Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:09, 7 December 2008

03:37, Monday 13 January 2025

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Cambridge Friends School

Hi. There's been a lot of talk about "Friends Schools" lately, esp. since Obama's children are on their way to the DC one. Misplaced Pages has a useful page on these schools http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Friends_schools. But the link to the one in my area is weird http://en.wikipedia.org/Cambridge_Friends_School. I have no idea how these deletion debates work, but I came here because your talk page is linked to at the top. It's inconsistent, isn't it, that most of those pages exist (even though many are just "stubs" with little info on them) whereas the Cambridge one ... is not allowed to? even as a stub. As a citizen, and parent, you come to this kind of page seeking objective information (obviously not what's on the school's own website, right?) ... even a short stub is relatively useful(*) In general, it seems to me, "prestigious"(**) institutions like these, are more or less obvious topics for wikipedia.

Cheers! Pablo Funes.

(*) I was able to see a discussion about the deletion but not the deleted article itself or its discussion (is that just the way it is?). So me calling it a stub is just hearsay ... it's what you yourself said about it I guess.

(**) Expensive, at the very least ;-)

In case it needed to be said

Obviously, I object to your unblock, but I wanted to clarify why.

1. I assume you did this entirely in good faith. Its sad that anyone on Misplaced Pages would ever have to say thatever, but there we go. You did things for what I know you believed was the right reason for the good of the project. I don't think any sanctions are needed, but I do think you made mistakes here, and I would like you to acknowledge them.
2. This was not a time critical situation. The blocking admin, the committee and the community as a whole all deserved more than the hour between block and unblock to have their say, and there was no harm to letting the block stick around. The project and everyone's reputations will survive the time.
3. Parsimony in actions: you didn't have to take Deskana to task, nor wax eloquent on the validity or community support (or lack thereof) for Giano's civility block. If you felt for whatever reason you had to act then, there was no reason to go beyond "block was a mistake" or something similarly short. Your actions invited further discussion on a subject that does NOT have clear community wide consensus... because if it did, we'd never have to argue about it.
4. Sometimes, controversy isn't that hard to spot: I'll be the first to admit I've made controversial actions without realizing they'd be controversial, or to the degree that they were so... but this time it surely wasn't that hard to realize that you had more facts than the rest of us and you were unblocking Giano citing a poorly worded arbitration remedy with additional poorly worded clauses.
5. Your argument had some holes: which I pointed out. This to me, shows that you didn't think it as far through as you are obviously capable of doing, which brings us back to the start
6. Take your damned time: All of this drama could've been avoided with more patience on your part. Disengage for twenty seconds, vent at someone in a private channel, and then sit on your ass and calculate the likely response. Deskana by his own admission rushed in and made an error: rushing isn't the best way to solve that kind of mistake.--Tznkai (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think situations where users are blocked when they shouldn't have been are time critical. In emergency situations, admins may block to prevent damage from the wiki. Where there are no time pressures and a block is likely to be controversial a consensus should be sought. It is not in my opinion an appropriate to make such a block without bothering to assess the support for it and then allow the clock to tick on that block while everyone works out what to do. Contributors to this project deserve more respect than that - due process shouldn't be something that happens when we get round to it. I wanted to make it clear that my unblock was not based on the technicality alone, in other words that my objection was more than just the paperwork not having been completed in triplicate as required but that the block was unwise on its merits.

