a vacuum of idiocy with equal desysopping of both admins but rather one may get desysopped and the ther get's a warning or request to be more careful. The Finding of Fact is the same. Justice is served with two completely different remedies and the project is better for it. --DHeyward (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're describing with your DUI analog is more "overall conduct" than "net contributions". If we were to have an analogy about "net contributions", I'd suggest the following: Someone is arrested for DUI, but that someone is a billionaire philanthropist who regularly donates a million dollars to the city's civic center. Obviously, the judge is worried that if he enforces the law, the net contributions will dry up. A timid judge might be tempted to weigh "damage done by the person's crimes" vs "good done by the person's financial contributions to the city" when deciding the sentence. But even making such an argument implies that justice can be bought and sold-- whether the currency be charity dollars or edit counts.

"Overall conduct" is a different matter. I don't think anyone find it controversial that someone who has a one-time incident of misconduct will be treated differently than someone who has a pattern of sustained misconduct. That's fine.

But some people have interpreted the proposal, as currently worded, as suggesting that "Net contributions" can purchase "freedom from compliance with the rules" through your contributions resulting in "sufficiently mild sanctions that don't actually stop the problems". And that's not cool.

You'll note that, if I'm not mistaken, this case doesn't involve any "single-incident lapses of judgment". Whatever people have been doing, whether good or bad, they've been doing it for some time. We're dealing with sustained behavior patterns, and the conflict is so long-standing that is can be measured in years. That these problems haven't gotten solved before now is why there's such a "let's get our pitchforks and torches, overthrow the arbcom, and solve these problems once and for all" mentality.

To use the most obvious example, JzG, an admin, has over 175+ counts of blatant incivility. He's been telling people to fuck off for years. He called another user a cunt for god sakes! And yet, he's still an admin, his block-log shows only two blocks, both of which were quickly overturned by people in the SV-FM-JzG faction.

In short, a problem does exists, it continues to exist despite a duration of years and hundreds of incidents-- and neither the project nor the arbcom have yet been able to solve it. In any given instant, it's all well and good to argue for leniency based on "net contributions". But in practice (in the past anyway) that logic ultimately resulted to a state where the rules simply do not apply to certain users.

But don't worry-- I have (and have always had) confidence that this double standard is going to get solved sooner or later. If not in this case, than in a future case, or else through some future yet-to-be-determined method of dispute resolution. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's strange, but Alec's example concerning Guy has finally convinced me that Brad has his proposal spot-on. I looked at the diff provided and saw Guy being guilty of incivility - without any question, guilty. Nevertheless, when I read that talk page, I saw surrounding circumstances (read: extenuating circumstances): that Guy was (1) under severe pressure because of tragic family circumstances, (2) dealing with a rude SPA whom he (and others) had tried to counsel with all civility and (3) sorely provoked. I have to say, if you read that page and put yourself in Guy's shoes, might you not have replied with "Are you this much of a cunt in real life?" to the comment that user made?

I can see that Guy was uncivil; that he probably should have been on a wiki-break given the circumstances; and that he should not have let himself be provoked. But if ever there was a reason for "In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of contributions and other surrounding circumstances.", this is surely it. As an aside, I would fully expect 'record of contributions' here to include an admin's work in keeping article space in line with policies, not just writing content. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But the other toxic piece is that this example will continue to be paraded out as an "example" each time JzG does something that another editor disagrees with. I thought JzG's comment was restrained considering what he was responding to. My remedy to that incvility would be an indef block of User:ParalelUni and protect the talk page. That ends the conflict and incivility. No matter what the adjudication, I can't imagine that the next confrontation will not bring up all the same complaints. Also JzG's adminship had nothing to do with his comments that were cited. Any editor could have used that language. Desysopping over civility is a rather strange solution as it doesn't address anything. I would like to propose a "single bite at the apple" standard in ArbCom hearings and RfCs. Once this is done, all the evidence providers are enjoined from participating in future RfCs and ArbCom cases. The perpetual pile-on by the same characters is becoming burdensome. --DHeyward (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this attempt to reduce JzG's long and varied history of incivility towards other editors, by cherry picking one time where he was mitigated in doing so, is very disrespectful to those who've provided evidence in this case and those who participated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2.

JzG has told *me* to 'Fuck off' while I was being perfectly civil to him. (No diff provided because it was several years ago now) He uses these kinds of verbal attacks often, and without any remorse towards people regularly. His attitude to disputes is to pile on insults and abuse till he scares his opponent away, using his 'standing' as an Admin to protect him from any recourse.

