Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:50, 13 May 2009

Arbitrators active on this case

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

Looks good

Stephen, one thing I'd like to see in Purpose of the spam blacklist is a statement that the community may revise blacklist policy, that the finding is just a statement of the current position, not any sort of restriction on future policy development. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jonathan. Everything seems well written and balanced. Mathsci (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good.

One exception, you might guess: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Proposed_decision#Abd.27s_pursuit_of_dispute_resolution. There was something like a one-month "unnecessary delay" in filing the RfC. During that time, there was no ongoing disruption, JzG had become quite inactive, and I focused on other work. I did not consider any of the "situations" resulting from JzG's violations to be emergencies, though some were serious for the long term. (ArbComm will not, I expect, address these, they will be dealt with through ordinary process.) I was not, during that period, "noising about" JzG's action while involved, I dealt with related content issues directly, JzG was no longer an issue in that respect. For that time, I had a Notice up at User:Abd/Notices: permanent link.

I know that some administrators watch that page, including some who would be JzG's friends, especially, and I was hoping that one of them would notice it and help him understand what was happening and that this was serious. I did not want to use a noticeboard because of the likely disruption. I am not big on blocking or desysopping anyone, nor on disruption. I have never put anything like this kind of effort into blocking anyone and certainly not desysopping.

However, there isn't anything really wrong with the finding, and I would agree that I should have filed the RfC much sooner. It would not have reduced disruption, though. Repetitive? Yes, I do that, unfortunately. On the other hand, sometimes I have to repeat things before people get it. I don't have a ready solution, except I do try, continually, to address my writing problems. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The view from the cheap seats

So, to summarize the disposition of this case:

JzG is ostentatiously re-admonished for something he did 5 months ago, even though the original (low-profile, drama-free) admonishment had the desired effect. I think we should be encouraging low-profile, effective resolution of problems and discouraging the pursuit of public spectacles. From that perspective, this case is a huge step in the wrong direction.
Abd receives positive reinforcement (or at least an outcome which can be spun into a justification) for his approach to dispute resolution, which in this case consisted of asking a few dozen parents until he got the answer he wanted. The inexorable escalation of this case had nothing to do with "pursuing dispute resolution". If this was about resolving disputes, it would have been over 5 months ago. This is an abuse of our dispute resolution pathway. Failing to recognize it as such guarantees that the abuse will be repeated.

I pity the admin who finds him- or herself the target of Abd's next 2,000 edits. Who knows, it may be me. The back of my neck is prickling, which usually means that someone is combing my administrative logs for red meat. Or maybe it's just tabes dorsalis. MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things are not so dire. I have recently met Abd in real life. He impressed me as an intellectual person. I'd urge those who have any doubts to be open minded and tolerant of personal differences. More listening early in this dispute (myself included) might have resulted in a speedier resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jehochman. As to listening, I think so. I think that too often, here, we line up politically and don't listen to what we see as being on the other side. That is quite damaging to content, and also to the community. --Abd (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I have no doubt that if we could all meet each other in real life, this place would run very smoothly. People are usually much more sympathetic in person than they are online. I'm sure that Abd is an intelligent and good person. The problem, of course, is that we have to find a way to make the site work from behind online pseudonyms. But I do take your point about listening. MastCell ^Talk 05:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this, especially the "intelligent and good" part...." :-)