I agree that my action could have been quite controversial, and could indeed result in my desysopping, but still thought it right to so. Whilst I agree that I didn't think long about the action, the unblock was on objective grounds - the block was made outside the policy - and further thought would not result in it becoming any the more valid. Personally, I think there would have been much more drama had I not acted. Giano would have remained blocked, people would have speculated as to the reasons and accusations of partisanship would have been flying around. It is unclear when the matter would have been finally resolved. My belief is that this would have generated much more ill feeling rather than less. I feel that my prompt action, though it resulted in some criticisms, actually served to foreshorten then problem. I take your point about thinking things through and endeavour to do so where practical, but I don't that a clearly invalid block should be left to stand while I (or anyone else) wrestle with this issues surrounding that block. WJBscribe (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In case it needed to be said, I more or less completely disagree with Tznkai's analysis and support your actions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Echo Heimstern. Deskana indicated that his action violated the case remedy but he was unwilling to unblock, WJBscribe rightly implemented the remedy as any admin ought to do, and Deskana subsequently agreed that this was the right action. This ought to be case closed. Avruch 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, there were multiple motions passed in the recent ArbCom case. WJBscribe acted supposedly on one of them, while at the same time he was disregarding another. Motion #4, enacted a few days ago, was "no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee". Fine, it looks like Deskana violated that one. However, Motion #1 on that same page says, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so." Which WJBscribe definitely violated. Two wrongs don't make a right. What WJBscribe should have done, was to follow the suggestions in WP:WHEEL: post to an admin noticeboard, and wait for a bit, either to get some feedback from other admins, or to give Deskana more than a few minutes to mull it over. There was no urgent need to unblock Giano right away, especially on an ArbCom enforcement block, which is different from other blocks anyway. Standard run-of-the-mill blocks on Misplaced Pages are "preventative" blocks, but ArbCom blocks are "coercive" blocks. They're there to enforce ArbCom sanctions, in special cases where the community has not been able to resolve problems in the normal way. There was no urgency here. If Deskana made a bad block, there would have been a clear community consensus opposing it, and the block could have been reversed that way, through proper channels. Another problem here has to do with a disagreement between two highly placed admins. Deskana, an arbitrator, thought that Giano's comment was uncivil. WJBscribe, a bureaucrat (and candidate for next year's ArbCom) thought the comment wasn't uncivil, or at least was not sanctionable in that context. If a bureaucrat admin wants to disagree with an arbitrator admin, that's acceptable and encouraged. What is not encouraged is to play tug-of-war with someone's account access. Especially as WJBscribe is a bureaucrat, a better standard of behavior is expected of him, since he is expected to know the policies, and even more importantly, he is expected to set a good example for other administrators to follow. Though an unblock of Giano may have turned out to be the correct thing to do in the long run, WJBscribe still should not have unblocked so quickly. --Elonka 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To focus on interpreting the wording: Deskana's block was simply not "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy" - it was, rather, clearly in violation of the remedy and its attendant injuctions. I don't think the substance of the block/unblock cycle was a disagreement over the merits of the civility parole or the nature of Giano's content. More accurately he was reversing an action that was clearly inappropriate and in violation of a very recent arbitration injunction. If Deskana had been acting qua arbitrator, things would be different - but he was not. Avruch 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the quote Tznkai points out disagrees with what I've written of course - Will did object to the merits of the block, and cited that as a primary motive for the unblock. Even so, I don't think Will would have made the unblock if it wasn't clear that it was invalid because it violated the recent remedy. Perhaps I'm wrong. If he had made the unblock after ArbCom approved the block, then I would have to strongly disagree with that - but whatever his reasons, unblocking was the right thing to do in my mind. Avruch 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the key point for me is that there was no question of if this was a bad block. The fact that I opposed the idea of Giano being blocked for the comment on principle was secondary to the fact that the block was made in contravention of an ArbCom motion implementing the sanction in question and was definitely invalid. I personally do not think it would be setting high standards for the project to start a long conversation of a the merits of a block that was wrong on its face and would inevitably have been lifted. That would be to deny basic due process to the person subject to the block. Whilst I can accept some criticism for my actions being precipitate, I also think that was one of their strength - they solved to resolve the matter promptly. WJBscribe (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

e/cI assume both of you don't disagree that WJBscribe did his actions in good faith. Apparently I didn't make a point here that I had meant to make, so here it is: the unblock was done apparently with WJBscribe's knowledge that Deskana hadn't had committee approval and had said so and the rest of the details- an important bit of information that would've been helpful for the rest of us to know, and made the clearly invalid block that much more clear to the rest of us.

