From stephen.bain at gmail.com Thu May 7 16:12:36 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 02:12:36 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905070912h7476efecg8bdc24b510e04d3e@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> The idea that admins can make changes to articles and claim that they
> are enforcing NPOV just makes my head spin. Surely that isn't what the
> role of admin was created for, was it?
Yes, they're radically misinterpreting the role of administrator (as
opposed to the role of editor).
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
------------
From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Thu May 7 21:30:33 2009
From: guy.chapman at spamcop.net (Guy Chapman)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:30:33 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
Message-ID: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
I give up. I spent all week intermittently working and fighting ADSL
problems, I have nothing like the time Abd has to devote to this and
frankly the stress of wondering whether I should subject myself to the
stress of reading the case pages is enough to stop me sleeping.
I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
(including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
scientific establishment.
As for Abd, there is only one way to resolve a dispute with him, and
that's to give him what he wants. Look at his userspace subpages,
where he sets up faux dispute resolution processes with himself as
arbiter of truth and appropriateness, and nobody else wants to join in
because nobody other than Abd trusts Abd in that role. You can
resolve a dispute with me by agreeing to differ or by walking away,
but not by endlessly reiterating the same stuff. My crime, as far as
I can tell, is that however often Abd tells me I am wrong, I don't
accept it. And because I am an administrator, that is necessarily
admin abuse. Last use of tools in this was, what, January? And Abd
was still raising it as a current issue in late April. Well bollocks
to that, as we say in England.
I can't find the time, and suddenly I can't be bothered even to try. I
will use my "copious free time" to sing and play with my trains
instead, at least they don't follow me round trying to suck the joy
out of my life.
Oh dear, did that sound a bit tense and depressed? Perhaps that's
because I'm tense and depressed and Abd's crusade on behalf of Jed
Rothwell and other website owners is a part of that. I can fix that
by not playing. Feel free to ask anything you like by email, it gets
through eventually despite my cretinous ISP's so-called "upgrade" of
my line.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Thu May 7 22:35:46 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:35:46 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
In-Reply-To: <9F18E972950F436BABD4954CB960B13B@EveretteCentral>
References: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905070912h7476efecg8bdc24b510e04d3e@mail.gmail.com>
<9F18E972950F436BABD4954CB960B13B@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905071535n5cb78b1j2c59a520ecbdd532@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> Concur, if all they do is enforce policy, they are not involved.
Without qualification that's not true. Admins are empowered to enforce
policies against vandalism, edit warring, incivility etc. There are a
bunch of people however arguing on the case pages that admins are
empowered to enforce content policies like verifiability or NPOV,
which is completely wrong.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Thu May 7 22:55:56 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 18:55:56 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905071535n5cb78b1j2c59a520ecbdd532@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com><f30e42de0905070912h7476efecg8bdc24b510e04d3e@mail.gmail.com><9F18E972950F436BABD4954CB960B13B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905071535n5cb78b1j2c59a520ecbdd532@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E05F28636A784824A75B62E79E2FCFB0@EveretteCentral>
True.
r/
Randy Everette
-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Bain
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:36 PM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> Concur, if all they do is enforce policy, they are not involved.
Without qualification that's not true. Admins are empowered to enforce
policies against vandalism, edit warring, incivility etc. There are a
bunch of people however arguing on the case pages that admins are
empowered to enforce content policies like verifiability or NPOV,
which is completely wrong.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 7 23:13:45 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 19:13:45 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071613o556278d4peb3da53fafc02924@mail.gmail.com>
I will be posting on-wiki tonight (it was going to be this morning but
something came up) with my own view of this case.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:21:00 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 21:21:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] JzG-Abd case
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071821k5ca2eeddn3a4f06b6b163f8cc@mail.gmail.com>
I've placed on the workshop a draft of a proposed decision in this case. I
apologize for having written at length in a case in which I am not the
designated drafter -- and I would like to emphasize that absolutely no
derogation or disrespect of Stephen Bain's draft (or the other editors'
drafts either) is intended. I just had enough differences of view
from others' views expressed thus far that I felt it might be best to post
my thoughts. I look forward to comments, either here or on-wiki.
