From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 1 23:43:47 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:43:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905011643q9c47f9el9c20773313f1943d@mail.gmail.com>
And I see you did, I'm a bit behind the curve...
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> You might want to talk to the case clerk as well.
>
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 1 23:44:56 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:44:56 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
Already done (KnightLago), thanks.
By way of clarification, I see now that Hipocrite first tried to remove the
whole section of his proposals. Abd objected and put them back, and then
Hipocrite tried to remove only his own comments, and Abd didn't want that
either.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 1 23:51:28 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:51:28 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
While we are on this case, I forgot to mention that Abd would almost
certainly have filed this case himself at some point. Has anyone
thought to ask Jehochman whether he was aware of this, and hence
whether he filed the case pre-emptively or not? Abd would almost
certainly have not presented the request in a way that invited comment
on his (Abd's) actions, but because Jehochman filed the request, more
attention has been focused on Abd and possibly less on JzG. Does that
makes any sense, and is it possible for ArbCom to be objective enough
to overcome the effects of a pre-emptive filing to ensure the scope is
what the filer wants it to be?
Carcharoth
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Already done (KnightLago), thanks.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 00:03:10 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 20:03:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
I think this petty case is being over-intellectualized. JzG edited [[Cold
fusion]] to, from his vantagepoint, maintain NPOV. He got involved in the
article administrator-wise from the same motive, and may have trenched too
close to the line of being an "involved" admin. However, he does not have a
past history of being cited for that infraction. (His reprimand in the big
case last year was for gross incivility, and in that regard, as Abd
acknowledges, JzG has cleaned up his act.)
Moreover, JzG withdrew from administrating on [[Cold fusion]] more than
three months ago and has acknowledged the need to avoid it in the future.
His attitude on the casepage appears sincere and reasonable. If Abd has
dropped this issue months ago, no one would even remember it. I am not
convinced that any action at all needs to be taken, and if a motion to
dismiss this case were offered, would support it. In the absence of a
consensus for dismissal (which is unlikely to come, since the vote to open
the case was 11/0/0/2), a reminder to be mindful of avoiding the actuality
or appearance of action by an "involved" administrator will have to do. If
we want, we can debate the precise parameters of what constitutes
"involvement", but that's always been a Potter Stewart ("I know it when I
see it") type of issue to me.
Abd has perseverated in pursuing JzG over this particular
tempest-in-a-teapot for the past four months, largely to the exclusion of
his accomplishing anything else on Wikipedia. It would be hypocritical for
me to criticize the length and meandering nature of his posts given the
nature of what I sometimes write, but hopefully I at least get from Point A
to Point B via some reasonably discernable route. I don't know that he has
done anything "sanctionable", and there has not been an RfC on him or the
like, but he does have a troubled record and some sort of precatory reminder
to pursue dispute resolution with an appropriate degree of proportionality
would not be out of order.
The allegation against non-party Viridae is peripheral and irrelevant and
does not warrant making him a party (although I would like to know whether
it's true that Hipocrite was threatened with sanctions by an administrator
for offering proposals about him).
That's all there is to this case whether we decide it now or six weeks from
now. I would prefer the former.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:
> While we are on this case, I forgot to mention that Abd would almost
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 00:21:15 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 20:21:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011721ha0cc606h45455a784fa72583@mail.gmail.com>
Actually, there is also the issue of the blacklist/whitelist. But I don't
see any conduct issues there, at most a need to seek community discussion on
how these are to operate, to the extent existing policy isn't clear. And we
could, I suppose, assert that an action by a Meta admin primarily directed
at En-WP links is subject to our jurisdiction. If we want to. Do we?
There is also a claim that JzG referred to a Abd as having ADHD. JzG's
response is that Abd had a userbox stating he had that condition.
Nonetheless, if we want, we could point out that the reference was
insensitive, although Abd himself hasn't stressed the point.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this petty case is being over-intellectualized. JzG edited [[Cold
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:00:14 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 01:00:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905011800n79f2d997n4d581474656f4e1d@mail.gmail.com>
I more or less agree with Newyorkbrad here; the reason I accepted this case
was to address Abd's tendentiousness, as JzG backed off from the
administrative role on the article involved when the issue was pressed.
