Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:22, 31 January 2012

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Extending the date for evidence

I put forth a motion to extend the date for evidence and workshop submissions but it is apparently untimely as well. Without making excuses, I was hoping recent developments like the emergence of late submissions, the sudden and overwhelming onset of the SOAP discussion and blackout, and comments by Risker that imply submissions appended throughout Friday would be timely. So I ask here if ArbCom will grant the request for the extension to become official and allow the disallowed submissions as well as anything posted before 00:01 January 21, 2012. Thank you for considering this comment and request. My76Strat (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gathered the answer to this query by the actions of recent edits. I do believe an extension would have been a fair and proper way to handle the late submissions but accept the decision to allow some and not others. In fact it makes sense. My76Strat (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An observation per IAR

Yes, I know that the time is passed for evidence, but per WP:IAR I'm drawing attention to this one diff. Any Committee members who wish to ignore it, please do so. [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30 Jan

tick, tock, tick, tock - anybody here? 78.149.240.164 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Target deadline... this is a controversial topic... I'm certain something will be coming within the next few days...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was promised today, not within "the next few days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True... I kinda put that there as quasi-sarcastic... I originally was going to write, "Some time in the next month or so" but decided that would be too critical of arbcom... which isn't my point. But it doesn't surprise me that it's taking longer. I'd rather they do it right and take a little longer than blow it by rushing.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giving benefit of the doubt, it's still 29 Jan in the USA. For something of this significance, they may deliberately be waiting until midnight at the International Date Line, so nobody can complain they weren't given the chance to say their piece before the deadline. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence submission phase closed ages ago. Next excuse? Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing incivility across the board on Wikipedia is ArbCom's Kobayashi Maru. Nobody Ent 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair analogy, but who is in Kirk's role here? My76Strat (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone's ... a Captain Kirk, with orders to clarify, to classify, to pacify." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I call it dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUTT. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A potentially interesting analogy that somewhat misses the point. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Balloonman: I'd far rather they took longer and got it absolutely right. I do appreciate that sitting in the dock wondering whether the Judges are going to come back into Court wearing the benevolent smiles or the Black Caps of Execution is hard on the defendant(s), but as a teacher of sorts, I always give far better marks for getting your homework right than I do for handing it in on time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it whatever you want, Malleus, but since when is a target a promise? Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case page doesn't say "target date", it says "Proposed decision date 29 Jan 2012". In the time it took you to type the snotty comment above, you could have typed "We haven't reached a decision/Two of the committee are on holiday and we're waiting to come back/(insert any other reason), there's likely to be a delay of x days". Whatever you decide, will potentially have a huge impact both on a number of current editors and the future direction of Wikipedia; you can hardly blame people (on either side of the argument) from getting irritated that after having taken on this mess, Arbcom (both as an entity and as individuals) don't seem to have any clue what kind of impact the very fact of being involved in this case is having on all those involved. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, speaking as someone who tried about a dozen of them, nothing is worse than the feeling when the jury's out. Even a note from them is a relief. You just don't know, and there is nothing you can do about it and you don't know how long it is going to continue for. It is no great trial for us as spectators; I feel for those with a more personal interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updates would certainly seem appropriate here, even if it's just something like "discussion is ongoing."Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom incivility

Crowds of Wikipedians at the doors of Arbcom, waiting impatiently for this landmark verdict

It does not bode well that on the proposed decision day of a case entitled "Civility enforcement" the first (in)action by the Arbitration Committee is itself incivil.

Arbcom did not have to accept the case -- it's actually a pretty crappy test case due to the particular fact pattern. But they did.
It's been 40 days. [2]
Arbcom itself set the 29 January decision date.