Let's see if we can come to an agreement where to take this case, and move
to the proposed decision page, within the next day or two. As I've
indicated on the workshop, it would not be out of the question that the best
result for this case would actually be a dismissal, but I'm not proposing
that now, in part because so much time has been invested and in part because
I don't believe a majority would support it.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:27:59 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:27:59 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
> fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
> (including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
> wayside due to burnout. ?It is fantastically important to the kooks
> and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
> scientific establishment.
A fine demonstration of why Guy should not be using the tools in this
area. He's entitled to have a position on any of these issues, as is
any editor, but one may wear either the administrative or the
editorial hat, not both.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:30:28 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 21:30:28 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>
Although one could have just as strong a point of view on these areas even
if one didn't express them in edits, so as to preserve the ability to
express them through admin actions. The case against Guy is for "adminning
while involved in a conduct dispute," not for violating NPOV per se.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:34:45 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:34:45 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] JzG-Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905071821k5ca2eeddn3a4f06b6b163f8cc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905071821k5ca2eeddn3a4f06b6b163f8cc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905071834i124967ban98a32e79eca6fd9a@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've placed on the workshop a draft of a proposed decision in this case.? I
> apologize for having written at length in a case in which I am not the
> designated drafter -- and I would like to emphasize that absolutely no
> derogation or disrespect of Stephen Bain's draft (or the other?editors'
> drafts either) is intended.? I just had enough differences of view
> from?others' views expressed thus far that I felt?it might be best to post
> my thoughts.? I look forward to comments, either here or on-wiki.
Not necessary to apologise. I indicated in the other thread that I
doubt the utility of having designated drafters anymore, once all of
the 2009 cohort that want to have a go at drafting have done so.
Designating one or more arbitrators to keep track of a case, and
liaise with the assigned clerk(s), might be a better approach.
Anyway, as you said, the case is an exercise in line-drawing, and I'm
sure there will be different positions within the Committee on that.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:36:37 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 01:36:37 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905071836m340dde14o791db42fe3613cd1@mail.gmail.com>
Conduct dispute, or content dispute? I had thought it was the latter.
Risker
2009/5/8 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>
> Although one could have just as strong a point of view on these areas even
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:38:44 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 21:38:44 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0905071836m340dde14o791db42fe3613cd1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0905071836m340dde14o791db42fe3613cd1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071838r28568ed5td59c4ffc700ecc94@mail.gmail.com>
Typo, should be content dispute.
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Conduct dispute, or content dispute? I had thought it was the latter.
-----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Fri May 8 04:47:13 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 00:47:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> I give up. I spent all week intermittently working and fighting ADSL
> problems, I have nothing like the time Abd has to devote to this and
> frankly the stress of wondering whether I should subject myself to the
> stress of reading the case pages is enough to stop me sleeping.
>
> I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
> fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
> (including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
> wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
> and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
> scientific establishment.
>
> As for Abd, there is only one way to resolve a dispute with him, and
> that's to give him what he wants. Look at his userspace subpages,
> where he sets up faux dispute resolution processes with himself as
> arbiter of truth and appropriateness, and nobody else wants to join in
> because nobody other than Abd trusts Abd in that role. You can
> resolve a dispute with me by agreeing to differ or by walking away,
> but not by endlessly reiterating the same stuff. My crime, as far as
> I can tell, is that however often Abd tells me I am wrong, I don't
> accept it. And because I am an administrator, that is necessarily
> admin abuse. Last use of tools in this was, what, January? And Abd
> was still raising it as a current issue in late April. Well bollocks
> to that, as we say in England.
>
> I can't find the time, and suddenly I can't be bothered even to try. I
> will use my "copious free time" to sing and play with my trains
> instead, at least they don't follow me round trying to suck the joy
> out of my life.
>
> Oh dear, did that sound a bit tense and depressed? Perhaps that's
> because I'm tense and depressed and Abd's crusade on behalf of Jed
> Rothwell and other website owners is a part of that. I can fix that
> by not playing. Feel free to ask anything you like by email, it gets
> through eventually despite my cretinous ISP's so-called "upgrade" of
> my line.
>
> Guy
This is to confirm that we've received your comments and will consider them.
