Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:46, 14 May 2005

• ]

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Arbitration process losing weight

After talking with several other arbitrators, it has become apparent that the arbitration process has been the victim of hyper-instrucion creep. The number of arbitration pages has balloned (many of which are redundant), this page itself has become unnecessarily large with many unnecessary procedures, etc. I've gone ahead and pruned it down. I think this should make the process faster and smoother. →Raul654 21:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ambi 06:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

My request for clarification is gone, but I never got a clear answer. Why's that? I think if someone requests clarification, they're entitled to it. Everyking 05:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you were given it, Everyking. You can't edit the articles at all, although I seriously doubt you're likely to be blocked for reverting clear and obvious vandalism. If you have any updates, though, that are being ignored after being put on the talk page, I'm quite happy to look them over and most probably add them. Ambi 06:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's assuming everyone would be easygoing and rational. Unfortunately, if that was the case we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. I have little doubt that Snowspinner would block me in a heartbeat. Going after me is a hobby of his. There might be some other admins who would block for reverting vandalism, too, just out of personal antipathy. So I'd really like clear permission. Everyking 06:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Playing the guitar is a hobby of mine. Going after you is a frustrating and depressing experience that I wish you'd stop requiring. Snowspinner 16:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

What does the above say? A) You admit you go after me. B) You consider yourself "required" to attack me. C) You consider yourself to have some sort of elevated authority which entitles you to prosecute others. Everyking 16:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, A) seems obvious - I did raise an arbcom case against you. B) is less obvious, but true - I feel I have an obligation to raise arbcom cases and other judicial proceedings against users who are causing disruption and problems. C) is silly, though - I have no special authority. Anyone can raise arbcom cases. I just actually do. Snowspinner 16:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have trouble just figuring out how you think. I was causing no disruption or problems. I was writing articles. Try it sometime. Everyking 16:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems clearer that as long as you go nowhere near the articles, you won't get blocked. Why not take the approach of steering away from editing them? After all, there are plenty of others who can revert any vandalism that might occur, jguk 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not really a question of being blocked per se. It's more a matter of salvaging one small scrap of dignity. Everyking 07:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though it seems like a small issue, I give my word that I'll personally unblock you if you're blocked for reverting vandalism. But please don't try to push the definition. Ambi 08:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR and BaronLarf

Statement by Tony Sidaway

We try to be welcoming to newcomers here. This is a good thing. Sometimes it gets a bit absurd, though, and here we are indulging a person who has encountered no conceivable evidence of malice, but seems to bear a lot of extreme ill-feeling towards someone who seems to have acted with considerable courtesy. I think SummerFR needs a wikibreak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR's talk page indicates that she has left Misplaced Pages. Of course she may choose to come back, but for now the matter is no longer urgent. FreplySpang (talk) 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archiving requests for clarification

Please could answered requests for clarifications to be archived onto the main page of the case it relates to for ease of future reference. (e.g. when discussion finally finishes on the RfClarification I made about the GRider case, could that be archived on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/GRider please). Thanks, Thryduulf 16:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The RfA cases were moved (renamed)

Why was it necessary to move the RfA pages from "Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell" to "Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell"? Also, the corresponding talk pages were not moved, as Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell which is linked from my evidence. I just cannot figure out why this was necessary, I understand that you may have some new naming policy, the new cases may be started that way, but it's not good to move the existing cases. No, I don't complain naming the cases that way, not at all, the only thing which I would ask is that when moved, all pages should be moved complete with their talk pages, just not to disrupt the content and discussion. BTW, maybe at the time I wrote this, one already moved the talk pages under the new name, sorry for writing this comment in that case. One may also consider moving pages, comments on talk pages etc a minor thing and consider me too complaining because I a few times complained about moving the comments on talk page, but the reason I care about that is not that it may be some prevarication etc, only that i think it's better to avoid such minor things which may make things more confusing in Misplaced Pages. I just think that makes sense, IMHO, no reproach intended to anybody, and I'm really sorry if this comment was anyhow disturbing.Tkorrovi 19:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The connections for the WMC and Cortonin talk pages were also broken in Neutrality's recent renaming of that case. Dragons flight 15:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

DF, this should be fixed now. — Cortonin | Talk 19:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you DF, I just didn't know whether the name must remain like that, or the old name may be restored. It's fixed now.Tkorrovi 21:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Essay writing punishments?

