Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop

Case name

What's with the cryptic case name? I have seen many past cases that use actual usernames of the main parties involved, and some that do not. Was there a request for such a cryptic name in this case? I scanned what I thought were the relevant pages but missed it. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no request for a cryptic name. The arbs didnt give much indication why they accepted the case, so the current list of parties may not be sufficient. I didnt see any previous cases where more than two parties were listed in the name, and I didnt want to pick only the initial two parties. An arb is more than welcome to suggest a rename, and I have no objection to a motion to rename the case, however I would like to see some comment from the arbs before a new name is given. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words it was your judgement call, perfectly innocuous, rather than some nefarious plot involving the events of August 19, 1994? Thanks for clearing that up! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I recognise the logic behind the naming, I don't think the initialising the party list for use as the case name is appropriate. Historically, to the best of my knowledge, arbitration cases are either named using the full accounts of the party (eg., Asgardian-Tenebrae), as they stood at the time of opening, or, more commonly (and more appropriately, in my opinion) the subject area in which the dispute is centred (eg., Palestine-Israel articles) or the nature of the incident (e.g., Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war).

I think a rename may be in order; although it's not of an urgent priority, it is warranted here.

Anthøny 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing sinister is going on here; move along please. :P

If the evidence and workshopping appears to be primarily about the named parties, "Cla68-FeloniousMonk-SlimVirgin" is a bit long, but acceptable. It is possible that this case is going to revolve around two groups of editors, and it is also possible that this is going to be about "Userspace RFCs". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We often rename cases at the close, or as they progress, when it's becoming obvious what the focus will be and who's central to it. There's still ambiguity there, so treat the current name as a "working name", for now, and change it later if needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear impression created that the name of this case has been chosen to protect certain members of the project and brush legitimate concerns under the carpet. I'm acutely aware of this practice of misleading names, since there is an ArbCom case that bears my name, which actually concerned a false (even fraudulent) perma-block on me and the likely gross abuse by the administrator who called for it (who is not named in the title). This naming both badly distorted the subsequent discussion and case, and has encouraged editors (some perhaps innocently) to bring it up again at intervals as if it concerned me. PR^talk 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The current name was not to protect anyone. I used it because it was short, and I suspected that the case was going to be renamed as it progressed, or that the case would involve many more parties than initially named. I did not want the case name to restrict the scope at this stage - I have explained my reasoning above. Please AGF - I acted alone in naming this arbcom case, and selected a name I thought was best at the time, without any discussion with any arbitrator - trust me, I would have liked to have been able to discuss it with them, but there was an urgency to open it as it was overdue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to AGF you as clerk trying to do your best. However, now you're informed that naming of ArbCom cases has been used in a highly contentious and apparently abusive fashion in the past (as I think I've demonstrated above), I would invite you to re-consider your action and remove the suspicion that will otherwise cloud this case. PR^talk 11:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not rename the case to "Cla68-FeloniousMonk-SlimVirgin" at this state, just so that the names are more explicit. As I have explained, and FT2 has commented on, the case may yet be renamed when the crux of the case has been identified.

Just because you have had a case named after you, with possible undesirable ramifications following, doesnt mean this case needs to be named after three parties that have been declared as parties.

I am quite surprised you would be wanting the name of the case to even mention the parties, since you seem unhappy to have a case named after you. I would be just as happy with a naming scheme like "2008-26" or "2008/26", for the 26th case in 2008, as the name of the case is too often misinterpreted.

The suspicion will only continue if people think that I am part of a sinister plot, and that I would lie about my rationale on the current naming of the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept your reasoning and good-faith. Please be aware that (as my rejected evidence pointed out), this ArbCom concerns individuals who may have acted without personal integrity. If the case looks tainted by the partisan actions of administrators at this stage, a severe chill will be cast over later stages. PR^talk 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment re: JzG

• To be found here...