Regards,
Kirill
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 8 09:28:49 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:28:49 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> I give up. ?I spent all week intermittently working and fighting ADSL
>> problems, I have nothing like the time Abd has to devote to this and
>> frankly the stress of wondering whether I should subject myself to the
>> stress of reading the case pages is enough to stop me sleeping.
>>
>> I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
>> fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
>> (including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
>> wayside due to burnout. ?It is fantastically important to the kooks
>> and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
>> scientific establishment.
>>
>> As for Abd, there is only one way to resolve a dispute with him, and
>> that's to give him what he wants. ?Look at his userspace subpages,
>> where he sets up faux dispute resolution processes with himself as
>> arbiter of truth and appropriateness, and nobody else wants to join in
>> because nobody other than Abd trusts Abd in that role. ?You can
>> resolve a dispute with me by agreeing to differ or by walking away,
>> but not by endlessly reiterating the same stuff. ?My crime, as far as
>> I can tell, is that however often Abd tells me I am wrong, I don't
>> accept it. ?And because I am an administrator, that is necessarily
>> admin abuse. ?Last use of tools in this was, what, January? ?And Abd
>> was still raising it as a current issue in late April. ?Well bollocks
>> to that, as we say in England.
>>
>> I can't find the time, and suddenly I can't be bothered even to try. I
>> will use my "copious free time" to sing and play with my trains
>> instead, at least they don't follow me round trying to suck the joy
>> out of my life.
>>
>> Oh dear, did that sound a bit tense and depressed? ?Perhaps that's
>> because I'm tense and depressed and Abd's crusade on behalf of Jed
>> Rothwell and other website owners is a part of that. ?I can fix that
>> by not playing. ?Feel free to ask anything you like by email, it gets
>> through eventually despite my cretinous ISP's so-called "upgrade" of
>> my line.
>>
>> Guy
>
> This is to confirm that we've received your comments and will consider them.
I may send a slightly longer reply, asking if he wants us to find
someone to summarise things for him, and advising him that if he reads
the case pages, the proposed decisions by bainer and Brad are not as
bad as he might have feared (I don't know for sure, as he might be
horrified by them), but the proposals by others and the evidence page,
will take a bit longer to read.
Do we want to ask him formally if he wants a delay until he has time
to read what he wants to read and make some sort of response? I think
we should extend that opportunity to all parties if they are
struggling to find time to deal with a case (while making the point
that participation in Wikipedia can take time to do properly, and lack
of time can't always be an excuse).
Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 10:46:45 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 06:46:45 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905080346pe74b2bu483ee4bed17e6648@mail.gmail.com>
I had sent a quick reply yesterday to JzG indicating I'd be writing in
the case. He's seen my draft, and posted comments on my talkpage.
Unsurprisingly, Abd has posted there as well, as has another editor.
They've pointed out a couple of factual corrections needed to my
draft, but other than fixing those, I think I'm not going to say
anything else for a bit (I need to turn to commenting on other cases
anyhow), and see what comments come in on Bainer's draft and mine.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 8 11:33:24 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:33:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905080346pe74b2bu483ee4bed17e6648@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905080346pe74b2bu483ee4bed17e6648@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905080433y5bd05517y50aae9366ed848cf@mail.gmail.com>
So is JzG happier now or not?
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I had sent a quick reply yesterday to JzG indicating I'd be writing in
----------
From szvest at gmail.com Fri May 8 12:27:10 2009
From: szvest at gmail.com (Fayssal F.)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:27:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
Message-ID: <2a8c5680905080527n901c487k66579da02a7533a0@mail.gmail.com>
Asking a New Yorker about someone living just miles away from you?
Fayssal F.
> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:33:24 +0100
> From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Abd case
> To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <206791b10905080433y5bd05517y50aae9366ed848cf at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> So is JzG happier now or not?
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 8 12:52:55 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:52:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <2a8c5680905080527n901c487k66579da02a7533a0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2a8c5680905080527n901c487k66579da02a7533a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905080552w2137b2f8v89395ef6d61b0e4c@mail.gmail.com>
That's the funny thing about e-mail and the internet. Those miles away
can know more about someone than those living next door to someone, or
even in the same building.
