Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Tony Sidaway Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:34, 27 February 2006 editGeogre (talk | contribs)25,257 edits →Right and wrong← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:31, 22 August 2007 edit undoMelsaranAWB (talk | contribs)393 editsm subst:'ing, Replaced: {{courtesy blanking}} → {{subst:courtesy blanking}} using AWB 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== First principles and the root of the question ==


{| class="messagebox"
Some of the principles being added are the same ones added to many cases which is fine as far as it goes. To my way of thinking, this case turns on principles, and questions of principle, not all of which I have seen yet... Fundamentally (as with any case) the question is, are the actions in question good for the encyclopedia, good for the project? With vandalism or POV pushing in articlespace, th principles are usually quite clear cut, and the difficulty lies in determining whther the actions are class X and how much of X they are and who did X when. ( See also ] )
| This page has been ].

I think this one is a lot harder because (unlike with articlespace where it's a foundational assumption) the fundamental principle of whether userspace must be a POV free zone (or not) isn't universally accepted. And if POV is allowed in userspace (as it should be, in my view but I suspect not in the view of all, I was hoping to see more discussion on that somewhere) how *much* POV? Where is the line? Most accept that WP is not a free speech zone so the line isn't where it would be drawn in those cases (the KKK's right to peaceably march in the US, etc does not apply here). It is by the metric of how much POV is allowable, and how urgent is the suppression of outrageous POV, that evaluation of whether completely out of process deletions, or deletions that may or may not fit CSD:T1, or repeated deletions, or deletions while TfD was ongoing, etc... should be carried out.

The argument that I believe Tony makes is that when he's deleting, it's for the good of the encyclopedia to get rid of that particular item as fast as possible, even if "consensus" might want to keep it, because consensus is wrong. Since none of these items are in articlespace, what's meant by good of the encyclopedia is "what impact it has on the editors and on their ability and desire to carry out the work of writing" and needs to be weighed in terms of what effect it has on the editors. We are all different people so the effect differs, of course, but there theoretically is a net effect (some are turned off, some are heartened, etc).

I'll be wanting to add some principles around all this but wanted to float this idea first and get others reactions. ++]: ]/] 11:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:I was maybe hasty in adding the principles which '''I''' hold to be applicable before reading this piece: maybe not as well, as I can certainly agree with ] that one of the points in this case is the question of what is acceptable on a userpage. If we had agreement on that, we would not have so much administrative trouble! ] ] 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

: If I or the other editors using T1 thought that consensus was for keeping contentious userboxes, we wouldn't delete them. The idea is expressed above that this is about whether people are permitted to express biased ideas in userspace. Again, this is wrong; the question is whether userspace can be used for viral dissemination of controversial ideas, particularly those not associated with the project (end the Iraq war, shoot pacifist, etc). One person saying "I think George Bush's reverts to the constitution should be reverted" is a pithy maxim summarizing his personal take on things. When a group of people adopt that same statement, without adding their own take on things, it becomes a slogan, and we should ask ourselves what good, and what harm, such slogans do to the project. To me it seems that reducing political discussion to slogans like this is just a step above communicating in grunts and yells as at a football match. It attracts people to Misplaced Pages for the wrong reasons, and encourages them to engage in the very antagonistic practises that eventually bring them to the notice of administrators. --] 21:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

== This is a project with a community, not a community with a project ==

Quoting from
{|
|-
|
charles matthews wrote:

> "Matt Brown" wrote
>> I do suspect in the current climate that will just make a dozen people start to use it, to protect it.

> Something to that. Attention-seeking behaviour is sometimes best treated by ignoring it, as parents know.

Wisdom.

Having said that, I heard today that the number of userboxes, and in
particular the number of very problematic userboxes, has exploded. I
think this is seriously Not Good For Our Loving Little Community.

I am not doing anything about it just yet, but I am willing to concede
that my nonviolent social request that people knock it off and think
about what it means to be a Wikipedian has not gotten very far.

As far as I can determine, and I am very much aware that I am here
prejudicing the terms of debate, this is a cultural battle between
wikipedians and people who have stumbled into this cool site they heard
about on CNN where you can write whatever the hell you want and argue
with people for fun.

--Jimbo
|} |}

----

I really am of two minds about this whole RfAr. As a process wonk, I think process is a way to ensure fairness, and just as importantly, the preception of fairness. For that reason I am generally uncomfortable with out of process stuff, with repeated deletions, with speedys while a XfD is going on, with wheel warring, etc etc, etc. Process==fairness. So I tend to be uncomfortable with some of the stuff Tony is doing, as I think I've made clear before. But on the other hand we must not be slaves to process, and consensus is sometimes wrong. Maybe Tony is really a hero getting beat up unjustly. Process cannot get in the way of doing the work we are all volunteering to do here

WP by tradition is consensus driven but if there are forces distorting consensus, they must not be allowed to stop us from our work. Our work is to do an encyclopedia. Community is important to the work, but secondary. Decorating our cubicles (so to speak) makes us people, but is secondary to the work.

It is not black and white though. There are users here that do fit the "stumbled on" model who may well be pushing the limits just because they can, because it's fun to stir things up. I have seen that in other communities. I don't care about making ''them'' mad, except inasmuch as stirring them up causes disruptive discord (classic troll fighting principles). But there are OTHER users here who care deeply about the encyclopedia, and who have concerns, just as I do, about the methods Tony is using and about the justification for them. The ends do not justify the means. Those users must be convinced that what Tony is doing is right and proper, if indeed it is. I don't see that this RfAr, run to completion as is, will do that. If they are not so convinced, they will leave and we will lose valuable community members that we do not want to lose. I have seen that in other communities as well.