Given that the RfAR specifically about JzG seems to be going to merged into this one, I would like to direct people to my comment there... discussion should, I guess, take place there rather than here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley section removed

As clerk, I have removed the William M. Connolley section from the Workshop page as it isnt remotely based on the evidence provided so far, and it seems to be a drive-by snipe at an Ncmvocalist, who is contributing to the case. If Ncmvocalist's contributions to this case are seen as a problem, that should be discussed on the talk page here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility remedy

I still haven't decided whether to remove the civility parole remedy or not. I understand (and am concerned by) the fact that it can be challenging to enforce the remedy, despite the intention for it to be simple and effective in application. But an ongoing problem of incivility needs to be dealt with somehow, and rather than having nothing, civility parole is probably best.

However, I do want to invite discussion on other suggestions worth considering - remedies that will be simple and effective in application in combatting incivility in particular. What else can be used to achieve the intended effect? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the intended effect? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A simple and effective way of preventing them from failing to comply with policy, should they continue to do so in the future. 'They' being those users who engaged in a pattern of not complying with policy, both in the past, and recently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a sweeping goal to be achieved by a specific remedy. Any "policy" in particular? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This specific remedy targets incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I trust you can get the links to the relevant pages? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (though the sarcasm in your concluding sentence is ironic given your concern for civility). Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as sarcasm - sorry if it seemed that way. I'll assume you can (to answer my question). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're an admin - I think that confirms my assumption then - Sorry again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been reams of ink expended on the topic of "enforcing" civility over the past few months. Personally, I think the idea of "enforcing" civility, particularly by a blunt mechanism such as blocks, is misguided. The penalty for incivility in a collaborative environment is that you become less effective and less credible. This punishment is instantaneous and doesn't require an admin to enforce. Editors who are chronically uncivil have hamstrung themselves in terms of accomplishing their actual goals. In terms of improving the environment, I'd suggest that we all focus on setting a good example ourselves, encourage others to ignore baiting and take the high road rather than respond in kind, and consider whether they're actually helping or hurting themselves by being uncivil - rather than blocks, bans, paroles, etc. Personal attacks are one thing, and may be valid grounds for blocks in some cases, but civility is just not enforceable in this manner. My 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors who are chronically uncivil have hamstrung themselves in terms of accomplishing their actual goals. I disagree. Editors who are chronically uncivil frequently succeed in driving other contributors out of the areas the former own, which is arguably one of their goals. This is something that does indeed need to be enforced by blocking, and those blocks should be respected, not undone because somebody else has different standards for incivility or couldnt be bothered to check area-specific history. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's accept for the moment that people have as a goal the expulsion of good-faith editors from specific content areas. Let's also accept that incivility is a common factor in driving good-faith editors away from specific articles. Even so, remedies like civility parole and blocks for incivility do not effectively address this issue. I am not aware of any examples in which civility parole was a success, measured over a reasonable time frame, while I'm quite familiar with several spectacular though ultimately unsurprising failures. Would you accept that if this is a major problem, we need to brainstorm a more effective way of dealing with it than blocks and civility parole? MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it work marginally with one or two nationalist editors who've at least learnt to be slightly polite. The examples you're thinking of are of well-established editors doing useful work, who're thus rapidly unblocked when they violate the parole. I don't think these are fair conditions under which to evaluate its effectiveness. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But those are exactly the kind of editors we're talking about here. It's good that it sometimes works on nationalist agenda accounts, and perhaps we should use it more often to deal with them, but this is a different kettle of monkeys. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol @ kettle of monkeys. This whole case has become like an circus lately :D animals, clowns, acrobats, swordsmen, and other amusing things.... But back to the topic (ahem!) - would you consider it worked against Giano? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If its intention was to provide a mechanism to periodically throw gasoline on a smoldering forest fire, then yes, it's worked. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We generally try to be tolerant of incivility, and there's various other ways of resolving it - WQA, RFC, ANI, and then finally ARB. What this remedy emphasizes is, civility is not an optional policy (if it were, there'd be a lot more damage), and admins are able to use their tools to deal with users subjected to an arbitration case found to have a consistent pattern in the past of being incivil, and making personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Having said that, I do acknowledge different standards of incivility, and on the odd occasion, admins may make poor decisions in understanding whether something is actually incivil. It can include whether a comment actually is inflaming a dispute, upsetting an editor, or maybe merely being unconstructive in personal dialogue with another user rather than staying on the topic of improving the article. Sometimes they are so minor, but it really does depend on the reviewing admin, the context and the circumstances. But, per any other block, if a request for unblock has been made by the blocked user, then an uninvolved admin may review the block per the usual method, and may adjust the length of the block. But the user shouldn't be reblocked after this, unless or until he engages in incivility again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Workshop drive-by comments