A recent ArbCom ruling: "User:John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and write 200 words each on the implications of having custodians on Misplaced Pages and on the implications of allowing personal attacks on Misplaced Pages before being allowed to edit Misplaced Pages again.

First, I'd like to say I'm a big fan of the ArbCom, and I think they do a super job — thanks! However, I have some criticism: I think the above ruling is a mistake. I'm sure this user deserves his year long ban and parole, but...forced essay-writing? Let's not treat editors like wayward school-children (even if they behave that way). In my opinion, this lowers the dignity of the project as a whole. As a volunteer project, Misplaced Pages never compels people to do things — we do, of course, restrict undesirable actions. This ruling seems to fly against that. I support creative approaches to dealing with problem users, but this...just feels very wrong. Again, great work, right decision against Gohde, but the essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with. — Matt Crypto 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's amusing. Matt says that "essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with". We are looking on the same website here, aren't we? Hmmm. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to chime in with a "me too" comment, but I think MC has a point. While I applaud ArbCom's bold willingness to think outside of the box, it might be a good idea in future to float a trial balloon with the community before imposing an entirely new form of punishment. Although Misplaced Pages policy (probably deliberately) imposes few restrictions on the Arbitration Committee's ability to set punishments, I don't know if it's a good idea to get creative.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's an alternative way to look at it: A user might be banned indefinitely, but be eligible to apply for reinstatement after one year, with the application for reinstatement to include the essay. The idea would be that the essay would help determine whether the user understood the issues and would be in a position to avoid his or her previous misconduct. That way, it's not an arbitrary punishment; instead, it's related to the underlying problem, and helps the ArbCom decide on the application for reinstatement. Does that seem less farcical?. JamesMLane 06:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The essay was my idea (I just suggested it, I wasn't on the case) and probably not the best idea I've ever had. I think we can assume it's not really workable. Further suggestions for ways around just slapping long bans on people are welcomed. (Mentorship might work for some cases, but it was a lot of work finding mentors for Netoholic, for instance - people willing to put in that much work on one person who would actually be suitable for the job are really not easy to find.) - David Gerard 11:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can just require that the miscreant state that they read the policy and agree to abide by it. Of course there would be an implied threat that violating it again in a serious way would get a longer ban. --Zero 11:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That may be more workable - David Gerard 10:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As an admin, I've already used this with one persistent revert warrior, as a condition for removing a long block imposed by someone else. It seemed to make him a little more cautious--a good result, because he is otherwise a pretty valuable editor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I support novel punishments. The jails are overflowing. Mentorship is labor-intensive. Put malefactors to work in blaze orange vests picking up roadside trash. — Xiong熊talk* 08:38, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Rejected cases page?

If I remember correctly, there was formerly a page linked off the main requests that noted all those RfAs that had been turned down, the votes, dates, petitioners and reasons for that decision. What has happened to that page? I've not been able to find it, and I feel it crucial for accountability purposes that not just completed cases but rejected ones be available at least for public records. Wally 00:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You're half-right. There was a page that noted the RfAs that had been turned down, but without votes, dates, petitioners and reasons. Raul654 redirected it to the main page with an edit summary calling it instruction creep. Ambi 13:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wally, I think this needs to go back. Went to bed last night and Xiong's case was there, checked today and it disappeared and had to look through about 100 edits to find where it went. I think the rejected cases should be maintained for at least a little while. --Wgfinley 23:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Having that page was instruction creep so I support its removal (along with the stupidly redundant 'matters currently in arbitration’ section, which I flat out refused to update while it existed). But we could keep requests listed here for at least 24 hours after they gain enough reject votes. That way people can be informed that a request is rejected without undue instruction creep. --mav 16:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel that this page was very useful. For example, Everyking asked somewhere last night on WP:AN why "ArbCom decisions always turn out really badly for the accused? and opinioned that "nobody ever goes through the ArbCom and gets a decision like "We can't really see that this person did anything particularly wrong.". My response was to point out that where there is no evidence of any wrongdoing the case was rejected. The rejected cases page serves as evidence for this, and is a good place to direct people with similar opinions. Its also a valuable resource for those wanting to know what cases are likely to be accepted and rejected, potentially reducing frivilous requests. Thryduulf 11:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