My take is this, it may be time for mandated clarity here. This project has an owner and a leader. I totally understand and sympathise with Jimbo's desire to not be heavy handed, to let things go and to not come out with directives except in extremis. But maybe it ''is'' extremis. Maybe a mandated policy is what is needed. Maybe nothing else will give the clarity to allow justification of out of process, anti (apparent) consensus actions that reasonable users will accept. I don't know. What do others think?

(as an aside, I think Jimbo's request '''has''' gotten pretty far among the thoughtful users. Most of us have subst'd, have put in explanations, have removed divisive things) ++]: ]/] 16:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

: You write: "The argument that I believe Tony makes is that when he's deleting, it's for the good of the encyclopedia to get rid of that particular item as fast as possible, even if "consensus" might want to keep it, because consensus is wrong."

: Actually I have argued this but only in the subjunctive. I've never actually deleted anything against consensus as far as I'm aware, whether in article space or anywhere else.

: Where the Catholic Alliance page was concerned, my position is that it had to be deleted, and I remarked that there was already an overwhelming consensus to delete, but even if 1000 people voted to keep it, it would still have had to be deleted. Some things are non-negotiable, and one of those is the neutral point of view.

: Of course if we were scared of being misrepresented we would never utter a word, but I do think it's nice occasionally to set things straight. --] 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
::'''Item A''', clearly at least among the subset of admins who were pushing the delete/restore buttons you were deleting against consensus. Also, the "consensus" in any XfD debate is "willingness to see this item deleted at the end of the debate". This should be obvious from the fact that we only rarely close deletion discussions early, even when there is a huge margin to do so.
::'''Item B''', how does what you've said differ from what Lat's paraphrased you as?
::]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 05:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The item in question was an obvious speedy. I've no idea what possessed the undeleting admins, but clearly they were in the wrong. It's quite normal to end a debate early when an item is especially damaging and there is a clear consenuss. Keeping it alive was only feeding those who were trying to organise a voting bloc (which, if you recall, was the whole purpose of the page in question). --] 07:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:Is this whole RfA about just that one box? I didn't think so, I thought it was broader in scope. But in any case... I think I'll repeat what I said on Aaron's page:
----
::I guess what I fail to understand is why overriding process was a good thing in that case. I understand the argument that if process is about to give a flawed result, if consensus seems to have arrived at a finding that the sky is green, the good of the encyclopedia requires that the right thing be done. But that wasn't the case here. If process is about to give the right answer, and soon, letting it actually do so makes all of us process wonks feel that the system is fairer. (note carefully I speak not of rights, not of free speech. We have no right to free speech here, and in general no rights at all other than the board grants us, except not to participate, or to fork. I speak of perception of fairness). So why the rush? The argument needs to be made that there was a compelling urgent need to override a process that was about to give the correct result anyway. I do not think you've made that argument, in general. That you seem unwilling to make it, unwilling to admit that sometimes you do act rashly, or at least give the appearance of doing so, gets under the skin of some of us to the point that some of us say uncivil things to you, which is regrettable and should not be abided, but which does not dilute the validity of the point, it merely undermines the ability to make it effectively.
----
:It may be an obvious speedy ''now'' if we posit ] is widely accepted (it isn't yet, is it? there seems to be some dissention), but was it an obvious speedy ''then''?? I don't think so, and I think the process was going to get to the right result, and the state of emergency wasn't so high that waiting wasn't a viable strategy... I could be wrong of course but that's my view. Again, I acknowledge that subsequent events may yet prove you right, or Jimbo may decide to stop with the oracular pronouncements and introduce clarity. But I don't get why working a bit more inside process is so terrifically unworkable for you. It's not either or, either hang up your admin spurs or get free rein. There's a middle ground, which is to keep doing all the wonderful things you do for the encyclopedia but do them within a bit more framework, which will make many more people much more comfortable. Is that making any sense? ++]: ]/] 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No. To see what the dispute is about, go to my section on the Catholic Alliance in the evidence page. This was not a userbox matter at all, but a project set up with the avowed intention of supporting the creation and retention of articles that were skewed with an anti-abortion point of view. Of course such things should be killed on sight because of the potential for damage, but that isn't what happened on this occasion, for reasons that entirely escape me. --] 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

:But this RFA ''is'' about more than one box, or one project. In ] both sides seem to say that fairly clearly. You have deleted things that would shortly have been deleted under consensus more than just that one time, haven't you? I stand by what I say above, regardness of you wanting to narrow the scope to the ACW. I have great admiration for you and for your strength of purpose but I question if it is necessary to delete things out of process, not just one thing, but many things. ++]: ]/] 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

: I don't understand any of what you're saying above. Which specific items, beside the Catholic Alliance of Misplaced Pages, "would shortly have been deleted under consensus"? I am aware of no such recent deletions. Looking at the evidence page, I see no such deletions. Looking at the "involved parties section I see no such deletions mentioned. All of my deletions of templates, for instance, were performed on the basis that they were completely unacceptable. No consensual decision-making was involved, although the deletions were reviewed. --] 05:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

:: I may be confused. Wouldn't be the first time. My impression (without trawling through your deletion log and comparing it to what things were listed where when) was that you were deleting things (user boxes) out of process, more than just this one project template. If that's not the case, I apologise but I then am confused as to what this RfAr is about. ++]: ]/] 14:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

===Speedy is in/out of process?===
(semiarbitrary section break)