I think here we see a fundamental philosophical divide between WJBscribe and myself here: " It is not in my opinion an appropriate to make such a block without bothering to assess the support for it and then allow the clock to tick on that block while everyone works out what to do. Contributors to this project deserve more respect than that - due process shouldn't be something that happens when we get round to it. I wanted to make it clear that my unblock was not based on the technicality alone, in other words that my objection was more than just the paperwork not having been completed in triplicate as required but that the block was unwise on its merits. "

My problem is that I find any one administrator declaring a "failure of due process" generally outside of their remit, and likewise judging another's administrator's judgment unwise on its merits should be done with the greatest amount of caution. If it is important to have consensus for a block, it should be likewise important to have consensus to unblock. Administrators are not generally asked to put their own opinions over that of anyone else - especially because of the wheel warring problem. WJBscribe's unblock was effectively the last word no the situation, any administrator who disagreed with WJBscribe's judgment in good faith could not do so from a position of parity, because of our wise collective commitment to avoiding wheel wars. However noble it is for WJBscribe to risk his admin bit on principle, it is unfair for him to dare other editors to do the same at even greater risk if they disagree in good conscience.

The exercise of administrator discretion needs to be done with caution, especially when overriding another admin's discretion, or appearing to do so. Because of our policies and practices on wheel warring, the override serves in many ways as the "last word" a privileged position that must be avoided actively lest it be accidentally abused.