But what I was trying to get at here is that JzG was saying he didn't
have time to look at the case pages, and I was proposing to write
formally asking if he would like a delay ("stay"?) in the case to give
him time to read the case and provide a reponse? But no-one seems to
want to say anything about that.
Actually, what I should have done was go to Brad's talk page. [...]
And several minutes later, after reading Abd's comments, I've
forgotten what Guy said. Looking again, he does seem somewhat happier.
I would hope he has read bainer's proposals as well.
I suggest we all comment on the proposals by bainer and Brad and then
let them decide how to proceed from there.
Carcharoth
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 18:33:41 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:33:41 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
My approach to the Abd-and-JzG case has now been posted on-wiki for a couple
of days. There have been some good comments there which I can use to refine
several nuances of my draft (which is why I usually believe in workshopping
things), but the substance of my thinking is still pretty much the same.
I think we are close to being ready to move this forward to voting, but
Bainer is still the drafter in this case, and I don't want to give short
shrift to his proposals just because I wrote a possible alternative.
Unfortunately, as it developed, the structure of his proposed decision and
mine is not really parallel, so we don't really have a good option of
posting the two as alternatives in each paragraph and seeing which gets more
votes. That doesn't mean, of course, that we or anyone else can't offer
alternatives as appropriate.
I'd welcome more input from arbitrators on my proposals (and Steve's and
those of the other editors who have posted as well).
Meanwhile, I'd like to convene a quick straw poll here as to whether we
should:
1. Move forward with Steve posting his workshop draft (with whatever changes
he deems appropriate) to proposed decision for voting;
2. Move forward with my draft (with some tweaking by me) posted as the
proposed decision;
3. Move forward with some other approach as the draft; or
4. Move to dismiss the case (for the reasons I've discussed on-list and
on-wiki).
All suggestions and thoughts welcome.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 19:55:23 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 20:55:23 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> 4. Move to dismiss the case (for the reasons I've discussed on-list and
> on-wiki).
Can you reconcile your posting of a proposed decision with moving to
dismiss the case? If not, I would suggest we go ahead and vote on a
proposed decision. As for reconciling your's and bainer's proposals,
I'm tempted to say we should lock the two of you in a room and not let
you out until there is a clear proposed decision to vote on... :-)
A good starting point would be to identify the bits that can be posted
and voted on together. And to then reconcile the bits that can't be
done that way.
Carcharoth
-----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Sun May 10 20:05:09 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:05:09 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A073375.8020708@gmail.com>
Hmmm. Not tremendously good use of arbitrator time having two apparently
competing decisions, which we have to decide on before we decide on the
substance. How on earth did this arise?
Roger
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> My approach to the Abd-and-JzG case has now been posted on-wiki for a
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun May 10 20:13:10 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:13:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
I have to agree with Cla68 on this. JzG has been reminded about this before.
Why are we merely reminding him again?
r/
Randy Everette
_____
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Newyorkbrad
(Wikipedia)
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
My approach to the Abd-and-JzG case has now been posted on-wiki for a couple
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun May 10 20:23:22 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:23:22 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
I'm less inclined to hammer on JzG because he did disengage, months ago,
without any Arbcom threats.
I have more concern about Abd, who has pursued this issue almost to the
exclusion of any other work on the project, for months on end, and who still
to this day does not see this as disruptive or an abuse of community time.
If this was the first time he had done it, I'd call it a learning
experience. It isn't though, and failing to issue at minimum a warning to
Abd while going much further for JzG will simply encourage Abd to tie up
admins *who have already modified their behaviour* for months on end. When I
read that Abd is within a hair's breadth of getting topic-banned from
exactly the same page because of his tendentious editing, I'm hard pressed
to do anything that he could interpret as support for his position.
Risker
2009/5/10 Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net>
> I have to agree with Cla68 on this. JzG has been reminded about this
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:06:49 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:06:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <4A073375.8020708@gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<4A073375.8020708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101406q4d49de12i72eef2abb2b7e477@mail.gmail.com>
It arose because I read Bainer's draft and fundamentally disagreed with his
analysis of the case as well as the points his decision chose to emphasize.
So my choices were either to nitpick at his draft, or to write what I
thought should be written.