Yes, they were out of process, in the sense that all speedy deletions are carried out without process, on the cognizance of the sysop concerned. Thee earlier ones had slightly more process than usual because, the attack template proposal being experimental, I submitted the deletions to ] for review. --] 21:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:Well, OK, but a speedy that clearly fits a CSD criteria isn't "really" out of process, whether put up for DRV or not. Thus, templates deleted prior to the existance of ] are more out of process than those after (assuming both fit T1), wouldn't you agree? That is, "process" is a sliding scale... starting at "Way over on the out of process side"
:*"I deleted it because I felt like it" which shades towards
:*"I deleted it because I think it's divisive" and then
:*"I deleted it because I know we eventually are going to have criteria for this to be deleted under" and then
:*"this fits the criteria so I deleted it" and then
:*"This went up on AfD and consensus was close but tending for delete so as closer I made a judgement call" and then
:*"This went up on AfD and it was a clear ] so as closer I deleted"
:we end up at "clearly very much in process"... Does that make sense? Do you agree there is such a continuum? (even if you may not agree about the exact ordering I gave) Can you see why ''process wonks'' like me may have a different comfort point than some others do? I certainly agree that process shouldn't stand in the way unnecessarily but '''process==perceived fairness''' and we're all volunteers here, things that disempower people will drive volunteers away. Were you speedy deleting templates prior to CSD:T1 existing to cover their deletion? ++]: ]/] 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:I was certainly deleting templates prior to existence of T1. In the absence of process, I set up a new process. --] 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::Can you please provide a link to where you made a proposed extension to CSD. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 00:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:::The diff has been on the evidence page for days. --] 01:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Can you be more specific? That's a big page, and I'm not seeing where you "set up a new process", so if you'll give me this diff? <br/> ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 01:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::OK Tony, thanks for confirming that, so what did you think of my continuum? Does the notion make sense? Is it a valid notion/ordering? What did you think of the notion that some people might be uncomfortable with stuff at one end of it? That different people have different comfort levels? <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 02:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I find your continuum facile and unhelpful, and in the current case, of questionable relevance. The items deleted should not be on Misplaced Pages. --] 03:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:Facile and unhelpful? I wonder if that view is widely shared. I think it clearly demonstrates that in/outness of process with respect to actions is not binary. Further I think it actually quite relevant because I'm starting to think your view of many things is binary, or at least more binary than mine. And that's a good bit of the issue here I think. You say in essence, (just below) either you're completely right or completely wrong, while I say you're not always all the way to one side or the other. <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 04:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

== The recent removals of some of Tony's suggestions ==

I was requested to move them back on the page by Tony. I don't see a real reason to -- if the arbs want to use them, they're always available, and any minor stuff that might need correction can be easily fixed up by the arbs on the proposed decision page. Tony is still free to do a major rewrite of those proposals and resubmit them. But for now, I don't see why they should stay on the workshop. ] | ] 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


: That's fine. Aaron Brenneman was very naughty to remove them after being , and I think his justifications make it sound like he is again assuming bad faith, falsely describing my proposed remedies as "melodramatoc gestures" , "histrionics" and "fillibustering" . But you're right. The arbitrators, if they had not seen the proposals before, ''certainly'' are now aware of their existence and about their removal. --] 00:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:*I re-iterate: if editors in good standing come forward and say that they believe that these proposed remedies will draw even one support vote I will restore them myself.
:*There '''are limits to assuming good faith''', and this is well beyond them. Proposing it once we can explain away as attempts to be even-handed. Resisting it's removal starts to sound a bit odd, and demanding on at least three venues that it be restored is simply untenable.
:*I suppose that, as we did with Mistress Selina Kyle, we can do the hand waving about "well, it ''could'' be in good faith but the outcome is the same so we'll move forawrd regardless." So, ''either'' this is a textbook WP:POINT and should be removed, or it a demonstration of grotesque misjudgement of the possible outcomes of this case and should be removed.
:*The end result is the same. Not only are over 35% of all edits to the workshop page made my Tony, over '''''70%''''' of the edits to the evidence page are by him. Strangly, he doesn't seem to be providing evidence to support the findings that he's trying to get replaced. So, while we're all faffing over these distractions, he's adding to the meat and potatoes.
:]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 01:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence I provide shows the facts of the case. If my actions were wrong, then the proposed remedies should be considered. There is no need to make naked, barefaced attacks on my good faith in this matter. I proposed that if I have disrupted Misplaced Pages I should be banned, for in reviewing my actions I would see nothing disruptive about what I did. I proposed that if I had made actions unworthy of a sysop, I should not be a sysop, for in reviewing them I see nothing wrong with what I did. The proposals therefore follow directly from a certain interpretation of the evidence. If my actions have harmed Misplaced Pages in any way, and I still cannot see that after careful review, then my judgement is chronically faulty and I cannot be a sysop and probably should not edit Misplaced Pages at all. --] 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
=== A different approach ===
Ok Tony, let me try to come at this from another angle. Rather than looking at the ''content'' of these sections, let's examine the discussion around their inclusion.
*You inserted material into a wikipedia page.
*Discussion shows that, outside yourself, there is no support for that material's inclusion.
*That material is removed.
*You ask in several places for the material to be replaced.
*That request is declined explicitly once, and tacitly everywhere else.
This is, if I may be frank, how wikipedia is supposed to work. Any one person (barring Jimbo) does not get decide what goes or stays. This applies to everything from the text "seven times in three days" to a little GWB template up to a great big catholic project. Do you agree with the ''concept'' at least of consensus? That is one person wants something in and no one else does that it probably shouldn't go in? <br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 05:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:About 9 hours or so ago Ryan Delaney agreed to refactor the proposals back in , but hasn't done so yet. So I have. I've also refactored them a bit, in the spirit of Mindspillage's recent work. Please note:
:* I'm not an arbritrator, or anything even close.
:* I have no real experience refactoring this way.
:* '''If I have misrepresented (or underrepresented) someones's words, I encourage them to fix them.'''
:As to why I've replace them, I believe they're legitimate, good-faith proposals, and I'd rather seem them refactored on the main page then buried on a subpage. By returning them to the main page, please understand I'm not personally endorsing them in any way.
:Also, I've managed to keep the size down below 110k, so I hope it's acceptable. ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

==Refactor==
I think I spammed all the interested parties' talk pages with this already, but:

I have just done a massive refactoring of ], in order to
*remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
*make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them.