The unblock was one thing, but the continued support of the unblock through the various arguments that WJBscribe used moved it from a simple undoing of another administrator's mistake to an argument about WJBscribe's judgment versus Deskana's, an argument that need not have happened. WJBscribe could easly, in my opinion, gathered sufficient consensus to unblock Giano without incident on basic limited grounds; the block was not authorized by the committee. An act that by the way, would have reaffirmed and protected the community's role in administration. Or perhaps let the Committee as a whole weigh in, allowing them to set the situation right. Instead it came down to WJBscribe's discretion and judgment. There are times when an administrator needs to act promptly even conscious of all the problems I've mentioned - but I still have not seen a compelling reason why this was one of them.--Tznkai (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I keep letting myself get off track and I muddle the two issues. The first is as I've nattered on, the philosophical issues with wheel warring and so on. The second is this: all WJBscribe had to do was unblock and leave a note on Giano's talk page that says "I've confirmed that Deskana did not have Committee authorization, and he's not sure what he wants to do, so I am acting thus" Certainly better not to unblock at all and wait for the inevitable deluge of "oh, well unblock then," but this situation I think would've been a large part smoother if the rest of us had that bit of information at the time of the unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the approach you outline remains the same - someone remains blocked when they should not have been blocked in the first place. I would argue that this in of itself is detrimental to the project. I think particularly significant here is that no subjective judgment of the block was needed. It was not a case of "this is not bad enough to justify a block" but of "this block is made on a basis for which a block cannot be issued". Your suggestion that I post that Deskana confirmed he did not have authorisation seems to me rather bureaucratic when you admit the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. Why should a user be made to continue to sit out an invalid block while we wait for the foregone conclusion to be established. All that would have done was to prolong the drama and increase the harm caused by the initially invalid block. WJBscribe (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The basis for an unblock here was entirely bureaucratic, though; if there had been arbcom authorization I presume you would not have unblocked. So you did the right thing by contacting the blocking admin. There's no reason not to share that with everyone else. The lack of information, on the other hand, did prolong the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)To turn your argument on its head: due process. In all seriousness, letting other people know what knowledge you're using to make your decisions is on face a good idea, I honestly think any argument I use to advance that notion will water down the imperative. This isn't about bureaucracy: that argument is a red herring (or perhaps a straw man, its been a while since I've brushed up on my informal fallacies) The piratical impact of making a controversial unblock like this appeared to be(and appeared so because of your omission of details!) was to privilege your judgment. The so called bureaucratic concerns are not out of a concern for procedure, but out of concern for the very real tension and problems that wheel warring can cause - and the vested interest administrators have in letting the community get their say.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I generally avoid referencing off-wiki discussion in such cases as this has proved controversial in the past. I did not want to place myself in the position of relying on a discussion between Deskana and myself that I could not document, in case there later prove to be inconsistencies between us. Fortunately there haven't been any. I unblocked simply stating that the block went against the ArbCom motion , which was correct. If my not mentioning the discussion with Deskana was in error, it extended the discussion by only a few posts. I don't think you can equate people not knowing all the factors on which I based my decision as something as problematic as someone continuing to be unjustly blocked. WJBscribe (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I object to you being the determinant as to whether or not someone was "unjustly" blocked. If process is important, than the block was invalid - but then process should similarly be observed in giving your peers and the community a full accounting of what was going on, or allowing the community their say, or both. If process is not important, then we are left to argue the merits of the block on its face - regardless of arbitration motions and procedures - and again community consensus is the primary force. It seems to me you're arguing for the important of process for blocking but the opposite when it comes to unblocks.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, here's another way of looking at it. Suppose it was someone else, some junior wet-behind-the-ears admin with a shiny new mop, who came along, saw Deskana's block, and decided to overturn it simply because they thought it was the right thing to do, and that they didn't need to build any kind of community consensus? Would you still regard that as okay? I wouldn't. In fact, such a junior admin might already be listed at RfAR, with people calling for the admin to be de-sysopped. Or if not a junior admin, what of a "questionable" admin, such as SlimVirgin, who exactly was de-sysopped just a few days ago, for doing almost exactly the same thing that you did? I am extremely concerned here that you seem to be thinking that your decision was okay, because hey, you're "WJBscribe the Experienced Bureaucrat, the Super ArbCom Candidate", and that therefore you had the wisdom and experience to toss process to the winds and make this call. But what I'm trying to say (and what I think Tznkai is trying to say), is that you broke some pretty serious rules here, and the only reason you're not being dragged to a de-sysop right now is because you have a certain amount of clout with the community. But it's precisely because you have that clout, that you should have worked harder to set a good example. If a junior admin should not have done the unblock so quickly, then a senior admin such as yourself should not have done the unblock so quickly either. I don't buy this argument about the block being so detrimental to the project that it needed to be immediately overturned. Instead, I think you've caused more detriment to the project by your actions, as well as detriment to the perception of your own good judgment. --Elonka 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much not making any foray's into WJBscribe's head space here, but yes, setting an good example is good. The point I'm trying to make is that an admin making summary judgment on an unblock is something that should be reserved for urgent cases, and this did not qualify. In addition, seriously, just let everyone else in on the story, it saves us all a lot of headache.--Tznkai (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there much chance of our opinions converging here, but I have taken on board what you're saying. I would expect any admin who performed the action I did to have faced the same response, in the same way that a bare admin action by an arbitrator is just that. There is a risk if we define wheel warring too narrowly - to mean any reversal of an admin action without discussion that we over privilege those first actions. The problem is that admin actions change the status quo - someone who could edit the project no longer can, content that used to present no longer is. Where those actions are wrong they are damaging. Where it is clear that an action is definitely wrong, it should be undone immediately. Where there may be doubt, discussion is usually the better the route to take. In this case waiting for discussion would have left someone unjustly blocked when the outcome was inevitable. I regard this as an urgent case and to see it otherwise fails to appreciate how editors must feel when they are blocked (especially unfairly) and how this affects their attitudes towards the project. I would draw a distinction between a block that was simply wrong - like blocking someone with a "schoolblock" when they had been reverting vandalism (we could wait for the admin to reverse the mistaken block, but why would we when the outcome is clear?) - and where the consensus for a block is unclear and discussion is usually the better path to take. WJBscribe (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion in incorrect in it's entire core, because it presumes that unblocking is subject to consensus approval, as a reversible admin action. Any bad admin action be overturned, and an unblock is not more special. Controversial blocks should not be done either--no more than a controversial unblock should happen--a point that Elonka and Tznkai didn't mention. Admin blocking is as subject to review and approval as unblocking, and as Will mentioned above unblocks can be as time sensitive as blocks themselves. To ignore that important thing is to automatically presume (wrong) that the initiating admin of a first action has some magic authority over his peers where none exists. rootology (C)(T) 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing another person's comment (WJBscribe?) with mine. I disagree with the idea that an admin can undo another admin's block just because he or she thinks it was incorrect. They should first consult with the blocking admin to make sure they understand the situation correcly, or if that admin is unavailable they should start an ANI thread. Very often there are more issues than obvious from a cursory glance and in some cases the blocked user may make incorrect claims. We should all presume that admins act correctly, and only undo their actions after due diligience. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant me by "Will" - you and I share the same first name... WJBscribe (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think complaints against WJBscribe will get far now. Not so much because he has clout, but because everyone now agrees that the block was a mistake. That said, I think that WJBscribe should have handled it better. Deskana should have been given a chance to unblock himself, and the unblock comment contained unnecessary parts that make it look like a populist move during an election. However, trying to nail WJBscribe for slightly ignoring process will only separates people into the usual camps once again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote at Arbcom