Seriously, if you are going to !vote at least have the decency to explain why you voted that way. Some examples: [1][2][3][4] I hate to not assume good faith, but this is getting ridiculous. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• This shouldn't be a vote in anyway - people should be making highlighted support or opposes. If you've got something meaningful to add to the discussion then do, but don't stop by with one word. I very much doubt the arbs will be taking into account the support/oppose ratio here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• I support this idea but it may be appropriate to give some diffs to make it clear which comments are most problematic. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible addition of Crum375 as a party?

Resolved

 – Never mind. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to proceed on this, so I'll ask for opinions. I think Crum375 needs to be subject to some kind of remedy in order to prevent him from continuing to serve as SlimVirgin's right-hand man. I presented evidence that Crum375 wheel-warred in deleting User talk:SlimVirgin for a second time two hours after User:Prodego undeleted it. I also presented evidence that Crum375 made inappropriate comments in the January unban discussion for User:Piperdown. Mackan79 and Cla68 have presented evidence that Crum375 tag-teamed with SlimVirgin in edit wars.

I would support a remedy that reminds Crum375 to use civil language, reminds him not to wheel-war. He should also be advised not to protect, unprotect, delete or undelete any page where SlimVirgin is a substantially active editor. Especially if SlimVirgin is desysopped, as I think she should be, it would be counterproductive if she could evade the letter of the law by asking Crum375 to act on her behalf, as she has done in the past. Leaving that aside, though, I feel that the reminders about civility and wheel-warring need to be stated explicitly by ArbCom based on past behavior.

How should I proceed? I'll invite Crum375 to respond here, but what then? Should he be added as a party to this case? I don't want to overwork the arbitrators, who are already dealing with four named parties in this case, but I also don't want to accuse Crum375 of violating policies without offering him a fair chance to defend himself. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's 6 parties at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See bullet item 3, Serial tandem edit warring enforcement, of my proposed enforcement section. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(ec)I am not sure that the committee will entertain the prospect of any sanctions on Crum in the absence of stronger evidence indicating that it is a pattern of behavior that composes a significant proportion of their on-wiki actions, and not confirmation bias or just two friends who happen to agree frequently. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata refero; if you think Crum is systematically abusing admin rights, present evidence sections to that effect. I see a few mentions of Crum on the Evidence page, but would like to see more varied evidence before Crum is considered a party to the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I third.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I agree with you. Crum375 hasn't systematically done anything wrong. He's made a couple of mistakes, and I'll explain that to him on his talk page. ArbCom doesn't need to get involved with him except perhaps to consider the remedy suggested by SqueakBox. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Squeakbox??? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant SchmuckyTheCat. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