Seriously, MastCell, I'm not anonymous. My real name(s) are on my User page. And the goal of my work is precisely to "make the site work from behind online pseudonyms. If we can do this, my prediction, much less blocking, much less disruption, better quality articles, and a less contentious community that understands the value of vigorous discussion simultaneously with the value of living consensus. The short of it: while we need better "community," i.e., social glue, we also need better and more efficient process. The status quo burns people out. --Abd (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is reviewing your logs, MastCell, it isn't me, and it's highly unlikely that I would in the future. I don't go around looking for trouble, but sometimes I stub my toe on it, so I look to see what's there. As to your opinion of what this was about, it was about, from the beginning, what I said it was about: admin recusal, and it's clear that there are admins who still don't get it, including, I suspect, yourself. So perhaps there is something in those logs, but, as far as I'm concerned, when this case is settled, which should be quickly, I expect, what happened before isn't the point. The point is going forward. I recommend reading the decision carefully, and following the clarification of policy. See you around. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there hasn't been any clarification of policy. The blacklist issue was specifically tabled as outside ArbCom's remit. The principles on involvement and recusal are word-for-word from previous decisions and policy. The specific findings concern a stale situation in which the admin in question already agreed that he was involved and recused 5 months ago - in other words, not exactly a clarification. I guess that if I felt something useful had come of this case, I'd be happier about it. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not over till she sings; however, it looks like several things have been clarified. Remember, MastCell, two-thirds of editors commenting in RfC/JzG 3 seemed to think that no action was needed, with many considering my disputing JzG's actions to be disruption. I was, it appears, enforcing through WP:DR prior policy. I knew that, I knew the precedents, and this was all dismissed. ArbComm did not dismiss it. So that's a clarification, there is no a bit more clear guidance about what involvement is, but it's still vague; however, we should work on the policy pages to make the matter clearer. Actually, for practical purposes, recusal is very simple, much less complicated than determining involvement might make it in more marginal cases. Essentially, if someone protests, and especially if two people protest, an admin should then recuse.

Unfortunately, MastCell, JzG never "agreed that he was involved." Had he done so and recused "five months ago," a huge amount of disruption would have been avoided; my loss of time has been considerable, that of the community is much greater.

The Committee has also reinforced what I consider overall rough consensus on the use of the blacklist, and that is a major benefit that will ultimately pay back more content improvement (usefulness to article editors and readers) than what was expended on this case. At the same time, the drawing of attention to the blacklisting process will, ultimately, result in more efficient process, not less. The community should actively assist the blacklist administrators by taking over delisting and whitelisting decisions, not as fixed decisions, but as recommendations that would, presumably, be routinely followed.

Further, I raised an issue here which the Committee has not addressed, and it is my hope that it will eventually address it: the concept of narrowing ArbComm cases; this case could have been split into at least three cases, but, in fact, only one of these cases was ripe for arbitration, the other issues may well have been resolved short of ArbComm. ArbComm should tighten up what it accepts, and not allow cases to become fora for the expression of laundry lists of complaints against parties, which, then, create more discussion and dissent. The only issue ripe for arbitration was, in fact, JzG's failure to recuse while involved. Then, a party or others misbehave before ArbComm, sure, they could be subject to sanction without further process, but an editor should go through WP:DR and RfC before having to justify his or her actions elsewhere. Allowing cases to widen invites immature charges and countercharges and wasted discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits are social. There was a dispute, and now it is resolved. People hopefully have more confidence that Wikipedia monitors the use of "ops" and holds people to standards. Fairness is hard to measure, but it has value. Anyhow, blame me for starting the case. (Abd, MastCell is one of the most careful and skillful admins. I'm sure he "gets it" about recusal.) Jehochman ^Talk 12:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I know of no examples of recusal failure on MastCell's part, and I suspect that if one were found, and s/he were shown it, he'd say "Oops!" Which is all it takes! However, his arguments in this case show something other than understanding of how a sound recusal concept works. It does not supersede WP:IAR, it merely provides guidance as to how to ensure that administrative decisions don't become personal conflicts or maintain them. I gave the example of Iridescent's block of me. Because she immediately recused from control over unblock, she left behind no issue with her needing resolution: whether or not her block was an error became moot. And had she been involved (I don't think she was, in any significant way, under present standards), it would still have been made moot by her recusal, unless she did the same kind of thing over and over. Administrators are allowed to make mistakes. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. The benefits are social? So, it's like airport security measures.... It doesn't actually make people safer, but it makes people feel safer, and that's a good thing, a social benefit, right? Sorry, I don't feel safer, and I think anyone who does feel safer because some minimum wage guy is rummaging through their suitcase, even though tests have shown that they miss most of the guns and bombs that have been planted in carryon bags to test the system, is living in fantasyland. But I digress.