And since this took much longer than I thought it would, I'm going to bed. Wearily yours, ] ] 08:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:Best Idea Ever. It's a pity this is probably not a job the AC could farm out to the clerks - ] 09:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:Well done. Whatever rest you're getting as I write this has been well earned. ] 09:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:Well I WAS going to quip that as long as you left everything **I** said alone it was fine, it's all those OTHER foamers that needed trimming... but nah, you did '''great'''. Thanks! I took the liberty of putting the link to the POV ] back in. It doesn't make the page '''visibly''' any bigger, honest! <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 11:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

: No problems here. Page is much better. --] 11:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Absolutely. -]<sup>]</sup> 12:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:Excellent work. And in the same spirit that led me to try and archive AN/I (with disasterous results), I'm afraid I've join in the fun. Per the discussion above I've readded three proposed remedies that had been withdrawn to some disagreement. In the process, I tried to refactor them down the same way Mindspillage has done. Now, Minspillage is an Arbitrator and I'm not even an Admin, so if I've overstepped my bounds here, I apologize. It seems to me, though, that they were removed for being spurious and possibly bad-faith, and I think they're neither. I will not revert any other changes or removals on those points again.

:Also, I stole Mindspillage's stock comment she used to notify people with and, erm, used it to notify people of ''my'' change. So I imagine I'll be getting some sort of feedback any moment now. ]<sup>(])</sup> 14:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::], ] ]? ;-) - ] 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Well, InkSplotch, you were about to get the feedback that there must be some bug in the software, because your comment wound up re-including the comment Mindspillage had left just above.... :-) Good thing I looked here first. (It does look a little weird when your comment follows Mindspillage's on a talk page.) ] ] 15:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work as far as I looked at it; one further general improvement would be to either
*Mark the withdrawn items in their headers
*Or make them a list, under a single header. If so, the numbering should be left alone, and the gaps made into ''Proposal ### withdrawn, see list.'' or some such. If this is actually non-controversial, I'd be willing to do it. ] 16:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

== De-adminning ==

Now that there is a serious proposal for it, can we explore how that might fall out.
#Outright de-adminning
##Can reapply at once
##Can reapply at some future point
#Some more delicate approach - "outstide policy" but could still be ''thought'' about.
##Reconfirm while still admin-ed
##Request for de-adminship

Subtle difference between them: one asks to confirm a positive, the other a negative.
<br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

: Could you try using a more discursive format? --] 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::Presuming that you don't mean "rambling" which is what I understand this word's major usage to be, you're saying that the above doesn't proceed rationally? It seems pretty straightforward to me.
::*Even something binary like setting a bit has a continuum of ways in which it can be done. Looking at the most recent dead-minning, we see several: the mildest being "bit restored when this closes" moving to "bit restored in X time" to "bit not restored, can ask for it in X time."
::*No reason that taking away can't be as flexible at giving back, dependin upon the ArbCom's willingness. If this were a desired outcome, my personal preferance would be the lowest impact overall approach. Just like I'd like to see taken in userboxes, actually.
::*To me, the best way to approach a ''potential'' dead-minning like this would be to ask the admin to re-apply while retaining the bit. I'd actually propose that now, in fact, but the page is already too huge, so I'll do it here.
::]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 01:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
=== Request for confirmation ===
Tony Sidaway's behavior has not been to the level required for the bit to be removed outright, however strong concerns have been raised. As adminstratorship is "no big deal" and depends upon the trust of the community, Tony is to re-apply for adminship with seven days, while retaining his administrator status. If at the end of that time he has not achieved the standard for promotion, he will be de-sysopped without prejudice to reapplication at any later date. (I think this was Aaron)

:Comments
:*Too strong, at least initially... I'd favour "consensus probation" (I just made that up) rather than even a re-apply. Admins make enemies, that's part and parcel of doing the right thing, so Tony may well have enough of those out there that he would not pass again... So what's "consensus probation", you ask? <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:*:Aye, but how do we measure violation of that probation, and how to avoid it ending up back here in another 50K word arbcom when it happens?
:*:*I've been thinking about a "three-strike" style proposal for the more general case, and we've had some suggestions like in in previous discusions around non-arbitration de-adminning.
:*:*For example, we recently has an adminstrator perform a 24 hour block for "disruption" over a fairly mild comment in RfA. This was applied with no warning, despite several other adminstrators ''strongly'' advising against it on IRC, and the blocking admin stating on ANI that discussion wasn't going to occur.
:*:*While the block was reversed almost at once and the block-ee nonplussed but calm, this to me is the sort of thing that should be a "black mark". Get too many of these, lose the bit.
:*:So, "consensus probation" is what, a special subpage of this arbitration that we keep track of Tony on? This almost sounds like a proposed enforcement of the "Tony admin 1RR", instead, that if Tony breaks it he's got to reapply.
:*:]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 04:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

