Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:11, 18 April 2011

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Proposed decision

I'm waiting for the principles to settle (with, I expect, some alternatives) before I proceed with remedies. As I've stated previously, the aspect I've concentrated on is the core matter of the block-unblock interaction; but my understanding is that Risker has some proposals pending examining the Ludwigs2/Quackguru incident that precipitated that incident. — Coren  16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple of principles, and renumbered them Hope this is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrator discretion

This tweak to the Administrator discretion section makes the second clause practically meaningless. Everything in the sentence beginning with "and to" ought to be eliminated unless the Committee feels that they need to place limits on enforcement, in which case the tweak should be reverted and the proposal passed as originally written. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of discretionary sanctions is to empower admins to use their discretion. A demand (or de facto demand) that they first engage in a lengthy consensus-finding or support-gauging process basically cuts the heart out of the idea of discretionary sanctions. In fact, with this requirement, it will actually be more difficult, bureaucratic, wikilawyerable, and time-consuming for admins to levy sanctions in the affected areas than it would be if there were no discretionary sanctions in the first place. MastCell  17:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the way discretionary sanctions currently function is that they presume admins are perfect - i.e., that they are neutral and unbiased, far-thinking, unsusceptible to the fits and fervors that the rest of the human race is subject to. Discretionary sanctions allow admins who are perfect in this way to be graciously benevolent dictators (shades of polisci 101, for those of you who remember), and do a lot of good for the project. Unfortunately, admins are not perfect, and an imperfect admin who thinks of himself as a benevolent dictator can do a hell of a lot of pointless damage to editors and to the project in the wink of an eye. I agree this should be put back to the original version - the point of this is that we need to put limits that prevent admins from acting out their imperfections, and if that dilutes the purity of perfect unilateral discretion that's only right and natural.

Seriously, trotting out the 'admins are not perfect' rubric only after-the-fact - to excuse some admin when s/he screws something up royally - is fatuous. If we know admins are not perfect, we need to put some guards and limits on the execution of their powers to keep their imperfections in check. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions don't assume that admins are perfect, only that they have been selected, in part, for their good judgment. This is perhaps overly charitable, given the realities of our admin-selection process, but that's a separate can of worms. Anyhow, I think a lot of this is misguided - of all of the harm caused by shortsighted or incompetent admins to "the project", vanishingly little of it has come through WP:AE, at least in my estimation. MastCell  19:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with that last, but I don't really think it's relevant. closing off potentialities of abuse does very little to inhibit the proper use of discretionary sanctions, and precludes the needless wikidrama that inevitably arises over injudicious/improper actions. Besides, since I am habitually cast (against all reason) into a disliked minority group, I prefer not to rely on the 'charitable impressions' of people who are not overly-inclined to be charitable towards me. --Ludwigs2 19:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

An overdue comment on bullying

A general comment per my perspective as a teacher and parent:

Bullies depend on one fundamental to carry out their activities, and that is, that the victim either is, or thinks of themselves as weaker than the bully.

Standing up to a bully is not becoming a bully, and shouldn't be confused with bullying, but is refusing to lay down in door mat position, refusing to acknowledge that weakness Standing up to the bully as opposed to becoming the bully has more to do with 'legacy', that is, turning around and applying bullying tactics to someone else rather than standing up to the person bullying . Its not always easy for outsiders to see or tell the difference.

Not standing up to a bully leaves two options. Do not encounter them at all by avoiding the environment, or leave the environment if the bully is encountered.

Bullies are not emotionally mature so although sometimes one can discuss their behaviour with them, most of the time the behavior will only disappear with the growth of maturity which often comes with time.

Bullies do not honor in their activity, integrity, or honesty in part because they lack maturity. Asking them to honor these things as happens on Misplaced Pages is an exercise in futility in most cases.

Bullies often become expert manipulators making sure their activities are not seen and or recognized by those in authority positions.