To not issue a timely decision is unfortunate but forgivable: stuff happens. To not provide the community an update with a status and new expected decision date is just rude. It is also more evidence of the status based incivility which is tolerated/accepted on Wikipedia -- IPs get treated like crap, non-admin editors are second class citizens to the mops, admins incivility is frequently overlooked. I understand you're attempting to do the crappy jobs no one else could get done. You volunteered for this, and the community has put its trust in you. Fish or cut bait. Nobody Ent 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. ArbCom decisions are never posted on time. Here's the update: they are working on it, nd a decision will be posted when it is ready. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm If we are going to call not meeting a deadline incivility or as Malleus did above "dishonesty" theh Malleus has no hope of avoiding the eternal flames of hell. This is not incivility or a lie... I know everybody is interested in what they have to say on this case, but they continue to be volunteers and real life does get in the way. Yes, this is an impossible situation that needs Capt Kirk to resolve, but let's hold off on the vindictives---unless you are intentionally trying to piss the Arbitrators off to get them to vote vindictively.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now dragged on for 40 days, as Nobody Ent says above, and Jclemens' retort is just plain rude. Enough is enough. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I once waited 3 hours for the Stones to show up. When they did, the wait was worthwhile.```Buster Seven Talk 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a proposed decision...the final decision will take another month.MONGO 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the department of offering an opinion unencumbered by any knowledge of the facts... (in that I have no knowledge of what the Committee is discussing): I can certainly understand that parties in the case would wish that this was over already, but I have a feeling that what may be the most difficult part of the case may be how to deal with aspects of administrator activities, such as the second mover issue, rather than with civility or those editors accused of incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must be a hell of a job to deal with. A bit like trying to re-build Spaghetti Junction while there's still traffic on it ... I know it's hard waiting, Malleus and others, but fretting about it doesn't make it any easier, or make their job and simpler to do, or, really, change anything apart from making you feel .. well ... fretty. They're only human, and the complexity of these issues is very much out of the normal Arb comfort zone. Or anyone's, probably. Have another beer while you wait. And a mandatory hug (>**)>. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing. Windows Vista took 5 years, Duke Nukem Forever took 13 and Chinese Democracy 15, and all three sucked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FGS they are all falling out and squabling with each other over this. The intelligent one told them not to accpept the case, the new percentage wanted to show balls of steel and comprehension and the other half are away with the fairies. There will be no sound result in the near future - if ever. We must resign ourselves for a very long wait - and the ultmate result being dispointment for all. Anyone with a gram of intelligence knows that. Giacomo Returned 21:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing about disappointment, I suspect that some will be disappointed (not surprised, disappointed) if there is an intelligent result. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Party A's "intelligent result" is party B's "lynch mob"; party B's "intelligent result" is party A's "endorsing grossly unacceptable conduct". Since there's never been an RFC to determine what "the community" actually want here, the only intelligent solution would b for Arbcom to have refused to accept this case, and for individual Arbitrators to refuse to take part once it was accepted. Since that didn't happen, someone is going to be shocked and upset by whatever the committee come up with. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated. While I disagree on the RFC part, which would have been lost in shouting, I think you've stated the rest of it quite well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(re Wehwalt) Sure, an RFC would have been a screaming match, but it would have got the issues out in the open. Half the problem with this case is that everyone has a different idea of what "the issues" are - things that some people see as key points, other people see as irrelevant and genuinely don't understand why people are getting upset. (That cuts both ways; there are people, particularly in Australia and the north of England, who genuinely can't understand why other people see language which to them is part of everyday speech as offensive. There are also people, particularly among the long-standing admins from the vandal-fighting tendency who are used to dealing out blocks, who genuinely don't understand why blocks, template warnings and so on can look like outright aggression to others.) I dare say you remember the problems around Mattisse, which to a large degree were a case of two blocks of users who weren't explicitly trying to upset each other, but who sincerely didn't understand why their actions were aggravating each other. (That's not to endorse what Mattisse became, but her becoming such a problem editor might well have been avoided if early on, someone had presented a list of what was and was not acceptable, as a take-it-or-leave-it offer with no room for argument.) Wikipedia desperately needs a group, separate from Arbcom, with a mandate to draw up binding policies when requested in situations like this - imagine the unlamented WP:ACPD without the "self-appointed provision government" thing. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about party C? Or am I in a party of just one? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the look of party C. Especially as this party could be a long one: 40 days from incident to result would be remarkably fast for Arbcom; from case opening to case closure, a month or two is quite common in my experience. Pass the wine and chicken drumsticks please, Pesky. Geometry guy 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea if we can start seeing what way the committee is going to take with this? Perhaps the committee doesn't have enough evidence or proposals to formulate the decision from. If only there were a place where members of the community could provide focused evidence and proposals to get this jalopy out of neutral and moving forward. *cough* Hasteur (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a matter of practicality, ArbCom could have reasonably anticipated that failing to meet their deadline would not be met positively. They could have simply posted an updated estimate. Most people are patient. It's the lack of knowing what's going on that's the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and would not be surprised if Arbcom members were trying to agree upon such a post as we write. Geometry guy 23:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the image of them "trying to agree" on this that troubles me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being troubled by such things is the recipe for premature heart disorder. I read the leaks of last summer, and no doubt you did too. There were revelations that were potentially more troubling to me than the idea that Arbcom members frequently find it difficult to agree on a course of action. Am I troubled? Not really: I edit Wikipedia in my leisure time, and if one aspect becomes stressful, there are plenty of others worth engaging with. Geometry guy 23:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no fire, so take your time Arbcom. Better to have it right, then have it fast. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a gander at WP:WQA, WP:AN, WP:ANI or many other venues. The fire's been smoldering a long time. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be apparent that a editor with my username is eponymously patient; it should also be eponymously apparent that it wouldn't matter if I wasn't. What is important is that if ArbCom routinely fails to update the targets they provide the community, then they are routinely rude. The first rule of leadership is example. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to dismiss