At the moment none of the arb com are inclined to maintain such a page, because it's enough of a time-consuming PITA to open or close a case - hence our response of "yay, one less bit of instruction creep!"

But if someone else wants to maintain it (presumably at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests as before), noting it's not maintained officially by the arb com but as a record for interest, that would be fine by me at least. One suggestion: list each rejected request as per the previous version, but include the diff where it's removed from WP:RFAr (e.g. is the rejection of SummerFR vs. BaronLarf, which includes all the comments and an edit summary noting it went stale) - that will make it the researcher's tool people seem to want here. There will be a small amount of pain doing the research back through the history to build it up of course, and some of the queries will fail if people try to get the really old diffs ... - David Gerard 19:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with David - it's yet-another-thing-for-us-to-do, something for which I see no practical use. But, if someone else wants to spend his/her time maintaing it, they are welcome to. →Raul654 19:52, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I've put the page back as it was. It's there at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests. If any of those interested in such a page want to fix it, maintain it, put the diffs of failed requests on it, etc., it's there for you - David Gerard 00:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, at least, for the first little while. --Deathphoenix 02:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work on the new version of the page! - David Gerard 16:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd like to eventually have rejection diffs all the way to the first rejection. I think it's even better work that you made that page in the first place. I know I would have had an even harder time looking through the history without the notes. --Deathphoenix 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Lir case review

One of the pieces of evidence cited was a sandbox page? This comment by DG seems a bit prejudicial and perhaps inflammatory: "I can't see a productive edit coming from him, ever." "Did he break the record for most sock puppets ever?" This comment by DG seems to be irrelevant unless the socks were inappropriately used. -SV|t 05:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the causes of Lir's sanction was that he was using an account other than User:Lir to edit - namely his IP. There's pretty good reason to think that he did this deliberately. Since he was under a ruling prohibiting exactly this, yeah, the sock issue is relevent. Snowspinner 21:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking 3

Well, who was surprised to see Snowspinner try to shut up his critics with a request for arbitration? And who was surprised to see Gerard accept the case within 40 minutes? And who will be surprised to see Ambi accept it too? And who is going to be surprised when truth isn't a defense in this case? Not me. —Charles P.  16:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Nor me. Zocky 23:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to claim truth as a defense when evidence hasn't been provided. What swung it for me was (per diff noted in the request) Everyking's direct refusal to substantiate his allegations even when asked directly to do so, and to continue to make them refusing to substantiate them. As you seem to agree with his allegations, I'm sure you'll be able to provide substantial proof of their truthfulness in evidence should the case be accepted. Though that still won't change Everyking's blunt refusal - David Gerard 16:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd provide evidence for many of the criticisms voiced against Snowspinner if I thought it had the slightest chance of being heard. Since the arbcom won't censure Snowy even when its own findings clearly indicate he was wrong, wrong, wrong, I think that effort would be wasted. Maybe you think otherwise. —Charles P.  21:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because the deletion of the Anthony page was a reasonable interpretation of policy at the time and was made in good faith? And that a simple "No, that's not policy" was sufficient, since I haven't marked a page in the user namespace as a speedy since? Snowspinner 23:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Repeating that over and over again doesn't make it any more believable, especially in light of your "good-faith interpretation" of the policy in the exact opposite direction while the case was ongoing. And your admitted campaign against the user in question. But these came into the case too, didn't they, and were also ignored, weren't they? You know the answers as well as I do. —Charles P.  06:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not recall any change in opinion mid-arbcom case - at least not until the finding that I was wrong had passed, at which point I accepted it. Immediately. Without hesitation, I changed my mind when the arbcom ruled against me. As for my "admitted" campaign, perhaps is instructive - it's when, an hour later, I reverted myself after a productive discussion with Anthony online. Perhaps the discussion I had with Anthony in IRC where we tried to come up with an alternative to a namespace ban that would be mutually satisfying would be instructive. Frankly, if this is your evidence - an out of context diff that I reverted less than an hour later and the fact that I misinterpreted a policy and changed my mind as soon as the arbcom said I was wrong - it's no wonder you think the arbcom's going to laugh at it. Snowspinner 13:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Someday I ought to write an article on the links between misbehavior and memory loss. In the meantime maybe the stuff at the end of the evidence page will refresh your memory. And it's so magnanimous of you to engage in productive discussion after raising the arbcom case. Why you didn't try it before, I can only speculate. (Last of all, I didn't say they were going to laugh at it—I said they were going to ignore it. Do learn the difference.) —Charles P.  18:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