There was only a dispute because Abd took it upon himself to decide that he and only he understood the principle of "recusal" and that JzG had violated that principle and needed to be forced to admit that he had violated it, when the discussions in the case pages made it obvious that this is not a clear concept, that the question of whether someone is involved or not is not clear-cut, that ArbCom members themselves don't entirely agree on how involvement should be interpreted, nor did they offer any clarification. When there's something that ArbCom members don't agree on, that community members don't agree on, and on which ArbCom has offered no specific guidance, it seems ill-considered to say that it's all better now because people "feel more confident." I agree with MastCell; nothing has been clarified here, except that Abd has been given the green light to go after anyone he believes "doesn't get it" about recusal, by his definition. Abd's warning above to MastCell, "it's clear that there are admins who still don't get it, including, I suspect, yourself" raises the hair on the back of my neck as well. I'm not sure who it is that's supposed to feel better, more confident in the system, as a result of this case, but I sure as heck don't feel safer with Abd going through everyone's luggage looking for dirty laundry. Woonpton (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice for Abd

2) Abd is advised to heed good faith feedback when handling disputes and not beat a dead horse. Would this be "Abd is advised to carefully consider good faith feedback"? Which is always good advice. Or am I expected to do what others say I should do, merely because they had good intentions? Beating a dead horse means to me flogging a moot idea or proposal, something not worthy of further consideration, and, of course, I should never do this, it is a waste of time, most of all of my own. --Abd (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that no dead horse was being beaten, given the admonishment. Viridae ^Talk 05:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's correct. However, my point here is that I have no objection to good advice, and, if only "heed" were replaced with "attend to," or "respect," I'd agree this is good advice. It might be better to make this a general admonition to all involved and all who have commented. For example, defense on and on, at great length, of the possibility that JzG was not involved, when involvement had been claimed and commented upon by many editors since January, when the evidence of involvement was clear and blatant (I saw it in minutes at the beginning of January, when I was completely uninvolved and had no negative opinion of JzG), was, indeed, beating a dead horse. But I'm quite pleased by what has been proposed so far, and this admonition is harmless at worst. --Abd (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1600 admins

Maybe I'm just cranky and need to ban myself from projectspace again, but... can we stop with the "1600 admins"? I'm getting tired of hearing that there are 1,599 other admins out there whom I can lean on for help. There aren't, and it's a bit glib to cite that number, even if you also mention that there are 9.6 million users. How many admins are active? How many of those are willing and able to take on complex disputes and issues? How many of those will follow through? If you pass the 1,600 admins through those filters, I suspect that the number remaining will be quite small. The ferocious burnout rate in the admin corps is largely due to the lack of ready support and the shortage of active admins ready to step up to the plate, so it's a bit frustrating to hear a facile suggestion that there are 1,599 admins waiting for me to tag them in. MastCell ^Talk 06:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the place for such a discussion, but I think the current admin system is broken. I think two alternative solutions should be considered, either make it much easier to become an admin, but also much easier to de-admin someone, or else set the bar much higher for adminship and require a higher level of participation and "professionalism" from the admin corps. I think either option would be an improvement over the current system. Cla68 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, the number of admins willing to take difficult actions is low and likely always will be, but sometimes asking others is needed if there is a chance that an admin is either not objective or won't be seen as objective. If an admin is an expert editor in an area, they have the opportunity to explain in detail why action is needed. That explanation would likely be needed on the talk page in any case, so posting in one place and then directing other admins there should work. As for number of active admins, could someone come up with a way of documenting that on a regular basis? Maybe looking at an old version of a stats page at various times throughout this dispute? I agree there are enough inactive admins that the 1600 figure is likely inaccurate. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 ) ''Abd is advised to heed good faith feedback when handling disputes and not beat a dead horse.'' Would this be "Abd is advised to carefully consider good faith feedback"? Which is always good advice. Or am I expected to do what others say I should do, merely because they had good intentions? Beating a dead horse means to me flogging a moot idea or proposal, something not worthy of further consideration, and, of course, I should never do this, it is a waste of time, most of all of my own. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 :It strikes me that no dead horse was being beaten, given the admonishment. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 05:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
+::Well, I think that's correct. However, my point here is that I have no objection to good advice, and, if only "heed" were replaced with "attend to," or "respect," I'd agree this is good advice. It might be better to make this a general admonition to all involved and all who have commented. For example, defense on and on, at great length, of the possibility that JzG was not involved, when involvement had been claimed and commented upon by many editors since January, when the evidence of involvement was clear and blatant (I saw it in minutes at the beginning of January, when I was completely uninvolved and had no negative opinion of JzG), was, indeed, beating a dead horse. But I'm quite pleased by what has been proposed so far, and this admonition is harmless at worst. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 == 1600 admins ==