=== Consensus probation ===
Concerns about Tony following consensus have been raised. For a period of X, if any other admin reverts an action that Tony takes, (whether Tony initiated it or was undoing something another admin did), Tony may not repeat the action without first seeking, and gaining, consensus in the appropriate venue. Tony may certainly argue that another admin should do whatever it is, but may not do it himself. If Tony does before consensus was clearly reached (insert definition of what THAT means?), Tony shall be subject to the above Request for Confirmation remedy. <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

:Comments
::This strikes me as being a remedy that would couple quite well with the finding of fact below. (The one stating that Tony's actions (at least, specifically those that prompted all this) were right, but that his methods could be better, in case things get refactored so that it's not "below"). It both permits him to continue acting as makes sense, but provides a brake upon his actions in the case that he should be either wrong, misinformed, or simply unable to explain his position - all of which helps consensus, without significantly interfering with what Tony is able to do. In other words: I '''support''' this. ] 07:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (That is ... I'll support it if it gets onto the workshop, and will be dumping this comment over there, appropriately modified. D'oh!) ] 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

==Tony was right, but his methods have sometimes upset people==

: ''This section, a finding of fact proposed by Snowspinner, has attracted a huge amount of comment, so I've copied it here and refactored slightly so that it can be discussed without messing up the workshop format. I have inserted my own comments (which were originally in the "comments by parties" section) into chronologically appropriate places in the discussion. I have removed Mindspillage's comment on refactoring because it is not part of the discussion. I have not changed the copy on the workshop page. --] 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)''

24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies. However, some editors have justifiably expressed reasonable concerns about some of his methods.