And which of the findings in that case comprised a general restriction on editing other people's user spaces? Snowspinner 18:58, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

There was a principle which said "Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged.", but no associated finding of fact or remedy, despite the clear evidence that you had done exactly that. —Charles P.  19:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I took that to be an issue of deletion tags, since that was what the dispute in question was over. And I'm not sure what sanction you want - I stopped deletion tagging articles in user spaces. So nothing more than a principle noting that it's discouraged was needed. Sure, you could have put a restriction barring me from using deletion-related powers, but what would the point have been? I stopped. My behavior changed. What more did you want? Snowspinner 19:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anything at all. I wish I could say that I can't see why you were released without warning while the target of your harassment received stiff sanction, for the crime of having been the target of your harassment—but I can't. —Charles P.  22:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

(Going left) But we're down to no evidence for this claim. Your evidence that I harassed him was a single diff from months before. I was pissed at him for something. I lashed out. 50 minutes later, I retracted the statement. Apologized to him too. And the apology was accepted. You have that I wasn't sanctioned to your satisfaction for deleting his user subpage, despite the fact that the sanction given for that has demonstrably been enough to reform me on that issue. And past that... you've given nothing but an accusation. If you have a case to make against me, make it - to an RfC, to the arbcom, to Jimbo, right here, but somewhere. Otherwise, frankly, you're not raising concerns or disagreeing. Disagreement inplies that there's an actual specific issue to agree or disagree over. You've yet to raise one. You're just attacking me. Snowspinner 22:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence that you harassed him is in the whole history of the affair. You brought it up on the admins' noticeboard; the only responses you got were "leave it alone, it's not doing any harm". Instead of doing that, you edit warred over the tag, and when no other sysop would delete it, you got one of your cronies—through e-mail or, more probably, IRC—to do the dirty deed. Sure, no evidence at all. —Charles P.  03:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine an outcome of this, but I'm having a hard time getting past "Everyking is prohibited from questioning actions by others on the administrator's noticeboard unless he provides reasons deemed acceptable by the following set of administrators", or perhaps "Everyking must write an essay of 200 words showing that he understands the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the nature of its decisions". (Sorry, David, it's meant in good fun. :-)
Everyking has been quite disingenuous questioning decisions to cases he admittedly knew nothing about, but being disingenuous is not quite the same as being a "querulous troll". If EK disagrees with how the ArbCom rules in principle, then he disagrees with how the ArbCom rules in principle. We would all be much better off if he didn't go charge every windmill in sight and instead present a single, coherent argument he could get others to agree or disagree with (in other words, "don't question everything to illustrate a point"), but there is absolutely nothing I can see the ArbCom doing or saying that would solve this conflict constructively (and no, I do not think censoring EK qualifies). I'll be interested to see what the outcome of this is going to be. JRM · Talk 16:32, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I'm not sure the requested remedy matches the problem cited, but the behaviour cited is still very problematic. The obvious question I see is: how much can someone trash-talk someone else, refusing to substantiate the trash-talking, before it can be regarded as a personal attack? That this would obviously be a hairy case doesn't make the behaviour less problematic IMO - David Gerard 16:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarify: I'm not trying to suggest the behaviour isn't problematic. Far from it. I'm also not saying the ArbCom shouldn't accept the case. What I am saying is this: keep very well in mind that we're not here to solve problematic behaviour per se, but to solve problems. I'm afraid that if you use the "is questioning Snowspinner over and over again a personal attack" angle, this case will go nowhere; the conclusion will be that EK needs some gentle beating with a cluestick, while we'll all tsk a bit at how people are always getting on Snowspinner's case for acting in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Meanwhile, we can prepare for Everyking 4. JRM · Talk 16:53, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I think, in this case, it helps that Everyking has blatantly crossed the line into personal attacks on several occasions. I also think that there's a case to be made that somebody who does not support the arbitration process, does not block, and yet continues to criticize administrator actions while explicitly refusing to read evidence is probably not acting in the manner that people expected when they originally supported him for adminship. In either case... I dunno. I'd prefer a cluestick, because, well, Everyking became an admin. He clearly has a capacity for clues. If that means an Everyking 4, well, I was hoping against an Everyking 3. And an Everyking 2. And I'm hoping against an Everyking 4. But if there is one, there is one. Snowspinner 17:30, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