In real life bullying has serious and far reaching repercussions that include suicides. While Misplaced Pages editors aren't likely to jump off a cliff if they're bullied, bullying on Misplaced Pages is a serious and pervasive issue and we can expect that even here bullying is extraordinarily damaging to editors. Bullied editors may most often leave as a way of dealing with their situation, so we have little way of knowing how damaging bullying has become. Allegations of bullying should be carefully and painstakingly investigated in order to protect those editors who have the tenacity to remain despite the environment, for those editors who are bullying, and for the good of the Misplaced Pages environment. Quick superficial decisions cannot take into account the complexity or seriousness of these situations.(olive (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

These comments are very worthy but what is their application to the present issue? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

Ditto that. What specific proposals, findings, evidence, etc do the comments refer? --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to make any specific comments, but there have been multiple comments and discussions in this case that refer to bullying and who is bullying who, and when and where. I'm offering these thoughts, but because of RL commitments right now and my own situation can't say much more than I have here. Perhaps the comments will persuade others to look closely at some of the Misplaced Pages goings-on in this case. Sorry for being obtuse. I just don't have the time or energy to say more. Very little of the proposed decisions have been posted. This comment may impact those un posted decisions. If this is a bother to you all please delete or move.(olive (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Mathsci (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to untangle Olive's point in a carefully and delicately phrased rant (I say delicately and carefully because I need to point to specifics but I want to keep it from becoming personal - that's a tricky balance). If you suffer from TLDR syndrome, apologies in advance, and skip to the last two paragraphs.

It's clear from what's been said in this case that I feel bullied, by several editors in particular, and more generally by an attitude that prevails on project. I do not believe that these editors see themselves as bullies, and I do believe that each has (for the most part) the best interests of the project at heart - we can dispense with the whole moral quagmire of intentional bullying for the moment - but the fact remains that I have a very difficult time interpreting their behavior as anything other than bullying. For example, I can only see the block I got as an effort to (pardon the phrase) "put me in my place" for having challenged QuackGuru. There was no imminent problem that the block was likely to solve, and the block was too short to solve any long-term problem, so the only practical values it could possibly have were (i) to protect QuackGuru by disrupting the noticeboard thread I'd begun - which of course it did - and (ii) to teach me a painful lesson about complaining with respect to certain editors or situations. Both are bullying tactics designed solely to make sure that the project pecking order always keeps the right people on top.

Incidentally, I think QG is just a token here - at least, no one has bothered to try to defend him or his actions in any way, and everyone seems to agree that there are issues in that quarter. My sense is that by calling QG's behavior into question, a number of people assumed that I was challenging the scientific perspective as a whole, and that triggered some unpleasant defensive posturing. Classic group dynamics...

More generally, I am constantly exposed to editors who threaten and insult me - this is a concomitant of working on fringe articles. I don't really need to hear that something I've done is a policy violation that's likely to get me blocked, nor do I need to hear that I'm a fringe advocate who ought to be driven off project, nor do I need to hear that something I said was uncivil or that I'm a bad person, nor do I need to be reminded of some unpleasantness I was involved in six months or a year ago; and yet, more than half of the comments directed at me from certain editors are repetitions of those kinds of statements. It's demoralizing to have three or four different editors (or one editor three or four different times) tell me that I'm a POV-pusher who's working on borrowed time, have them revert everything I try to do with meaningless edit summaries right up to 3rr, and then have fly-bys drop by to clinch the deal (and accuse me of edit warring for spice). I can hold my own in any reasoned discussion, but trying to discuss something reasonably with editors whose main activity is to revert me for senseless reasons, threaten me with sanction, and call me names... It's just ridiculous. I'm high-functioning, determined, and very, very smart, and I find it a brutal, grueling experience trying to get even minor revisions on fringe articles through; I can only imagine what it's like for someone who doesn't have my internal resources.

This is bullying, intentional or not. In fact, the reason I get in so much trouble on project is not that I stir up trouble, but that I simply don't ever give in to bullying, period. This makes people confused and angry - they don't see that they are bullying, they don't understand why I don't accept it 'the normal state of affairs' and give in, they interpret the fact that I'm standing up for myself as aggression - and confused, angry people do confused, angry things that cause a lot of wikidrama which I end up in the center of. Which (frankly) sucks.

This is really the crux of the issue for me. AE Discretionary Sanction - which are undoubtably a useful, powerful tool - also happen to be a picture perfect bullying tool. Seriously, I could not design a tool for bullying that would be better suited to the task. As it stands, an admin can use AEDS to soundly thump whomever s/he likes as hard as s/he likes whenever s/he likes, with no need for justification or explanation (beyond a perfunctory "it was under the purview of the decision and within my discretion"), and almost no recourse for the hapless target. Almost every fringe article is arguably under one arbitration ruling or another, any editor on a fringe topic is subject to immediate sanctioning for next to no cause, admins are not notable for their charity towards fringe issues... I'll give you whatever odds you like that if you looked over all the discretionary sanctions issued under fringe and pseudoscience rulings, the overwhelming majority (assuredly over 90%) will be against fringe-leaning editors, and a sizable proportion of those against middle-of-the-road editors like me and Littleolive oil, whereas AEDS are rarely if ever applied to even the worst, most disruptive science-leaning editors. I doubt it's intentional, but I'm sure it's a fact.