There is a huge and lengthy list of his recent behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2, and in the evidence page of this RFAr.

Frankly I'm reluctant to return to full participation in Wikipedia while JzG is still an admin, and I don't think that's a unique attitude.--Barberio (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Would that be applied in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner to all sides of all disputes? Pile-ons aren't limited to a single group of "same characters". *Dan T.* (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can accept that it was never my intention to be disrespectful to any contributors who have provided evidence. I genuinely appreciate the amount of work done and offer my sincere apologies for that offence. I was trying to express, albiet poorly, that I had come to understand just how accurate Brad's proposed principle is.

In reply to DH: if evidence is to be presented of "a pattern of incivility", you would have to look back over time. That would probably make the "single bite at the apple" standard rather impractical.

I think we would be far better to concentrate on using agreed principles to search for remedies most likely to achieve the desired outcomes. As we're using Guy as an example, I'd say one desirable outcome would be to remove his incivility without also removing his work in fighting vandalism, etc. I would suggest that desysopping would in reality be a punishment rather than a preventative measure in his case, since I can see that he can be just as incivil an editor as an admin! I don't want to become an apologist for bad behaviour, but I believe Guy needs support to kick the incivility habit, not admonishment. I read that 'civilty parole' doesn't work - maybe that's true since the threat of punishment is rarely an restraining factor on many people's actions when they are worked-up. Arbcom will, I hope, be prepared to experiment with novel remedies when it decides how best to move forward in this case. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG's incivility comes generally when he's acting in his role as admin. It seems he is unable to calmly act in this role. And his tendency is to rely on admin status to defend his actions as being 'in defence of wikipedia'. It is also coupled with some other problems with making innapropriate use of his admin tool kit, or using his status and associates to do so. If his admin role is taken away, it may halt his chronic incivility and other problem issues.

If as a normal editor, he continues to cause problems, further action may be needed. --Barberio (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG being an administrator is an embarrassment and a detriment to the project, period. Whenever any outsider reads one of his hateful comments and later finds out he is an admin, their esteem for Wikipedia as a whole is eroded. People of good conscious can reasonably debate all day about whether SV crossed any lines and what should we do to help her get back on course-- but what good does it do to even have that conversation when even a clear-cut case like JzG can't get solved? The evidence against him is a mile long, none of it even remotely gray. And it's gone on for, literally, years.

So, next week, or next month, or whenever-- the next time Jzg is just having a bad day and wants to self-medicate by ripping into an innocent bystander or newbie. Whose fault is that?

If the past is any guide, Jzg will tell us that it's his victims fault. They weren't worthy of civility because they disagreed with him, or they had some character flaw or they had bad associations or some other justification.

And some people will say it's JzG's fault, the next time he calls someone a horrible name. But at this point, that's not really true anymore either. JzG has shown us all who he is, how he behaves, and how he will behave in the future.

The truth is-- his incivility is our fault. It's our fault for not giving him a warning block back 175 violations ago. It's our fault for not blocking him for calling another user a "cunt"-- it's our fault for showing him that he is welcome to do as he pleases here. It's my fault for not making a stronger case back when I first noticed he had a major problem. It's the every admin who has considered blocking him for breaking the rules but didn't. And if his behavior continues, and it happens again, it will be the individual members of Arbcom's fault. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For me personally, the entire Guy situation still boils down to MONGO's comment in the JzG2 RfC. Note that my intention here is not to "post in his defence" or to attack anyone who has had less than stellar personal experiences with him, but to help put things into perspective (or so I hope). As far as I know, he's never pushed any particular agenda; and I believe his brand of occasional superficial incivil outbursts is absolutely harmless in comparison to the policy-dominance and article content gaming involving tactics like "6RR" tag-teaming and some other pretty revolting stuff others were involved in. Again: The cases shouldn't have been merged, precisely because the concerns around Guy (whatever their merit, my own opinion notwithstanding) have nothing whatsoever to do with the far deeper reaching stuff concerning other parties to the case. user:Everyme 04:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They're symptoms of the same disease. Agreed, the tag-teaming and gaming the system are far more damaging, but also harder to ascertain. Whereas the incivility is clear cut, right in public, for all to see.