You notice how Snowspinner's response to a dissenting view is to try to suffocate it? What does he want out of me? I will be happy to call a "cease-fire" with him and conduct private discussions instead. Everyking 18:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've put a request on the case page for you to clarify why you were so hostile to mediation before this case was brought, and are suddenly not hostile to it now that one has been brought - David Gerard 19:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed a bit. I'm as open to mediation as I've always been. I also want to note something else. Snowspinner accuses me of refusing to block people for vandalism. While that is true, that is a personal, moral decision that I have taken due to my own experiences with being blocked. I do not object to other sysops blocking people for vandalism, provided it can be considered reasonable to do so. Everyking 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think arbitration is necessary for this case right now because while previous attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted prior to Everyking & Everyking 2, those two cases were both wrt the Ashlee Simpson articles. Those cases both noted that EK's behaviour outside of Ashlee Simpson has been good. This case seems to be about EK's behaviour outside of Ashlee Simpson and therefore subject to other steps in dispute resolution prior to arbitration. Since it's not a content dispute, I doubt that mediation will do anything, but for now, an RfC might be more appropriate. --Deathphoenix 19:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Is David Gerard arguing Snowspinner's case or arbitrating it? He ought to make up his mind. —Charles P.  06:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Really, he probably should recuse himself anyway. He has repeatedly made known his hostility towards me and seems to always openly side with Snowspinner about things. Everyking 07:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can come up with a convincing set of diffs, please do so - David Gerard 10:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Here you are arguing his case for him and making your prejudice quite clear: "this behavior is particularly unseemly"—indicating that you've already made up your mind—"Please clarify how this squares with your hostility to the suggestion of mediation"—which Snowspinner declares to be the case, but Everyking denies; again this demonstrates a prejudice—and —which is self-explanatory. Now I suppose you'll aver that these aren't "convincing", won't you. —Charles P.  18:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC) Addendum: , coming six hours after and making the same argument, isn't convincing either, is it. —Charles P.  22:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to convince you? You're well aware of the stuff you've been involved in. Everyking 10:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

EK, as I understand recusals, an arbitrator will recuse themselves if they feel they are not or are not able to be neutral in the debate, OR one (or more) of the parties involved requests it AND the arbitrator in question agrees that it would be inapropriate for them not to recuse.