Don't get me wrong - I can adapt to this (the fact I haven't already been indef-blocked on some trumped-up charge should be sufficient testimony to that), but I don't like it, and I don't think this is what Jimbo et al had in mind when they came up with the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia - the whole "collaborate from the right perspective or else" thing tends to detract somewhat from the broader ideal. Sooner or later this is going to need to be fixed. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlike you, Mathsci, I was trying to keep this impersonal. does that even mean anything to you? --Ludwigs2 07:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mention you in this thread, directly or by implication. I was simply talking about my experience on project in a general way, so that people understood what I meant without it becoming personal. Your 06:32, 15 April 2011 post was unnecessary, uncalled for, overly-hostile, and seems to be nothing more than a scattershot approach to slandering me, in that it draws in a whole bunch of material irrelevant to this discussion. I'm asking NuclearWarfare to caution you and to redact the more pointed parts of your posts. NW - ball's in your court. --Ludwigs2 08:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci: your above post (and in fact, your entire contribution here and to the evidence and workshop pages) has no direct bearing on this case. You've simply dredged up every negative thing you could think of - going back years, going across my entire experience on every page of the project, all presented without context and in the dimmest light possible. You don't bother to try to analyze what happened in the case with QG, you don't bother to try to analyze what happened in any of the cases that you cite, you simply try to paint as negative an image as possible of my person and my character in the hopes (assumedly) that you can prejudice other people against me. That is slander by definition, and there is no other interpretation of your actions.

Now, I hope my position is clear, and I am still waiting on a clerk to redact your posts from this thread so that we can get back to the main topic without this kind of character assassination. --Ludwigs2 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can the two of you simply refrain from speaking to each other, no matter how wrong you think the other person is? NW (Talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) NuclearWarfare: I'm happy not to talk to or about Mathsci, but he keeps engaging in this kind of slander against me. Are you asking me to sit quietly and allow him to say any bad thing about me that he wants to say, whether or not it is true, reasonable, or relevant to the discussion or the case? That does not seem like a remotely reasonable request, particularly considering that you have expressly forbid me from engaging in any discussions of Mathsci's past behavior.

Again, if you redact his efforts to slander me in this thread, and ask him explicitly not to do it any more, I will consider the issue resolved and feel no need to talk about him any further in this discussion. The problem will be resolved. Are you going to do that or not? --Ludwigs2 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Mathsci (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It goes without saying that slander has a purpose, Mathsci. That does not make it appropriate behavior in a reasoned discussion. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Defense of encyclopedia writing

The only purpose of the Misplaced Pages project is to write an encyclopedia, not to make editors happy. This is neither a social experiment nor a utopia. Some people may go away unhappy because their un-encyclopedic material is rejected. Guidance and suggestions don't always work. That's almost unavoidable. Firm measures against those repeatedly adding inappropriate stuff to Misplaced Pages is not bullying. Misplaced Pages does not allow anyone to write anything. That community consensus, like all others, is enforced by individuals editors and admins. Some of what has been called "bullying" in this matter may be the enforcement of widely accepted standards in narrow circumstances. Policies are meaningless if they're never enforced.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Will: Let me just point out the obvious places you glossed over important distinctions

1. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative encyclopedia. It may not be about making editors happy, but it is surely not about making the experience so unpleasant for some editors that they go away and leave the 'collaborating' to people who agree with one perspective.
2. No one has a problem with firm measures against people who disrupt the encyclopedia; the problem under discussion here is when firm measures are applied to well-intentioned editors because they hold the wrong viewpoint. That is unconscionable.