This is not new behaviour for Abd, and he needs to be redirected from
continually picking at nearly-healed wounds. This case could be closed
fairly promptly.
Risker
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:25:28 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 11:25:28 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's all there is to this case whether we decide it now or six weeks from
> now.? I would prefer the former.
I mentioned in the other thread that I'd be putting up proposals
sometime next week. In fact I was planning to draft tonight, once I'm
back from the library, so I should have something ready by tonight or
tomorrow morning. My thinking is largely the same as yours, although I
think it would opportune to say something about the blacklist.
Conveniently, the substantive issue of the particular links being on
the blacklist has been resolved already.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:31:43 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 21:31:43 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Great. Thanks. And as I mentioned in my other comment, you may be right
about saying something about the blacklist. There is also a bit of new
evidence posted just now and a couple of workshop posts.
Are you going to post to workshop, or directly to PD?
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:41:52 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 21:41:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011841h59419892i34bca712857fdc2b@mail.gmail.com>
Coppertwig has now noted on the evidence page that he "plans to post some
evidence later." You might want to ask him how much later.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From vassyana at gmail.com Sat May 2 07:49:23 2009
From: vassyana at gmail.com (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 03:49:23 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>
Regarding this case, it has been suggested to me that I should recuse. The
person in question request anonymity because they fear repurcussions from
"high level insiders". I do not think the fear is justified, but they are
not a directly involved party and do not seem to have entanglements with JzG
directly, so I will defer to that request. (I have indicated that I will do
so, noting that in a few more words, mainly that I do not think there's much
to be concerned about.)
To the point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../JzG_2#Responsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...iew_by_VassyanaMy participation in the second RfC has apparently lead some to believe that
I am on Jzg's side and/or will give him infinite chances. I do not believe
this is cause for recusal, especially because I supported the complaint
against JzG, another critical position and most of the nuanced (good work,
but incivility is bad) positions. I did not take a "defender" position, but
took a position that was essentially that Jzg is a hard worked that burned
out, becoming a dick, but he has acknowledged the problem and is working to
rectify it. I think that aspect of his behavior has greatly improved since
then and thus that the dispute resolution process worked in that instance
(to the benefit of Guy and the community). Additionally, regarding the
request, that was a while ago and the matter isn't very relevant to the
current case.
I would like to know what other arbirtrators think of this request. It is
entirely possible that others will see grounds for recusal and thus I tried
to fully explain my position and thoughts as relevant.
Since I raised the RfC, some of the nuanced positions about stressed/burned
out administrators may be worth a read to bear in mind with some of our
current caseload.
Pete
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 08:38:26 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 09:38:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905020138u40ca8f11we8af55478662f0a8@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this petty case is being over-intellectualized.
I feel the same way about the Aitias case (that it is a petty case).
It is still my view that Majorly (who has said so himself) filed the
RfC in anger (Acalamari's RfC may have been better written, but
Majorly got in there first), and that Majorly continues to over-egg
the case. When I compare this to other cases (including the Ryulong
case) I still can't see exactly what terrible crimes Aitias has
committed, other than to make the wrong enemies in a tempestuous area
of the wiki. There are far more serious allegations and evidence of
serious allegations in this case (JzG) than in the Aitias case.
<shrug>
> JzG edited [[Cold
> fusion]] to, from his vantagepoint, maintain NPOV.
He clearly got involved in a content dispute.
Click on the links here and read JzG's edit summaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...anti-fringe_POV> He got involved in the
> article administrator-wise from the same motive, and may have trenched too
> close to the line of being an "involved" admin.? However, he does not have a
> past history of being cited for that infraction.
Then he needs to be cited for it now.
> (His reprimand in the big
> case last year was for gross incivility, and in that regard, as Abd
> acknowledges, JzG has cleaned up his act.)