What has happened in this case is that you have asked DG to recuse, but he doesn't feel it is necessary. Instead of flat-out rejecting it, he is being very fair and giving you the chance to explain and give supporting evidence for why you feel it is necessary. I'm sure he does know what stuff he has been involved in, but he doesn't feel that his actions necessitate his recusal. He is giving you the opportunity to epxress your view and to try and convince him otherwise. If you don't take the opportunity then I don't see that you will have any grounds for complaining about DG's non-recusal. Thryduulf 11:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to go digging around for evidence that he is already well aware of. That's silly. Also, you are attributing a motive to David, that he "doesn't feel it is necessary". More likely he wants to be in on the case because of a personal dislike for me and to act as an ally of Snowspinner. Everyking 12:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not, actually, any more than I was when Netoholic repeatedly demanded I recuse for no reason that he could substantiate - David Gerard 14:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That statement completely false, and you know it, David. I explained my reasoning User talk:David Gerard#Recusal reason?. I gave the reasons, made the request, but you chose to reject it. That is not the same as failing to substantiate my "demand". I feel you are not looking at these cases from a neutral eye, but the community has no recourse but to abide with your decision to recuse or not. -- Netoholic @ 11:58, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

That would be because all your stated reasons still resolved to "I disagreed with him therefore he must hate me therefore he should recuse." Accepting such a reason would be handing a Get Everyone To Recuse Free card to the more creatively antisocial members of our community, as I'm sure you're able to see with a moment's thought - David Gerard 17:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume when you make this statement, you mean that a "creatively antisocial" person could try to make all the Arbitrators recuse. That is the problem with your theory in my case. I only asked one person to recuse from the start, you. I must be bad at being "creatively antisocial", since if I were, I'd have made more protestations against other Arbitrators. I didn't, trusting that they would do what was right in their minds. Seeing that you, in particular, had not recused freely, made me suspicious that you wanted to be part of the Arb for revenge or to at least make sure one vote swayed towards the punitive. This is of course the case, since you took the most active prosecutorial role in the case, and also suggested the most harsh penalties. Luckily for me, those were tempored by more fair minds in the Committee. -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

That is true, but you took the initiative to involve yourself in the exchanges between me and Snowspinner. Moreover you wrote decisively hostile comments on the RfAr page that strongly suggest you are biased against me. Everyking 17:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Accepting a case and explaining why isn't a recusal reason, oddly enough. Nor within a mile of one.

If you want a recusal, come up with a convincing set of diffs. Surely that won't be too difficult to bother with - David Gerard 00:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is what set Snowspinner off, since it's the last thing I said to him before he decided it was time to play the ArbCom card:

Well, I don't agree with you, Phil. The difference is, my opinions are just opinions. You talk about your opinions as if they're policy.

So look at what I said there. I said, I have an opinion, and I don't try to impose my opinions; I try to persuade. I don't pretend my opinions are policy to get my way. Snowspinner, on the other hand, never makes allowances for dissenting views. Agree with him or he will take you to the ArbCom. It's really pretty scary.

Well, as for what I said, that's a recognition that different opinions can co-exist, right? I believe what I said set him off because he does think his opinions should be policy, or already are policy. I also want to note something else: I was politely talking about an issue unrelated to him, about the question of what sort of "hurdles" should have to be jumped in order for material on Nazi mysticism to be included in an article. I mused that there were two hurdles. Snowspinner then entered the discussion to tell me there were in fact three hurdles, putting forward a view he would know to be anathema to me. My guess is that he did that purely to provoke an argument in hopes that I would say something that could be his casus belli to start an ArbCom case. The fact that what I said was harmless didn't seem to derail that plan. Everyking 08:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone curious as to why I suspect mediation would be a doomed endeavor should look above. Everyking makes clear that he already knows my motives. He knows that a comment about whether something should be included in an article is obviously an attack on him. He knows why I submitted this case. He knows that I will take everybody who disagrees with me to the arbcom. And he's pretty sure that I said something just so I could arbcom him.

Frankly, bullshit. He's said he would go into mediation to get me to change my ways, and maybe he might accept that he should stop making personal attacks? So in order to get someone to stop making personal attacks against me I need to give up something that is not in violation of any policy and that NOBODY HAS EVER PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE FOR! Even now, Everyking doesn't actually offer any evidence of his claims. So in order to get any relief from the fact that I cannot take any action as an administrator without being personally attacked by Everyking, I need to enter mediation so he can try to get me to stop doing something that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided evidence for.