:Comment
:Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. ] 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
::I propose that this be withdrawn. Fails to qualify what "vast majority" means, fails to assume good faith in that anyone else might also understand Misplaced Pages's goals and policies, does not adress questions raised, does not assist in moving towards a solution. <br/> ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Seconding Aaron Brenneman's proposal. Even if every last person were to stipulate it as true, it still wouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand. Tony Sidaway either did wrong here or he did not. --] 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:::So he can be found to be wrong, but can't be found to be right? I'm concerned by this, and more so by Mr. Brenneman's view that such a finding would be an insult to others, fail to address questions raised and fail to move towards a solution. It seems to me that most of this arbitration seeks to determine if any of Mr. Sidaway's actions conflict with Misplaced Pages's goals and/or policies. Is he necessarily guilty until proven innocent here? Or is this just a punishment phase?
:::I can see a valid objection behind "fails to qualify what vast majority means", but I'm not sure it invalidates this proposal entirely. A great deal of evidence has been heaped upon this case, it may not be possible to go through each and every action detailed on the evidence page to say, "Tony did right here" or "Tony did wrong here". This could provide a place to begin, either in its current form or reversed ("..Tony's decisions ''did not'' accurately..."), allowing the arbcom to focus on what they feel are significant examples or exemptions to the point.
:::I do not, nor do I think any of us, expect to see a final decision consisting of just this point and a message to run along and play. ]<sup>(])</sup> 16:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
:I think this is the crux of the matter, clarifying and perhaps answering the point raised here by Fred Bauder on February 17:
::: "the question of whether, when he stipulates to the principle , we ought to be engaging in our perfect hind-sight and applying strict disciplinary measure to an administrator who is presumed to have proceeded in good faith."
:: I submit that Fred and his fellow arbitrators now have in their possession ample evidence of my good faith, willingness to submit to consensus, respect for Misplaced Pages, constant engagement with the problems afflicting the decision-making process, and a very keen appreciation of the necessity of finding a solution with which we all can live. --] 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
::::The problem with this is that it is facile and superficial. It also promotes a false duality, in that are only options are "Tony was right" or "Tony was wrong". This is just another in a series of proposals that have denied there exists the possibility for nuanced findings. It also presupposes a monolithic interpretation of "Misplaced Pages's goals and policies" and attempts to close debate over both these goals and Tony's actions. To even attempt to defend proposed finding this takes "assume good faith" beyond the limits of reason. We're all being so damn nice, can't we also be a bit honest at the same time? <br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, I must disagree. The merits of this proposed finding must be judged by the other findings it would be placed with. Right above this proposal is "Tony Sidaway's Actions Disrupted Misplaced Pages" and the two needn't be mutually exclusive. This proposal states "''In the vast majority of cases cited...''", and could easily be modified by the presence of other findings like the one above.
:::::Please don't let me strecth your good faith. I'm not attempting to justify this proposed finding's place on the final decision page, just this workshop page. I think it's a reasonable proposal for the accused to make, and the ArbCom can just as easily take his wording and add the words "did not" at a key juncture if they feel like. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
::::In response to InkSplotch, actually I do expect the final decision will resemble this point alone. If Tony has strayed from being an exemplary editor in the matters mentioned here, it has been only in small human ways that are ridiculously far from being admonishable, let alone punishable. --] 01:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::This is entirely a matter of opinion, and is thus obviously innapropriate as a finding of fact.--] <sup><font color="#FC0FC0">]</font></sup> 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
:::This seems to me as if it would fit better not as a finding of fact, but (slightly modified) as a remedy - with a wording akin to "Tony's actions with regards to userboxes are found to have been reasonable", and then add the appropriate quibbles. (Such as a combination of this and "Tony admonished on Consensus", a result that would indicate that Tony's actions were valid, but that in the future maybe he should be a bit more careful how he goes about performing similar actions.) ] 02:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Bingo. This editor would not like to see Tony stop being an admin, or stop caring deeply about Misplaced Pages, or stop trying to solve problems in innovative ways, or stop generally being a helpful person. This editor would just like to see Tony acknowledge that others might ''justifiably'' have ''reasonable'' concerns about some of Tony's methods and promise to think a bit harder about whether there are other ways to acheive the same goals in future... and make the policy wonks a bit more comfy while not letting policy stand in the way of doing the ] <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Support - ] 08:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yes. Support. -]<sup>]</sup> 09:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::Support. Not the way I would have done it, but I think Tony acted in good faith, and I certainly agree that the situation was (and still is) a threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and that Tony's actions have moved us toward a resolution that has a good chance of preserving the NPOV principal in Misplaced Pages. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font><sup><font color="green">(])</font></font></sup>''' 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Augmented as a result of input from Lar and Thsgrn, as endorsed by David Gerard and Megamanzero and Dalbury. This proposed finding of fact should have an accompanying remedy, but I leave the drafting of that to someone else. --] 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
::: To clarify, many of the comments above refer to Snowspinner's version, which read simply: "In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies." --] 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
::Support: this provides cogent context to this case. Court cases have character testimonials, after all. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<small>]</small> 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
:Hm, not sure where to put this comment (as this sectioning is unwieldy), but I want to say that I think there is an important distinction to be made between "Tony was right" and "Tony acted in good faith". The latter is almost certainly true, but the former is a much more complex issue. To me, if his methods have upset people, that the act of that upsetting, even perhaps being disruptive, may make some of his actions more wrong than right. Or at least certainly not ''just'' right. I think what this is certainly getting at, and what I will support, and will probably propose, is something like "Tony has acted in good faith, though his methods have sometimes upset others." How's this? ]·] 00:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::Which carefully doesn't note who they were nor whether upsetting them was entirely irrelevant to the rightness of the actions ;-) Think of all the people Kelly upset deleting the copyright violations from their userboxes, even though she was dead right and they were jawdroppingly wrong - ] 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Which totally ignores what was just said. If doing the "right" thing in a disruptive manner causes more ''many'' problems than doing it in a more sensitive way, it's no longer the "right" thing. This proposed section also seems to be glossing over something: the '''''vast''''' majority of administrators are "right" most of the time, or we'd take away their tools. There's no point stating that Tony was "right" when what we're really talking about was the disruption. It's trying to argue a point that's not being made, an almost classic straw man argument. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:: The encyclopedia does matter. Whether I did the right thing, in the circumstances pertaining, does matter. I believe that this is a reasonable finding of fact, amply supported by all available evidence. I hold that I kept my head and defended the encyclopedia at a time when others lost their heads and took actions that threatened it. I deleted a template that incited vandalism and a page that was being used to organize an attack on the neutrality policy. I deleted templates that were recreations in userspace of templates speedy deleted under a policy that had been discussed at ] and was widely accepted as ''de facto'' policy, in recognition of the fact that those templates, because of their susceptibility to abuse, their viral transmission and their parasitism on the Encyclopedia project, were completely inimical to Misplaced Pages's core policies, --] 01:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Perhaps it looks like I'm hedging, and maybe I was, but I think it's important not to make a blanket judgment like that. I also think labelling anyone right in ''this'' dispute misses a major point. While there are certainly times when the consensus is wrong, and harmful to Misplaced Pages, ''consensus is our most important determiner of what rightness is''. It doesn't mean I think Process is Important or any of that, but in a world where there is more than one admin whose judgment we are meant to trust, and one where reasonable, sensible people genuinely disagree on what, precisely, is right in these matters, while I can be sure Tony ruffled a few feathers (and this was largely because of that consensus issue), I'm not about to say he was right myself, ''without consensus''. ]·] 01:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