You've created a straw man argument which asserts that any limitation on administrative power will result is a complete inability to enforce policy. On the contrary, any healthy system of authority in the real world has strong limits and constraints on the use of authority, and this is considered necessary to ensure that authority is applied is applied fairly, equally, and justly. In the real world, one rarely finds the claim that unchecked authority is necessary for proper administration: outside of totalitarian states (where it's a common theme) it is usually reserved for states of emergency where the need for rapid control of a situation temporarily outweighs niceties like humanitarianism and civil rights. Is that where you mean to go with this? --Ludwigs2 16:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree Misplaced Pages was not created to make editors happy. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to inform. Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit", is both an encyclopedia and a community, and its policies and guideline reflect that, in that it has both, guides that refer to editing and those that refer to behaviour. As in any work environment the quality of the environment directly affects the quality of the work. Bullies do not have the interests of the encyclopedia at stake whether they know it or not, and they sadly for themselves as well as for those they bully colour the environment in a non positive way decreasing work output. Bullying has nothing to do with content, directly. Bullying is a behavior. However, how and what an editor edits may give a certain kind of editor "perceived permission" to bully.

And indeed, Misplaced Pages has become very much a social experiment, one in which children edit alongside seasoned PhDs for example, and is one of the first four online communities. We can see every day that the encyclopedia community is experiencing growth as policies/guidelines/arbitrations are adjusted and changed to deal with the community needs, ensuring that the writers of this encyclopedia are always working in an optimal work environment. Bullying is an unfortunate, internal community mechanism that destroys that progress.(olive (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

@ Littleolive. Cognitive distortions that are used to play the victim are equally problematic. They are used to manipulate others to gain sympathy. This bully meme is amusing in that the bullies are pretending to be victims.OrangeMarlin 17:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@OM: you know, there's a truth to what you say (though we'd obviously disagree on whom it applies to). Personally, I would prefer a situation in which people rarely if ever felt the need to talk about other editors - that whole 'comment no content' thing, remember? However, given that so many discussions on wikipedia boil down to that artful game of trying to cover someone else with shit while still claiming to smell like a rose, whining and bullying will always go hand-in-hand (you can always tell the biggest shit-smearers, because they're the ones who scream like bloody murder over every imagined slight). It's actually a fascinating psychological dynamic, if you examine it. --Ludwigs2 18:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I was commenting to you. But I do thank you for proving my point. OrangeMarlin 18:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

yeesh, try to agree with someone... --Ludwigs2 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Orangemarlin, my comments were general per bullying and are based on real life experiences and reading, rather than a meme that refers to Misplaced Pages, and were intended to bring out into the open what I see is a big problem, because it is damaging to every one involved and eventually the encyclopedia. I didn't cast any one in any role on any side of the "fence", nor do I intend to. A close friend and teacher died a few days ago and frankly in preparing his memorial/ celebration of life service it occurred to me in a forceful way that we as editors are caught in our own small worlds that often do not serve anything larger than our own idiosyncrasies. Death has a habit of making certain aspects of life look trivial, and of highlighting the things we waste our time with. My comments are off track now with this arbitration so I won't comment again (olive (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