I think not. Snowspinner 13:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Phil, if you seriously think I have made personal attacks against you, give me some examples and, if I can see your reasoning, I will agree not to say such things anymore. I do not wish to provoke you, but I also want to preserve my right to make valid points in a discussion, and to criticize what I see as abuse. Everyking 13:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

When your "valid" point is that I'm an abusive sysop, and yet you refuse to take any measures other than attacking me for it, it's a personal attack. Snowspinner 13:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Phil, you often do not mince words when speaking of violators of the ArbCom and such marginalized people who have gotten on your nerves. So I don't know why you can say things but can't accept having things said to you in turn. If you wish, I will refrain from calling you an abusive sysop in general, and will instead focus on individual actions which, while they may be abusive, are not necessarily indicative that the person behind them can be characterized as generally abusive. In turn, will you accept mediation with me and quit holding arbitration over my head? Everyking 13:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Because I actually use the dispute resolution procedures. You just berate people, and then have the gall to say you were always willing to go into mediation. Bullshit. "The purpose of mediation, I imagine, would be to get you to moderate yourself, while I at the same time would try to understand better where you're coming from, and would try to refrain from harsh criticism in the future." No. I will not enter a mediation proceeding so that you can get me to "moderate" myself when you've shown a total unwillingness to offer evidence that there's any complaint to be made against me, and when it's clear that your only objection is that I raised arbitration against you before. And if that fact is enough to excuse your personal attacks, well, the irony is that of the two of us, you'll be the only one to have driven somebody off of Misplaced Pages through harassment. Congrats. Snowspinner 15:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be happy to discuss things with you informally, outside of actual mediation. Alternately, you could start a RfC against me and see if there's any community support for the claims you've made against me; I don't really see much truth in what you claim, but if you have some sort of substantial backing that would give it more weight. But I'm not going to sit here and cower in fear because you threaten me with arbitration. I feel I have a right to point out what I feel are abuses and criticize them. I don't, on the hand, feel I have any particular right to make personal attacks on anyone, so I'm perfectly happy to not do that, although I don't feel I have been making personal attacks in the first place. Everyking 15:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner writes: Note also where Everyking responded with extreme hostility to the idea of mediating with me over his objections to me. Later he writes a long screed about how mediation is useless. It seems rather disingenous of him to even suggest mediation when he's convinced it doesn't work. Why did no arbitrator say anything about this obvious bad faith, I don't wonder? —Charles P.  03:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just angry that I'm being accused of hostility towards mediation when anybody who reads what I said can see that isn't true at all. The hostility was directed towards Snowspinner based on his history of rejecting mediation and seeming to believe that he is unconditionally right and therefore doesn't need to compromise with anybody; i.e. I did not believe he was being sincere about it. Everyking 03:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

And look, you were right.
I further don't wonder why it strikes David Gerard as "disingenuous to spit abuse at the idea of mediation before a case is raised then claim you were always for it when one is at last raised", but offering mediation when one secretly believes that it doesn't work does not strike him as equally disingenuous. —Charles P.  03:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I eagerly await both participants giving their views of the recent attempt at mediation - David Gerard 00:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agreed not to comment publicly on his admin actions, although I presume that some form of concession will be forthcoming from his side as well. I believe he said he would involve himself more in mediation in the future, which would suffice for me. Everyking 00:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My sense was that mediation was ongoing - I know there are still things I'd like to discuss. So I'd rather not withdraw the case just yet in the hopes of further mediation. Snowspinner 00:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking 3 deadlock?

I see that there are 7 votes for this case - 3 accept, 3 reject and 1 recusal. Checking on the Arbitration Committee page, I see there are currently 7 active Arbitrators. What happens now? Do we wait for one or more of the abritrators who are currenty inactive to return, or does this need to be passed to Jimbo to cast a deciding vote? Thryduulf 09:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This is, umm, an undefined situation.

What do you think should happen?