Sure. That can be acknowledged.
I'm looking at the third RfC, and in particular these three views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...w_by_Coppertwighttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ide_view_by_DGGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...#View_by_DurovaFailing to acknowledge those views will send the wrong message.
> Moreover, JzG withdrew from administrating on [[Cold fusion]] more than
> three months ago and has acknowledged the need to avoid it in the future.
Not sufficient.
> His attitude on the casepage appears sincere and reasonable.? If Abd has
> dropped this issue months ago, no one would even remember it.
We really need to discuss this in a wiki environment where we can
discuss actual diffs and evidence.
My view is that if JzG had engaged with the *general* recusal issue a
little bit more and not walked away from the specific incident and
then continually given Abd the brush-off, this would not have
escalated. There does need to be some principle laid down that you
can't just chose to ignore someone because you don't want to talk to
them. Sometimes walking away from something is not the answer.
If we say (effectively) that it is difficult to know when an admin is
truly involved, then we encourage admins (including JzG) to push the
boundaries. We need to make quite clear that pushing the boundaries on
involvement and expressing views in a content dispute in a topic area,
and subsequent use of admin tools, is a big no-no. Admins need to
point to consensus that they have not participated in building, and if
there is disagreement over what the consensus is, they need to
facilitate further debate, not try and boldly cut a Gordian knot or
over-ride the debate.
> I am not convinced that any action at all needs to be taken, and if a motion to
> dismiss this case were offered, would support it.? In the absence of a
> consensus for dismissal (which is unlikely to come, since the vote to open
> the case was 11/0/0/2), a reminder to be mindful of avoiding the actuality
> or appearance of action by an "involved" administrator will have to do.? If
> we want, we can debate the precise parameters of what constitutes
> "involvement", but that's always been a Potter Stewart ("I know it when I
> see it") type of issue to me.
If it is a debate we need to have, we shouldn't avoid it. Where should
we have this discussion?
> Abd has perseverated in pursuing JzG over this particular
> tempest-in-a-teapot for the past four months, largely to the exclusion of
> his accomplishing anything else on Wikipedia.? It would be hypocritical for
> me to criticize the length and meandering nature of his posts given the
> nature of what I sometimes write, but hopefully I at least get from Point A
> to Point B via some reasonably discernable route.? I don't know that he has
> done anything "sanctionable", and there has not been an RfC on him or the
> like, but he does have a troubled record and some sort of precatory reminder
> to pursue dispute resolution with an appropriate degree of proportionality
> would not be out of order.
Agreed on the tendentiousness. But we need to acknowledge that dispute
resolution can be slow (four months is not unusual for a dispute to
rise to ArbCom). Also, are you really saying that if Abd had written
four featured articles, or done tons of wikignoming work as well as
pursue this dispute, your view would be different and you would look
more kindly on what he is saying? I hope not. The fundamental
rightness or wrongness of the allegations should not be affected in
the least by whatever other work Abd has or has not been doing. The
only thing that Abd's lack or work elsewhere speaks to is "what he is
here for". To see whether the allegations are correct or not, you then
need to look at see whether others support his view, and from the RfC
it is clear that others *do* support his views. So while Abd may not
have been the right person to pursue this, he has made some valid
points, and those points should not be lost here.
Ditto for Guy's concerns about Durova's motivations (in the e-mail he
sent us). If people are concerned about Durova's motivations here,
they need to look past that, be objeective, and assess Durova's
concerns and evidence on their merits, not dismiss them because of
concerns about the person presenting the evidence.
If valid concerns have been raised about Guy, it is not enough for him
to walk away from the dispute and ask people to drop the matter. He
needs to acknowledge the wider points and make clear whether he will
change his approach. If he does the same thing again in another topic
area (pre-emptively sticking a domain name on a blacklist in a BOLD
action), the whole thing will arrive back at ArbCom.
> The allegation against non-party?Viridae is peripheral and irrelevant and
> does not warrant making him a party (although I would like to know whether
> it's true that Hipocrite was threatened with sanctions by an administrator
> for offering proposals about him).