• I just realised I'm a little late by a day or so in adding some details of my own experience, (however I'll invoke WP:TIND) which very much involves long-term bullying and includes the use of AE as a means to do so. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I have had better things to do with my time than follow the ins and outs of this Much-Ado-About-Very-Little -Indeed Arbcom debate so I am not clear about who has been bullying who. However I find that the statement by Will Beback above to be a charter for bullies. The argument that the Might and Majesty of the Institution overrides the human rights of its constituent citizens is one that has been used by every totalitarian state since civilization began. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC).
  • My point is that enforcing content policies is not, in and of itself, bullying. Saying "you cannot add your personal knowledge to an article", for example, is not bullying even though it may feel like it to the person trying to make an important contribution. Ideally, good Misplaced Pages editors respond with patient guidance and education, and avoid rude reverts and generic warnings. But content policies still need to be followed. More experienced editors who continue to violate content policies may exhaust the community's patience. That's not bullying, that's the community responding to a problem user. In the final analysis, if people feel hurt when their inappropriate material is rejected then that's their problem. On Misplaced Pages, editors have the right to be treated with civility. They also have the right to leave and the right to fork. I strongly support those rights. However there is no right to add material which violates content policies.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Will, I don't think anyone's disagreeing with what you're saying, at least not generally. I happen to be pro-rule - I understand that role that rules play in making groups function smoothly - but like anything else in the world excesses turn even good things sour. When I go to an article to make a reasoned argument that some content needs to be added or removed, I do not want to be told that I cannot make the argument because of some senseless interpretation of policy, and I do not want to be blocked because he person making the senseless interpretation has friends in high places. The problem that started all this is a perfect example: QuackGuru's interpretation of policy was utterly senseless, his use of the source was absolutely idiotic from any thoughtful perspective, he was exceedingly tendentious and aggressive in pursuing it - and yet I get blocked for trying to get help dealing with him? I could understand this if it seemed like some isolated mistake, but everyone knows Sandstein is a pro-skeptic admin, and Sandstein's attitude makes it clear that it wasn't an mistake (that he wanted QG protected, and he wanted me blocked, and he wasn't at all concerned about the details). That's just plain offensive. Not to be too blunt about this, but I really wish you guys would stop playing politics and let reason and sourcing handle these problems. The dedicated pogrom you all are waging against editors you perceive as 'fringe' is unnecessary and disruptive. There are better ways to manage content on fringe topics than hounding editors you don't much like off of the project. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Editor numbers seem to be dropping. Is that seen as a problem or not? From my own experience what is described here as "bullying" is a major problem. You have editors who are contributing content to articles being chased away by editors, who in general if you look at their records, do not. This site has been becoming less about editors building an encyclopedia and more about backseat busybodies who have equal rights to article authors getting to exert and abuse the right granted to them so they can have a power trip. Moreover because building an article is time-consuming while criticizing one isn't, the busybodies not being tied down usually cover a lot more ground and tend to form what are essentially packs. Admins as a group are a party to this because they themselves generally fit the same profile and have the same mentality. You will see many instances where WP:VANDALISM, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:OR or their associated guidelines are invoked or could be used as a basis to explain an admin intervention. On the other hand I do not get the impression that WP:EDIT gets any respect or the now taboo WP:IAR—the two policies that give article contributors room to work. Subtraction of content now seems to be favored over addition despite being directly opposed by the WP:EDIT POLICY. Now you have before you a case that illustrates the above phenomenon and what happens when one actually sticks up for content. Notice also how the other major party that was key to instigating this action is nowhere to be found on this page. This is classic vandalism that has been pervertedly supported by admin action. This seems to happen on a regular basis at ANI. Lambanog (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Misplaced Pages's content policies have grown stricter over time. When we decided that we could not host images without clear GFDL-licenses or public domain status it pissed off a lot of editors, but it made for a better encyclopedia. When we made a stringent policy on biographies of living people that upset some users too, but it was for the greater good. There have been recent efforts to make it a little harder to create new articles because most of them have been garbage which takes considerable effort to patrol and clean. Each of these steps may be seen by some as bureaucratic vandalism by perverse admins. But in addition to creating good content it's also necessary to remove bad content. Our aim is not to please editors or to provide a free speech zone. Our only purpose is to create an encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Olive and Ludwigs that there is a lot of bullying going on in some of the science-related topics. Most of the bullies support what they feel is the "mainstream" school of thought on certain subjects. The Intelligent Design topic area is one place in which I've seen it occur in the past (check my talk page archives to see what I mean). I've been told by email that one reason it occurs so much in that and other topic areas is that many of those participants have asperger syndrome and thus, don't realize that they are engaging in bullying behavior. I don't know if this is true or not, so I'm reserving judgement on that idea. Because of Misplaced Pages's torturous dispute resolution process, it's very difficult to deal with bullying by other editors, so, as Olive states, many editors simply decide to move on. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory principles

The following principles are contradictory:

• 5) "Substantial community consensus or Committee permission must be sought before overturning an act explicitly stated to be pursuant to an arbitration remedy."
• 9) "An administrator's actions taken for purposes of Arbitration enforcement may be overturned by a consensus of fellow administrators"

5) requires "substantial community consensus", while 9) requires unqualified "consensus of fellow administrators". If you adopt both, it is not clear whether either or both forms of consensus are sufficient or required for overturning an AE action.

And both principles do not match the Trusilver decision, which requires "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard". If you intend to change the standards required for overturning AE actions, I suggest that you do it by way of a remedy, rather than by way of two incompatible principles that do not match what the Committee has previously decided.  Sandstein  14:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are contradictory, simply focusing on different aspects (5 goes into more detail about when it's appropriate to overturn, 9 is about how overturning isn't about the admin). That said, those are the underlying principles behind review while the motion (which remains valid) provides a specific process to implement what those principles put forward. — Coren  15:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

revision to decorum point?

Repeated claims

Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, enough. Risker (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)