asking parties to comment regarding the presented evidence

Could someone, preferably a clerk, contact the parties, asking them to comment regarding the presented evidence? Cla68 has already done so and apologised for several things he recognised as inappropriate, which imho is a very positive move. Before making up mind on the proposed remedies, I'd like to hear each party weigh in personally on the evidence presented against their behaviour, acknowledging and (if and where they themselves deem appropriate) apologising so as to get a more conclusive picture of what to expect from them in the future. dorftrottel (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out where Cla68 has done this, so i can get a feel for what format you found beneficial, and perhaps direct other parties to add their own comments in a similar fashion in order to assist others find these post-evidence statements. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to link it: Here it is. As to format or place, I had nothing specific in mind, but I suppose the evidence page is as good a place as any for a party to post something like this, since I for one am more than willing to consider this very important, possibly decisive evidence. dorftrottel (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new area for this, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties, and asked all parties to consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope there's a firm word limit enforced by the official clerks.... Unreasonably long reflections that may go so far as including chunks from the evidence might be problematic on the page itself - unless a link was given and the actual text was in a particular section on the talk page of evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that will be a problem. Let's see if anyone besides Cla68 will post anything to that section. dorftrottel (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dorftrottel. Cla68's statement is what he seems to always do, which is appologize for inappropriate behavior when it's pointed out to him. The other parties seem to do less of that. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Locus of Dispute?

I was reading the interesting remarks by Analyst, and thinking... what is this whole dispute all about? :) Seriously, the incidents at Cla's RfA seems central to be where the animosity surfaced, so WR and outing may be at the heart of this, but then, Sandy's evidence is not that much related to WR, etc... Does anyone dare try identify the locus/loci of this dispute? Does such a finding even make sense? Merzul (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not since the JzG case was merged into this one, which was a singularly bad decision. dorftrottel (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have some thoughts about the locus of the dispute, which I will hold for when I have more time. But I would really like to know... what exactly would it take to unmerge the cases? It was indeed, to this observer at least, an ill advised merger. Marry in haste, repent at leisure. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My observation is that the 'locus of dispute' is a moving target here as it's personal and not content related. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

is sysopped/is desysopped solutions

Because adminship is a big deal, and RfA is a minefield for electing a prom queen, these solutions don't seem to be likely in the end. If you really support that it should be easier to gain, lose, or re-gain admin tools, the answer is to fix RfA. This is neither evidence, nor workshop idea, but it needs to be said in this giant mess of conversations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, many many many RfA reform and desysop process proposals have been made in the past, and each and every single last one of them has been refuted by the community, at least also with the argument that with ArbCom, we do already have a process in place to desysop admins where needed (which, in turn, should include cases where an admin has lost community trust through doubtful behaviour of theirs, even if it doesn't include clearcut abuse of the admin tools). dorftrottel (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the impasse at RfA and arguments to and fro are perennial losing proposals. I'm just making a point to state the obvious. Asking ArbCom to be RfDA isn't scalable and RfA went off the rails a long time ago. ArbCom, especially the most recent set, seems loathe to implement de-sysop actions. It's pretty much a sentence to forever be without the tools with the current condition of RfA. It should instead be a learning experience for those losing the tools. Everyone sees the problem, but the way the community works, it won't ever get fixed because no proposed solution will ever make a consensus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