I think the prudent thing would actually be to dismiss the case. It was poorly prosecuted, and no party has emerged in clear need of sanction. As an asset, ArbCom can better serve Wikipedia without the burden of creating a solution for this case. The most justifiable sanction for any party is an admonition and to that effect, all parties have been admonished extensively by the community. An ArbCom admonition serves no practical benefit beyond aesthetics when remediation has already been achieved. I ask all who participated in this case to consider endorsing this summary.

My76Strat (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I think not. The case has gone this far and will conclude, and the fact it is 'running' over is not uncommon, as many ArbCom cases do the same. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty for all involved; I'm in agreement with My76Strat on that one – they've all suffered more than enough here. And a mandate to re-write the civility policy really clearly and on a principle-centred basis, with is being equally enforcible for everyone. Oh, and community sanction stuff at RfA and RfA talk; same standards, same sanctions, for any and every offender. That would do it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no great problem with an amnesty; the important thing is what happens going forward. The thing is, ArbCom is no doubt struggling with a way to reduce the second move advantage without being allowed to rewrite the policy handbook. They can accomplish much if they make admins nervous about unblocks without consensus or discussion. That's the simplest way I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the simplest way to deal with that issue is to separate it from the immediate case. Implement what I;ve suggested above (simple, fair and effective), and once having got the poor sods out of suspense and misery, then address the first-mover / second-mover / infinite mover (?) advantage / disadvantage. But if the rules are clear, and equally applied, then that in itself would get rid of most of the block-> unblock -> block again warring. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky, you might as well believe that the flying spagetti monster will buy you pizza tonight. I tried once to clarify what the self-contradictory WP:PA page says, which should be narrower/easier topic than civility in general. There is no consensus however what even that means. See Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 10 and Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11. And according to some, there is no consensus that there is no consensus. Most uncivil editors are much more astute than throwing four-letter words at their targets anyway. Guilt by comparison with an action of >insert villains/deficients here< is a favorite technique in some circles. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ::I have no great problem with an amnesty; the important thing is what happens going forward.  The thing is, ArbCom is no doubt struggling with a way to reduce the second move advantage without being allowed to rewrite the policy handbook.  They can accomplish much if they make admins nervous about unblocks without consensus or discussion. That's the simplest way I see.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 :::Yes; the simplest way to deal with that issue is to separate it from the immediate case.  Implement what I;ve suggested above (simple, fair and effective), and ''once having got the poor sods out of suspense and misery'', then address the first-mover / second-mover / infinite mover (?) advantage / disadvantage.  But if the rules are clear, and equally applied, then that in itself would get rid of most of the block-> unblock -> block again warring. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
+:: Pesky, you might as well believe that the [[flying spagetti monster]] will buy you pizza tonight. I tried once to clarify what the self-contradictory [[WP:PA]] page says, which should be narrower/easier topic than civility in general. There is no consensus however what even that means. See [[Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 10]] and [[Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11]]. And according to some, there is no consensus that there is no consensus. Most uncivil editors are much more astute than throwing four-letter words at their targets anyway. Guilt by comparison with an action of >insert villains/deficients here< is a favorite technique in some circles. [[User:ASCIIn2Bme|ASCIIn2Bme]] ([[User talk:ASCIIn2Bme|talk]]) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)