: Well yes, you're hedging. We either trust administrators to perform sensible actions where there is no consensus, or we find another way of dealing with muddy issues in a timely manner. Quickpolls? --] 03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I mostly trust most admins to mostly do the right thing most of the time. That's as black and white as I'm willing to go... but it's mostly good enough. For times when it isn't? Well, that's what we have here, I guess. Like I've said repeatedly, I think you're mostly awesome, but nevertheless human. I wish I could be almost as awesome as you are most of the time. As for other ways when there isn't time for more formal methods, I thought that's what AN/I and the IRC channel were for, get a quick consensus from other admins and carry on. <font color="green">]</font>+]: ]/] 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, we do trust administrators to perform sensible actions where there is no consensus. But they are also human. So when there's a disagreement among administrators, you should stop and ''find'' the consensus. We have no other way to clear up what is right in such a situation, save a Jimbo decision. Because you are ''both'' administrators we trust. You could wheel war to eterninty because you both think your judgment is right, but that is what has upset people (and in truth, tends to erode that claim to good judgment). ]·] 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
=== Right and wrong ===
I don't think that's a remotely tenable description of events in the Catholic Alliance or GWB cases. There as certainly a right action and a wrong action in those cases and those who performed the right action should not be penalized for the fact that people of poor judgement repeatedly opposed their actions. on your cases of alleged wheel warring, where they actually do show deliberate reversals of the judgements of administrators those reversals were to ''facilitate'' the continuation of a process to determine consensus. For instance the repeated undeletion of ] was necessary in order to keep the AfD running, and the AfD came to a ''unanimous'' consensus to keep. To write such actions off as abuse of administrator power would be both false and, in its import, damaging to Misplaced Pages. --] 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:Ok, here's the gist Tony, the whole thing in a nutshell: you '''know''' that you're right. The others involved mostly claim to ''think'' that they are right, but be willing to discuss it.
:*Do you not at all see that by continuing to frame it as "either decide that I can do what I like because I'm always right or deadminn me" you're narrowing the options pretty drastically?
:*Despite some claims otherwise, I entered this only wanting to see admonishments on consensus and wheel warring, or maybe a "sysop 1RR". The more that I look at your responses, the more convinced I am that you are simply unsuited for adminship... please, throw us a bone here. Show that you're even ''slightly'' willing to see that there is a ''chance'' that there are other ways to do things.
:*Even just saying, "Warren Benbow could have been carried out with discussion instead of wheel warring, same result, but I got mad and dug my heels" would be a huge step forward.
:Because the message I'm hearing is that not only do you think there's no problem with '''''anything''''' that you've done before, but that you'd do everything the same again.
:]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 06:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've quite gotten the point. It's not that I "know" that I was right in some gnostic sense. It is that, empirically, we can look at my actions and say "Tony was right" in the overwhelming majority of cases. You also grossly oversimplify the Warren Benbow matter. The discussion, which I held at AfD, would not have been possible if nobody could have seen the article--for which purpose it was necessary to undelete it. The message you, Aaron Brenneman, are choosing to hear is, as usual, not my problem, for it is not what I am saying. Do you get it yet? Geogre was attempting to stop an ongoing AfD that eventually arrived at a ''unanimous'' consensus to keep. I simply undeleted to permit the discussion to continue and consensus to be reached. --] 06:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:That's simply wrong on several levels.
::*You've just denied that "gnostic" knowledge but seem to ignore the fact that several other otherwise rational people look at the same evidence and the same situation and arrive at a totally different conclusion.
::*On Warren Bennbow you were encouraged {{citation needed}} to simply re-write the article from scratch, but you choose to wheel war. The fact that the article was kept ''is not'' an indication that you've done the correct thing, and to say that I am the one who has "grossly oversimplif" is well, odd.
::*We didn't get here by accident, and it seems pretty unlikely that everyone else is ''totally'' wrong and you are ''totally'' right. But no one is saying that ''you'' are totally wrong.
:I'm practicality begging here, demonstrate some conciliation. The reed that does not bend is broken. Something, anything, however slight, to say that you ''do'' acknowledge that you might be wrong sometimes, and that if and when you are a good indicator of that might be that other admins disagreed with you or reversed your actions.
::*Even if we were to (bizarrely) agree that every single action you've taken in every single instance was 100% correct, how could we be assured that it would continue to do so? In the possible future where you ''do'' make a mistake and ''are'' damaging wikipedia, given your marked resistance to feedback, what would be the thing to do?
::*You've amply demonstrated that you're willing to push the button more times than anyone else, you've shown that almost no amount in discussion from any number of respected and intelligent people can sway you. What would, in fact, convince you that you'd made a mistake on something?
::*You've also indicated on several occasions that you felt action was needed in a "timely manner". How are we to reconcile that with the qualities mentioned above? When no amount of saying "please stop" stops you, what about when you actually need to be stopped ''right now''? What's going to happen then?
:I feel as though you are talking yourself into a corner, and that we are moving closer to an outcome that will raise ill will. I'm trying for something short of blood being spilled, but that will require something on your part more than you've demonstrated to date, I think.
:]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is such nonsense as to be barely creditable. Let's take these things apart slowly, shall we?
#"I was right, but I was a jerk": Well, that's absolutely irrelevant. Supposing that this allegation were correct throughout, that, indeed, there was an article that was perfectly valid and stupid old AfD voted to delete it. At that point '''the article should be deleted.''' True and false are not what AfD determines, and it is not what Misplaced Pages determines. It's hubris of the worst sort to suppose that some people are gifted with a Platonic vision, while the rest are peons who need to be overruled.
#"It should never have been deleted": Total nonsense. The article, as it was proposed for deletion, was junk. The decision of the voters was absolutely correct, based on what they saw.
#"The fact that it WAS EVENTUALLY kept proves that I was right": Bull. What that proves is that ''there was a potential article on the subject.'' There are potential articles on many, many figures whose articles are deleted. As I said at the time and must say again, an article that says, "Hitler was some dude from Germany" would get deleted, and it ''should be'' deleted. Tony rewrote the article, researched the article, and then resubmitted it. No one has ever quarreled with the idea of doing research, nor that the subject was possible.
#"The ends justify the means": Therein lies every abuse, every insult, every poor gesture possible. Why not just unleash streams of profanity at new users who look like they're going to be vandals? The ends would be worth it! Why not start perma-banning accounts on their second vandalism offense? The ends would be worth it! The ends (an article on Benbow) do not justify ignoring the rules that govern Misplaced Pages any more than these other goals (cutting down on vandalism, which is a much ''better'' goal than getting an article on a musician) would justify our rules.
#"Geogre prevented the article": The Hell I did. I prevented the undeletion without process. There was a process for undeleting articles. Tony apparently decided that he had no faith in his fellow Misplaced Pages voters, so he decided (see "hubris" above) that he was more equal than they were and undeleted, rewrote, and then submitted. He could have always '''started a new article from scratch''' with a note on the talk page, but, to preserve the IP editor's nonsense, he showed himself willing to offend other users, circumvent process, and go to war over it.
What the heck is the "good" Tony does by undeleting without process? Preserving an anonymous IP editor's "contribution," when that contribution was determined to violate our standards? Proving that he misunderstands what AfD does? Showing that he can get as many bites of the apple as he wishes?
This is so illogical, so weak, so patently absurd as to generally be self-consuming reasoning from Tony. However, to prevent yet another red herring from falling from his glove, perhaps I do need to speak up. ] 10:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Geogre repeatedly, presumably for want of having read the undeletion policy, falsely claims that I undeleted articles out of process. Geogre repeatedly, presumably for want of having read the deletion policy, claims that it is acceptable to delete rather than edit a poor article on a potentially encyclopedic subject. These issues are all dealt with by the deletion policy and the undeletion policy. "There is a process for undeleting articles". Certainly. An article wrongly deleted under A7 can be undeleted by any administrator under the exception clause of the undeletion policy. That is the process. Where the article is believed to still be deletable (which he obviously did) it should be sent to AfD. That is the process. I thank geogre for speaking up and once again demonstrating his ignorance of both policy and process.