SV's talk page

One of the unusual issues here has been the long term deletion of much of SV's user talk page history, since at least July 2007.[5] I see some more of it has just now been replaced, but I am wondering whether this should not be done now while the case is ongoing. Of course, much of the history includes attempts to address SV's editing, including at least one of my edits that I've asked ElinorD about.[6] The link above also shows that people have asked about this since last July and have been told the history will be replaced, while SV has continued to make the page less welcome to concerns with a moving banner and I believe the most broadly worded request not to leave comments I have seen (including any issue she's involved with elsewhere).[7] This is partly a general issue and partly procedural, but an update on the status of this would seem appropriate. Mackan79 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. that is really irritating (the moving please don't leave comments here note). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A few people carry this on their user page explicitly, and most do not, but it applies to each and every userpage, whether the user explicitly agrees it does or not. I find that page not particularly welcoming or easy to read, compared to the average user page. It's by far not the worst I've ever seen though. But the appearance of the page is a minor issue at best. The unwelcomingness of the message is perhaps more concerning than how it displays. And even so, I'd say it's not a bad approach to encourage most discussion to happen on the relevant (article, policy, etc) talk page. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process specifies that resolution must have been attempted on the talk page of the editor in question. So for an editor to tell other editors not to comment on his/her talk page about disputes that he/she may be involved in is of concern, especially since some editors may not be familiar with the dispute resolution policy. Cla68 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nod. However, I'd IAR something or another in that case. Either drop the user a quick note that there is something going on they need to be aware of, or state some sort of formalism or whatever. Good faith attempts to resolve disputes matter more than the exact forms being obeyed. Or I hope they do anyway. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned the banner as one part of the issue; I've seen some that ask for discussion of article content to be carried out on the articles, but none that say this about all discussion relating to another page. But I think the more important question is whether the page history will be restored during this case. Large portions are still deleted, including much of the time leading up to SV's recent drawbacks in editing. Besides that this is unusual (I understand there are reasons it is difficult, but it's been nearly a year), the history seems particularly necessary for this case. Mackan79 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are people really complaining about "Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. Many thanks."? Thats a non-issue. It seems to me completely fair. I might even copy it, though I don't like the hovering. Stick to stuff of substance, like deleting history, and don't get side-tracked by irrelevancies William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with William M. Connolley. The floating is a tad annoying, but honestly, what's wrong with asking people to comment at the approporiate, centralised location? dorftrottel (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the failure to distinguish between behavioral issues and content that strikes me. I don't think it's a good sign or entirely trivial, but of course I agree the talk page history is the more pressing issue. Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Working the referees or mooning the jury?

People are already complaining that the decision will be disappointing. I guess we'll see the effect that has shortly, but I totally agree with Tony. This case is so incredibly difficult that the Committee need our support and assistance, not manipulative statements and ridicule of their previous actions.

I have to admit I don't know what would be the correct remedies in this case. I do see the problems with SV and FM. I'm particularly annoyed that they find it so hard to apologize to people like SandyGeorgia, Mackan79, and perhaps even to Cla68 for his RfA; however, it is disappointing that many workshoppers fail to review the problems in Cla68's behaviour properly. It's not the incivility he has admitted to above, rather the more subtle actions that is perceived as "attacks" by his targets. Take for example the compliment to Tim Vickers for his "patience". Well, in that context, what does that imply? What kind of monster was Tim facing that tried his patience so?

And what puzzles me is this. How come Tim Vickers and Coppertwig get along just fine with SV in spite of their previous disagreements?

And I wonder how much experience Cla68 has with the dynamics of controversial articles. How much of the trolls that provoke FM and JzG does he actually take into account when drafting the RfCs. What we really need are people that help out on controversial articles, both in dealing with POV-pushers and also in providing rational policy-based counter-arguments when the defenders of the Wiki go too far. Maybe a bit of lecturing and hitting people like JzG in the head for losing his temper is useful, and of course we need assertive editors like Tim Vickers that stand up to SV when she pushes her POV.

However, do we really need these prolonged campaigns against otherwise well-meaning contributors? These editors are in fact defending controversial topics from POV-pushers and blatant trolls, so that the rest of us can be proud over the accuracy of the encyclopaedia, while happily editing our non-controversial topics in relative peace ... Merzul (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Vickers' forbearance with some of the editors whose names have been prominently discussed in this case is definitely an example to us all, including myself of course. Even Tim, however, has had occasion to comment on the quality of the behavior of one of the parties to this case [8]. Because of what we know of the exemplary nature of Tim's conduct and participation in the project, his comment may be as telling as any other comment left in this case by anyone else. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merzul, what is needed isn't people "helping out on controversial articles", what is needed to have proper policies so that people can draft them in peace. There are some ideas tossed around here to combat the behaviour so amply documented on the evidence page, and the Arbcom would do well to take a look at them. Arbcom, here's your chance. Waste it! 129.170.84.144 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merzul, it's all the more telling how even an editor as friendly and balanced and hardwording as Tim Vickers was attacked in the first place. Using him as a positive example in this context is guaranteed to backfire. dorftrottel (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, quite some replies. First, Cla68, that's indeed true, and yes, SV does personalize conflicts, which I've experienced myself, but I still maintain that it is possible to talk directly with her. I hope ArbCom can find some kind of compulsory mediation process rather than punitive remedies, because I think that will only divide the project further. I'm quite convinced that all parties in this case do intend the best for the project, and that mending the wounds could still be possible. Perhaps, I am extremely naive, but sometimes one has to hope, right?