James F. (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's not find out. :-) Kim Bruning 10:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Since Everyking and Snowspinner have agreed to pursue alternate dispute resolution for now, hopefully the point will be moot. Since all three of the reject votes express a preference for mediation, presumably the deadlock on this issue would go away if good-faith mediation and negotiation were to fail. As to the more general question of how to handle similar situations...doesn't the vote usually fail on a tie? An appeal to Jimbo to grant cert wouldn't be out of order, I suppose. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 10:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In other situations, where there is a lack of consensus the status quo normally holds. If that is applied to this situation, I suppose the status quo is that there is no arbitration case currently open regarding this dispute. If an arbitration case was opened that would clearly be different to the status quo. Hoever, it is also equally true that there is currently no rejected arbitration case, so those in favour could argue that rejecting it would also be different to the status quo. The only path between the two I can see is that the status quo is that there is a request for arbitration that has not been accepted or rejected - however this gets us nowhere!

I beleive that the rules of the Arbitration Committee say that they will hear or not hear a case if the connensus of the community is clear that they should or shouldn't. If the comments on this page are anything to go by, there is no clear consenus either way, which doesn't really help. Also I think (but haven't checked) that the committee are bound to hear a case if Jimbo asks them to. If the reverse is true that they are bound not to hear a case if he asks them not to hear it, then this is in effect a deciding vote.

I'm not an arbitrator (or even an admin), so my views on this are not binding on anybody, but I certainly don't think it would hurt ask Jimbo if he has an opinion on the matter. I don't know what we'd do if he said, that he doesn't have an opinion and to sort it out between ourselves - a straw poll or RfC on whether the community feels the arbcom should hear the case? Sounds a bit beurocratic and OTT myself, but I can't think of anything else.

I probably ought to say that I'm not EK's biggest fan, and don't personally approve of his actions on WP:AN/I, but I don't hold a strong view either way on whether the arbcom should hear the case or not. If one is opened then I may submit evidence of some of the discussions I've had with him on the matter if someone else didn't, but I wouldn't be clamouring for any particular verdict. If I was arbitrator I would have to recuse. Thryduulf 11:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh...I thought Snowspinner withdrew the request? Everyking 11:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't spotted that. The above is therefore entirely theoretical now I suppose, but it might be worth considering for any future deadlock. Thryduulf 12:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Question

If two rulings on the same user contradict, should the more recent ruling be considered to override the first one, even if this is not explicitly noted in the decision? Everyking 02:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's the point of newer rulings. Ambi 02:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

So, in this particular case, when Everyking's two-month ban on editing Ashlee Simpson runs out, what happens to his revert limitation? --Carnildo 02:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

1) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from editing articles relating to Ashlee Simpson. Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Ashlee_Simpson), is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by this limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson. Violations of this restriction shall result in blocks of up to 24 hours per violation. Everyking may apply to the Arbitration Committee for this sanction to be lifted in two months.

Everyking's one-year ban runs out in ten months or so, and his revert parole runs out then too. Ambi 05:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Are users allowed to edit the proposed decisions page?

Paul Beardsell edited the proposed decision page of the arbitration case Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell , the diffs . He added a proposed principle. I think that already by the definition, the arbitration, especially the decision making and voting, must be done by the arbitrators only, and therefore no other user is allowed to edit the proposed decisions page. I don't want Paul Beardsell to be an additional arbitrator. I did not delete his addition, as I have no wish to start an edit war with Paul Beardsell, knowing that he will start it, as he already wanted to do over other pages in arbitration case. I also don't find myself entitled to edit the proposed decision page. I'm sorry for providing link to this comment on talk pages of all arbitrators. The proposed principle added by Paul Beardsell looks exactly like one added by the arbitrators, and arbitrators may start voting on this, and consider it as one added by one of the arbitrators. And also because Paul Beardsell did such things before (see the evidence), any too slow reaction to his such action would be interpreted by him as a possibility to do more such edits. I'm really sorry, but it is difficult to deal with Paul Beardsell.Tkorrovi 11:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)