And it's not that I object to incivility per se. Heck, I'm a free speech lunatic, if we wanted to delete WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I could handle that. Not even having the rules would be less divisive to the community than the situation we've seen in the past, where the rules are on the books but in practice only apply to some of us. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Interestingly, I would say some rather similar things about FM. The 'harder to ascertain' aspect is precisely the most worrying thing for me. If it's necessary to strip some bits off of people who are, like FM, most obviously unsuitable for any postition of trust in this project, to make way for a proper investigation of deeper-running issues with others, fine by me. But it all is (or rather: should imho be) predominantly about those more complex cases. It's a shame and a bad symptom, one could argue, that the AC is required to deal with the easier cases in the first place. user:Everyme 13:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The same things might well apply to other editors-- I don't mean to suggest only one editor has exhibited simple, clear cut, straight-forward behavior problems.

And yes, it is a bad sign that Arbcom even had to deal with these simple cases to begin with. But a far worse sign will be if, when the outcome is read, it turns out that even arbcom isn't capable of dealing with them decisively. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

General remarks about NYB's proposal

I'm offering some general remarks about Newyorkbrad's proposal because I don't want my specific critiques on the workshop page to be the only record of my reaction to it. In short, it's a very good proposal in many ways. I think Brad nailed the scope of the case, and the principles and findings are formulated well and have the right amount of specifics. It feels a lot more solid than the Mantanmoreland case did. What especially deserves praise is Brad's effort to get back on board, get familiar with the case, and get it moving again. Now for a touch of friendly criticism. In the conclusion of the proposed findings of fact, the language about deciding not to compare the parties' behavior or records with each other seems intended to avoid a mess of endless argument and rehashing of grievances (laudable), but it also forces the remedies to be generalized even if they will be less likely to affect behavior of certain parties than that of others. For that reason, I find the proposed remedies to be the weakest part of the proposal. Still, I feel very positive about the rest of the proposal, and I think Brad and the other committee members ought to know what the community thinks is being done well. If other editors have general feedback along these lines, I hope they'll chime in. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with much of what is said. I guess what I would hope for is 1) a clearer statement of the precise behaviors the parties should not engage in, and 2) direct guidance to the admins on how to better enforce those behavioral guidelines.

Instead, I get the sense that we basically have a "hung jury"-- they can't issue precise guidelines because they can't agree on what should be done in the future. So they're doing their best to make lemonade out of the situation by doing another warning and throwing a hail mary pass, hoping that their future selves will be able to handle the situation. If that's the best they can do, that's the best they can do, but it would be nice if they could find clear-cut behaviors they want stopped, issue simple instructions for how to identify those behaviors, and let it be handled at the admin level. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree that what Brad has done is way better than where we were before. So thanks for that! HOWEVER... The issue I have with this approach is that for some of the parties, they've already been warned by ArbCom not to do the things they are being warned about again. In some parties, via cases as far back as 2005 or 2006, IIRC. So saying this is the first time, as FT2 seems to be saying, probably isn't quite right. Also, absent some very clearcut guidelines on what is or isn't OK, remanding this to the community (as in point 2 of Alec's) isn't going to work well... if you thought the Mantanmoreland block/ban proposal discussions on AN/I after that case were fun, you're in for a real treat if things go that way... ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I freely admit that I have not studied the evidence, I can not affirm or refute Brad's proposed findings, and I have no opinion on whether the behavior of some of the parties has improved in the last 4 months. Having said that, however, this is the Ms. Shields remedy. "I'm sure the guilt you all feel is worse than any punishment I could think of." Stripping away Brad's genteel phrasing, the proposed findings of fact are that several admins have behaved badly at times, that they have friends and allies who have behaved as bad or worse, and that this is bad for the encyclopedia. As I noted before on the workshop page, every time Arbcom declines to desysop an admin who has behaved badly but not badly enough, it raises the bar for the next time. Would the drama of desysopping, even temporarily, be worse than the long term cost of the "hugs all around" solution? What is the cost of the loss of a generally productive admin or OTRS volunteer (assuming we did lose them permanently) compared to the cost of encouraging, by inaction, the continuation of disruptive factionalism? The costs of different courses of action need to be weighed carefully, but the question needs to be asked. If not now, when? If not them, whom? Thatcher 14:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Particularly when specific warnings have been issued in the past and blatantly ignored by the same parties. "Many members of the community have been demoralized by the feuding, personal attacks, and perceived double standards." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with sandy. the two party editors who have not participated in this hearing have specifically been warned about the exact behaviors under discussion. wrist slaps are the worst possible outcome to this case. Either a full exhonoration of FM and SV, which will allow editors to quit the project with no reason to come back ever, or deadmining to show that conduct policies mean something. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with this completely. Moreschi (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  I too agree with this completely. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)