Viridae should not have acted here. Did you see the other thread where
it was suggested someone have a private word with him?
> That's all there is to this case whether we decide it now or six weeks from
> now.? I would prefer the former.
What about the point I raised in the e-mail you replied to? Does the
fact that Jehochman pre-empted Abd's filing of a case colour the
perception of the case in any way? Was Jehochman trying to force the
matter? Was Jehochman trying to shift the focus from JzG to Abd? Or
was he trying to make sure that the case was presented in a neutral
way, rather than as Abd filing a case against JzG? Or to put it
another way, if it had been Abd filing the case, and not Jehochman,
would the case have been accepted?
Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:05:24 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:05:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
<715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905020205n35efc9abu10389f0a4df87938@mail.gmail.com>
I raised this in a general thread about recent calls for recusal. I'd
be wary of granting anonymous requests from non-parties. Personally, I
don't think you need to recuse here, but if you chose to do so, you
should make clear whether you do so on personal standards or general
ones.
Carcharoth
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Peter Casey <vassyana at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding this case, it has been suggested to me that I should recuse. The
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:06:00 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:06:00 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
Message-ID: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
I believe there have been five calls (recently and not so recently)
for arbitrator recusal in current cases. Could we briefly discuss this
so we are all on the same page here?
- CHL in Scientology (Durova)
- Coren in Tang Dynasty (Caspian blue and Teeninvestor)
- NYB in Ryulong (Mythdon)
- Vassyana in Abd and Jzg (anonymous)
- John in Dates delinking (Tony)
Were there others that I missed?
My general views, specifically about drafting arbitrators, has been
expressed in the thread where Coren is talking to Caspian blue and
Teeninvestor:
"If I may say something here about the role of drafting arbitrators,
as an arbitrator who has not drafted a decision yet, the role is more
to distill the case down to something presentable and manageable, and
ready for voting. When I look over a proposed decision before voting,
I do my best to check over the evidence and workshop and talk pages to
make sure nothing of major import has been missed. If I object to
anything in the proposed decision, I make that clear and will suggest
changes and different principles, findings of facts and remedies where
needed. The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the
final product and published decision is still the work of the entire
committee. Some arbitrators who have seen a proposed decision change
drastically during the voting process will be able to confirm this.
[...] Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)"
Could we make some sort of statement on how the drafting arbitrator
*doesn't* (despite appearances) decide the case? In particular, what I
said here: "The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the
final product and published decision is still the work of the entire
committee." We are not, I hope, sheep that fall in behind what the
drafting arbitrator writes.
I also think the point that concerns about recusal need to be raised
at the start of cases, not at the end, should be re-emphasised.
Any specific or general comments?
Carcharoth
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:15:55 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 10:15:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>
I don't think we should discuss this case by case unless the individual
arbitrator asks us to. Recusal is a personal matter and I'm happy to
trust and support my colleagues' individual conscience, honesty and
hudgment on it. It seems to me that the minute arbitrators are open
about something, a baying pack descends calling for recusal. This is not
a tendency we want to encourage as it will cripple our effectiveness and
lead to endless drama.
Roger
Carcharoth wrote:
> I believe there have been five calls (recently and not so recently)
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:27:25 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:27:25 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
In-Reply-To: <49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
<49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905020227o41a54c6ei91912bacddc95a@mail.gmail.com>
And the general comments I made about drafting arbitrators? By all
means avoid specific discussions, but I think two points need to be
made here:
1) The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the final
product and published decision is still the work of the entire
committee, based on reviewing the evidence and other case pages.
[At least I hope that is what people do...]
2) Calls for recusal should be made at the start of a case, not at a later date.
The draft arbitration policy sets the cut-off point at the start of
the voting phase:
"Any user who believes that circumstances call for an arbitrator's
recusal should bring the matter to that arbitrator's attention for his
or her prompt consideration and response. Concerns beyond this should
be raised with the Committee. Except in extraordinary circumstances,
requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will
not be granted."