As for Aaron Brenneman, falling back on the suggestion that articles must be rewritten to avoid offending someone is utterly bankrupt. That someone may be able to reconstruct a deleted article in no way excuses wrongful deletions. --] 14:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

:You deleted them out of process by not using VfU. VfU was the '''only accepted method.''' However, you determined that it "should clearly never have been deleted" (the only exception) because ''you edited and added material.'' That's ridiculous. Further, I have read the policy quite well. Now, if you wish to again undelete things that you plan to edit, you can again explain why there was any undeletion necessary. '''Why undelete material that fails the deletion guidelines so that you can add material that does not? The contribution being "saved" is your own, and not the article.''' You lie, you twist, you pat yourself on the back, and you repeatedly abuse administrator's powers to undelete what others have deleted, and you continue to refuse to allow the community to have a say. Please abide by the same rules as the rest of this, and the complaints will go away. Continue to insist that they don't apply to you, and you will have the powers taken away, I hope.
:Finally, if you really believe that your judgment, in ''consultation with no one'' is sufficient to undelete, then my judgment in ''consultation with no one'' is sufficient to delete it. If you believe, and only believe, with no VfU to consider it, that it "should never have been deleted" (when what's going to some day pass AfD is your rewrite), then I can believe, and only believe, that the IP editor's work was junk and keep deleting it. At that point, there was no policy to go to AfD: that was '''your invention''' of a non-policy.
:Saying that you get to decide, in consultation with no one, is, in fact, the very definition of abuse of administrator powers. It is what "wheel war" means. You convict yourself over and over and yet congratulate yourself on having your heart in the right place. That rings hollow. ] 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

=== Tony has acted in good faith, though his methods have sometimes upset others ===
I'm not sure I see the point in this finding of fact. We ''assume'' good faith because we can't ''know'' it. So even if we believe that it's correct, it's not appropiate to say this as if we've measured Tony on our Faith-O-Metre<sup><small>TM</small></sup> and found him in the green zone. The use of "though" and "sometimes" seems a bit of deliberate downplaying, as well. This would be redundant with other proposed findings of fact. <br/> ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:Well, I'm thinking of something along the lines of "While there is no reason to doubt Tony Sidaway has acted in good faith, other editors have justifiably expressed reasonable concerns about his methods." ]·] 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::That's a bit better, but still if we don't have a finding that actually ''questions'' Tony's good faith why do we need the caveat? Again, to use the Mistress Selina Kyle example in the end the internal motivations aren't important and are unknowable to boot. Further, some might find <sup><small>]</small></sup> that Tony's actions are reason to doubt his good faith, or at the very least that he's trying to prove a point. I prefer findings of fact that are a bit more tightly focused on ''facts'' and less on general statements. This of course goes to the use of the word "justifiably" above as well... there are probably times when Tony's actions are decried more out of habit than out of actual justification. <br/> ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 04:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Note in this discussion Aaron's repeated statements on the wiki of how he cannot assume good faith in Tony at all - ] 08:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Indeed. So, I say at some juncture said "I cannot make the required mental contortions to believe that action X is genuine," Tony (or you) replies with "Again with Aaron's lack of good faith! I cry foul!" It's tedious and pointless. My ''personal'' belief that many of Tony's actions are for petty and personal reasons will always remain just that, a belief. Words alone will not convince me otherwise but that's totally beside the point. If we concentrate on the ''result'' ot the actions and refrain from hand waving, it's all the better. This proposed finding is just as empty as one along the lines of ''"Several editors have expressed doubts that Tony Sidaway acted in good faith, despite the end result of his disruptive actions being the same."'' We'd never accept that, and we shouldn't accept this. - ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:Let's say there is an appropriate venue for achieving his goal (VfU), but he says that he does not need it, when other admins have believed that they ''did'' need it. He then rewrites an article, supplying all of its wants, and then claims that the result (his work) proves that the original work (deficient) should "never have been" deleted. That circular logic in the service of self-aggrandizement is hard to see originating in good faith. In fact, it has all the hall marks of point scoring and warring with the established practice of the project. I do not believe this is good faith, either. He may ''wish to create articles of worth,'' but that's not the same thing as good faith in the methods chosen. In fact, the method is very important, as Misplaced Pages differs from Everything2, from encyclopedia.com, and from all the other sites by its methodology, not its end result. If he, or David Gerrard, or anyone else, does not agree to abide by Misplaced Pages's methods and will not work to change them by the community, then it's not a proper project for them to work on. ] 12:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

: Read the undeletion policy, geogre. A bad speedy can be undeleted, and the correct venue to take it to is AfD. This is what I did, and that AfD discussion is what you attempted to thwart by repeated undeletions and false claims that an article can only be undeleted by going through VFU. --] 14:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:: That you make this comment in the context of discussing your wheel warring in the face of five different administrators undeleting your bad speedy just highlights the irony. ] 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:31, 22 August 2007

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.