Hey WJB, I just wanted to clarify my vote at the Arbcom elections. I went to the Arbcom elections explicitly because of Rlvese and Risker's candidacy. When I saw Rlvese running, I thought long and hard about a 'crat being an arbcom committee member. And decided that I didn't like the idea, but wanted to support Rlvese none-the-less. So I went there with the intention of opposing ALL 'crats running for Arbcom except Rlvese. I had checked the candidates the other day and thought there were 4 running---I thought Wizardman was a 'crat and I thought I saw Deskana running as well and was going to have the same oppose rationale for all of them. It wasn't until after I !voted on your Arbcom that I realized that you and Rlvese were the only two, and the wording of my oppose (which would have been fine for four 'crats running) suddenly took a different tone with only two running. With four it read as a philosophical opinion, with only two I'm worried that it sounded personal. I wanted to drop you a personal line because it was a philsophical decision, not a personal one. I would have reworded it if I had realized that you and Rlvese were the only two crats running.---Balloonman 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. You are free to oppose me for any reason you like, personal or otherwise and there will be no hard feelings on my part. Unfortunately these elections look likely to be the bloodiest yet, and I hope people will get over any ill-will they generate. I particularly hope everyone, including unsuccessful candidates, gets behind the candidates who ultimately are elected (whether they voted for them or not) as they will have a hard task ahead of them. WJBscribe (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do too... I hope that Arbcom can redeem itself... this past year has been the do nothing Arbcom...---Balloonman 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Annoying question

Are you going to do the renames, too? Good luck with the election. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, no doubt I'll get to it in a bit, I get the feeling there are other things people want me to do first ;) ... WJBscribe (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Naaaa... :-) --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I see we've now done more than 10,000 renames on enwiki in total... WJBscribe (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blimey. And thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey Will, sorry if this gave a bad impression. Upon rereading the post it came across rather differently than I imagined . Anyway, I thought your call was a brave one with a good outcome. I haven't voted in these elections at all as I feel odd doing so. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I had not seen your post prior to reading your comment here. I take your summary of the impact on voting behaviour to have been meant as a comment on how the action was received, not an accusation that it was done with a view to procuring that result. WJBscribe (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg

Hi - could you have a look at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 December 4#Image:Australian embassy bombing flag.jpg, if you haven't already seen it, as you uploaded the current version. I'm not sure whether fair use applies here or not. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the image because Mark could no longer recall the source of his original upload, and I was able to locate an image of the same subject matter for which the source could be specified. Whilst it obviously is not a free image, it seems to me that it can be the subject of a fair use claims in the same manner as any other copyrighted image. WJBscribe (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck.

Here. I hope we can put all that is past, behind us. All the best. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the account name. That seems to have worked very well. All the best Peter Damian (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1

All attempts to resolve the dispute about LNER Peppercorn Class A1 have failed so I am trying to apply for mediation. I have created the page Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/LNER Peppercorn Class A1 but the subst:SUBPAGENAME text has not appeared. What should I do next? The cases for both sides in the dispute have been aired at length in Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 and you can see evidence of the edit war on the history page. Biscuittin (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That should say the "Click here to file Request" button. Try again, fill out the template and then save the page... WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:200

It took two RfA's, as well as an RfB to break WP:100 a grand total of 3 times, yet never once have you hit WP:200 until now. w00t! Master&Expert (Talk) 01:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom candidacy

Will, I supported your candidacy because I think you are a good person and that you have valuable dispute resolution skills. However, I'd like to remind you that the project is for creating content. I recommend you focus on this more. There should not be a dichotomy between content editors and administrators. Jehochman 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for ArbCom

Hi,

I notice you have a significant number of questions, including general questions, still unanswered. Will you continue to answer them? Jd2718 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Bluemarine

Hi, I've initiated a request for amendment in an arbitration case where you were a named party. You may wish to comment. Best regards, Durova 06:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)