That situation is going to happen sometimes.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Roger Davies <
roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Not tremendously good use of arbitrator time having two apparently
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 21:06:59 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:06:59 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101406r6128c63di19ec73c69c71fa34@mail.gmail.com>
To be fair, I suspect another editor could take Abd's arguments and
make them stick. It is the way he presents his arguments that is
really annoying to many people who don't have the time or patience to
assimilate them, or can spend long enough to actually pick holes in
his logic (and although he is right on some things, the holes in the
logic are there).
Specifically, he does steer clear of noticeboards, and Brad's mention
of noticeboards confused things. It is dispute resolution mechanisms
(or his own brand of that) which we want him to steer clear of.
Specifically, I'd have no problem telling him bluntly to do some
actual editing and cut back on the dispute resolution.
Carcharoth
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm less inclined to hammer on JzG because he did disengage, months ago,
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:09:57 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:09:57 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
Because it's not all that clear that what he did really is a violation -- or
put differently, he could (and I think did) hold the good-faith view that it
wasn't one.
Here's the issue: If an administrator edits an article for the purpose of
enforcing NPOV, eliminating UNDUE and FRINGE, etc., does that make him a
party to a "content dispute" that precludes his acting as an administrator
on that article ... or is it more that he was ALREADY acting as an
administrator by enforcing policies, so using the tools is just more of the
same.
As I say in my draft, his participation in editing [[Cold fusion]] was such
that the better practice would have been to let someone else push the
buttons. He knows that now. But it's not a blatant violation as Abd or
Cla68 would suggest, either.
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> I have to agree with Cla68 on this. JzG has been reminded about this
> before. Why are we merely reminding him again?
>
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 21:11:24 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:11:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101411s47c073d7uc1727df4dfd9f38c@mail.gmail.com>
But more productively, the simple solution is to sanction both JzG and
Abd. The question, I suspect, is to what level and how. Abd doesn't
have prior ArbCom cases against him, JzG does. Abd was, to use
bainer's words "too timid" and should have escalated earlier, back at
the time when JzG was giving him the brush off (and no, merely walking
away and refusing to say you won't do it again in the *general* case,
isn't good enough). But JzG is has "clue" and Abd has some clue but it
gets lost in a sea of words. Surely someone can come up with a
balanced decision that pulls all these points together.
Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:12:53 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:12:53 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
>
> > 4. Move to dismiss the case (for the reasons I've discussed on-list and
> > on-wiki).
> Can you reconcile your posting of a proposed decision with moving to
> dismiss the case?
Yes, I can. I had suggested dismissal days ago but got no support from
other arbitrators, so I concluded there must be more to this than met the
eye, and entered into the comprehensive analysis that accompanies doing a
draft. But when I had finished analyzing and drafting, I wound up where I
began: a marginal violation, several months ago, that would have been
forgotten by now if Abd had not long ago crossed the line between
persistence and perseveration.
Having said that, I'm not pushing for dismissal at this stage, because we
ought to get something out of the work that's been done. I was merely
remarking the option is still there.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 21:16:19 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:16:19 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101416w558218d3t7873b7304b07798d@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because it's not all that clear that what he did really is a violation -- or
> put differently, he could (and I think did) hold the good-faith view that it
> wasn't?one.
>
> Here's the issue:? If an administrator edits an article for the purpose of
> enforcing NPOV, eliminating UNDUE and FRINGE, etc., does that make him a
> party to a "content dispute" that precludes his acting as an administrator
> on that article ... or is it more that he was ALREADY acting as an
> administrator by enforcing policies, so using the tools is just more of the
> same.
Huh? You should have already seen bainer and me saying on-wiki that
enforcing NPOV is not the role of an admin, so why are you repeating
that mistake here on the mailing list?
> As I say in my draft, his participation in editing [[Cold fusion]] was such
> that the better practice would have been to let someone else push the
> buttons.? He knows that now.? But it's not a blatant violation?as Abd or
> Cla68 would suggest, either.
So go and debate that on-wiki with them (and other arbs). We need to
explain our viewpoints in public. There is substantial support on the
RfC for the view that JzG was involved here, so something along those
lines should go into the proposed decision and it can be opposed
there, rather than be edited out at the drafting stage.
Carcharoth
Abd and JzG case
MaliceAforethought Abd and JzG case 