Should the cut-off point for recusal come before the proposed decision
is posted? I think it would be better to set it at x weeks after the
case opens, at the point where the evidence phase finishes (is that
one week or two weeks?).
Carcharoth
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Roger Davies
<roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think we should discuss this case by case unless the individual
-----------
From vassyana at gmail.com Sat May 2 09:50:11 2009
From: vassyana at gmail.com (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 05:50:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905020205n35efc9abu10389f0a4df87938@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
<715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905020205n35efc9abu10389f0a4df87938@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <715ff9f70905020250m7ff36b55ra9a71554c733a878@mail.gmail.com>
Although I do not believe I need to (or should) recuse, I accept that I am
human and my self-perception is thus limited. I may fail to recognize a
self-bias or a situation where recusal would be beneficial for the sake of
propriety. I felt it reasonable to raise it to the rest of you for your
opinions. If at least a few arbs expressed the opinion that it would be wise
or reasonable for me to recuse, I would do so in deference to my colleagues.
I have deep respect for everyone on the committee and would take such
opinions to heart. Under a situation like that, I would point out the
motivating opinions or events indicating some need for a recusal and simply
state that experienced editors that I trust advised it would behoove me to
do so.
Pete
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:
> I raised this in a general thread about recent calls for recusal. I'd
------------
From vassyana at gmail.com Sat May 2 12:52:38 2009
From: vassyana at gmail.com (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 08:52:38 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905020227o41a54c6ei91912bacddc95a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
<49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>
<206791b10905020227o41a54c6ei91912bacddc95a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <715ff9f70905020552o39abf154vf9234e58a06687b8@mail.gmail.com>
Regarding drafting, it's good to emphasize that decisions are a committee
product. We have revised PDs and had disagreements in full view (to our
credit), hashing out the final form of them on-wiki. This should be evidence
enough that we don't rubber stamp decisions presented by drafters.
I think we should remain flexible on recusals. However, we probably should
be forward that the later a request for recusal, the more grains of salt the
request will be taken with, especially when it appears that the arbitrator
will support sanctions against the person making the request. When someone
requests a recusal at a very late stage when it becomes clear that
arbitrator will propose sanctioning them... well, the appearances are
obvious. (Additionally, someone railing for a recusal at the last minute can
illustrate behavioral issues and I think we're all thick-skinned enough to
put up with someone flailing about a bit.)
Pete
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:
> And the general comments I made about drafting arbitrators? By all
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 3 01:22:50 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 21:22:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Coppertwig evidence in Abd-JzG
Message-ID: <c52819d30905021822y4cf4062aj950e56f65ab0a627@mail.gmail.com>
I've asked Coppertwig on his talkpage when he expects to present his
evidence in the Abd-and-JzG case.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Sun May 3 14:14:03 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 00:14:03 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905030714p67902ec0hdd177eb71812efbc@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you going to post to workshop, or directly to PD?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Workshop#Proposals_by_Stephen_Bain>
I posted to the workshop. Coppertwig has yet to be back online, and
Guy has not participated at all since his initial statement, he might
want an opportunity to. That said it could move to PD pretty promptly
if that is what is desired.
Some comments on the proposals:
I propose an admonition of Guy. Yes, this was some time ago, and Guy
has indicated that he no longer intends to be involved with cold
fusion articles, but this is one of the most blatant cases of using
tools while involved that I've seen, and Guy hasn't seemed to have
genuinely acknowledged that he shouldn't have used the tools. That is
my reading of his comments of course, there are likely to be others.
I've included nothing in relation to Abd. He may be loquacious but he
is civil and reasonable. If anything the problem was his timidity in
advancing up the dispute resolution chain, and Guy's refusal to engage
with the issue of taking action while involved.
I have not mentioned Viridae at all; the matter appears to have been
dropped by those raising it, and closing the discussion is
sufficiently far removed from the initial action for this not be a
major concern. A private word with Viridae, as suggested by someone
else (I forget who) might be good to do, nevertheless.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon May 4 15:58:46 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:58:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Pending agenda items (RFCs, recall,
post-ban restrictions)
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0905040853h208283fey79d58401f96a9c88@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0905022049y53b7bad6i3c25862f0afd0026@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905031954h48e52546i8fbde1e39300cc86@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905031957o7d951ad1u1de68719d23781bb@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905032013p4b80fc1brf2a7b623140e00d7@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905040853h208283fey79d58401f96a9c88@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905040858t40ff5ebjee0c1cc3b2502206@mail.gmail.com>
If you want longer versions, you can ask Abd to draft something.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
> newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but my initial drafts of --
>>
>> 1. "There is no procedure for arbitrator recall, because of the danger
>> that recall would be used in a partisan fashion based on the arbitrators'
>> proposals or votes in pending cases. Arbitrators may, however, be urged to
>> resign their positions by the committee or removed from office by Jimbo
>> Wales in extraordinary circumstances reflecting that they have substantially
>> lost the community's confidence or demonstrated unfitness to serve."
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2. "Where a decision bans an editor from editing, the proposed ban should
>> often be accompanied by an appropriate restriction to govern the editor's
>> conduct on-wiki should he or she return following the ban."
>>
>> -- probably aren't what you're looking for, so I'll need some further
>> guidance.
>>
>
> That's way too short... who are you, and what have you done with the real
> Brad? ;-)
>
> Kirill
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon May 4 21:49:40 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 07:49:40 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Pending agenda items (RFCs, recall,
post-ban restrictions)
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905040858t40ff5ebjee0c1cc3b2502206@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0905022049y53b7bad6i3c25862f0afd0026@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905031954h48e52546i8fbde1e39300cc86@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905031957o7d951ad1u1de68719d23781bb@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905032013p4b80fc1brf2a7b623140e00d7@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905040853h208283fey79d58401f96a9c88@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905040858t40ff5ebjee0c1cc3b2502206@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830905041449l68559fceq8ec5c81f859d308f@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want longer versions, you can ask Abd to draft something.
*chuckle*
pls; no.
--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed May 6 20:44:50 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:44:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Segregating discussions
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905061303q53925372o48f8b0d4921067b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905061303q53925372o48f8b0d4921067b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905061344n71d24f42o2efe3458a29c359@mail.gmail.com>
2009/5/6 Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>
> Given Risker's recent comments about clearly labelling mailing list
> threads related to cases, and not drifting off-topic, there has been
> some discussion of this on my talk page, though I'm not sure how
> practicable or useful it is. Just wanted to draw people's attention to
> it.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> I've followed some of that discussion, though I'm not going to read Abd's
contribution (I'm having a hard enough time slogging through his stuff on
the RFAR). A separate mailing list is something of a nightmare in that the
archives would not be part of the main arbitration archives, someone would
have to act as list admin, etc. On the other hand, I'd like to hear from
some of the "longer serving" members on how they dealt with it in the past.
I think I can maintain discipline as long as the subject doesn't wander into
all sorts of threads, but I can see how it might be difficult.
Risker
------------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu May 7 16:10:09 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:10:09 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
Message-ID: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>
Am I the only one being very confused by the claims being made at the
Abd and JzG workshop that admins are not involved if they are
enforcing policy? Specifically, some of the claims are being made with
regards to policies where admin tools are not needed to enforce
policy. My view has always been that editors can make changes to bring
an article into line with policies and guidelines. Where did this idea
arise that you then need admins to *enforce* that? Is the idea that
admins look at a dispute at an article and decide how policy should be
applied?
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? The idea of making a neutral
judgment after a review of a "coherent discussion of the local
consensus" strikes me as a better approach.
But overall, merely enforcing policy doesn't make someone uninvolved
or involved, unless I'm missing something here. It should be the other
way round. If you are uninvolved, you are best placed to enforced
policy, if that is needed.
Carcharoth
Abd and JzG case
MaliceAforethought Abd and JzG case Tue 5th July 2011, 8:40am
Tue 5th July 2011, 8:40am