Second, Dorftrottel may be right, but I actually think we are somehow all guilty of feeding a certain Defender of the Wiki mentality. This mentality sometimes lashes out on innocent well-meaning editors. For example, the ID articles have a long history of pro-ID POV-pushers coming and going, so the policy-oriented editors there keep fighting and fighting. That cements the picture in their mind that some editors are the good guys and others are the bad guys; and when an innocent editor happens to raise similar objection, she will get hit hard.

I don't understand this WikiPsychology myself, but I know it is true, because I have done it myself. I said nasty things to a certain user that I deeply regret. I said it all because he was a "POV-pusher" and I was the good guy. Except one day I imagined meeting this gentleman in person, member of British nobility he is in fact, and I was thinking I would never say things like this in real life, so why did I do that on the Wiki? Well... I was defending the Wiki...

My point?? It is so incredibly easy to fall into this kind of behaviour on controversial articles, where your sanity is constantly tested. We need to help each other avoid falling into these behaviours, where one places the Wiki higher than a dignified human interaction. In the end, we are not here to win or lose arguments, but to create quality content for other human beings. That's not easy, so we need to help each other, rather than fight, I think, Merzul (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

we are somehow all guilty of feeding a certain Defender of the Wiki mentality — I hate to say it, but you're probably right. But far worse is that the Workshop page is currently a big mess imho. People seem reluctant to join in and we're not giving the arbitrators a good basis for their interpretation of the evidence. (The latter is completely unrelated to anything said before, just felt it had to be said.) dorftrottel (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

what is needed isn't people "helping out on controversial articles", what is needed to have proper policies so that people can draft them in peace - this is laughably naive. What we need is precisely people helping on controversial articles. Any number of policies - we all ready have any number of policies - will never allow them to de drafted in peace: policies always have loopsholes, ambiguity, or interpretation issues. What will allow peace is permitting admins to block people for abusive behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

William, it's you that's naive. Policy on Wikipedia is what people do. If people don't hand out the topic bans or blocks that are sorely needed to allow articles to settle down and put a stop to the inane posturing and cliquishness then the arbcom has to step in. It's long overdue for them to do it. 129.170.90.97 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A few points re Merzul: 1. I do appreciate the sentiment, but I think you may gloss the point of some of our evidence, which likely isn't what we would present if we were simply annoyed over personal treatment. My evidence isn't that SV has bad intentions, but that she repeatedly breaches basic community principles and at some point that this can't be accepted. 2. Tim Vickers' approach is admirable, but of course also extraordinary in some ways. His ability to work with SV (to the extent that's happened) appears to have been against her will,[9] while I saw today Bastique commented on this point back in 2006.[10] The fact is it shouldn't be that difficult, and at some point mistreating editor after editor has to become inexcusable. 3. While SV is undoubtedly capable of good editing, her work in fighting POV pushers hasn't been presented (time spent countering pro-Larouche editors some time ago seems to be widely acknowledged). I believe JzG fights POV pushers; I don't agree with how he does it, but then I wouldn't take his place. But I don't believe SV's editing at least in my two years has consistently sought or resulted in NPOV, or even for that matter the good of the project in any way that could justify her actions. 4. The idea that an ironic comment from Cla68 here or there has been significant is in my view a misreading.

Not that any of this precludes more creative approaches. However, I think ArbCom can simply say, clearly, that much of the evidence presented here shows editing that is simply wrong. Making accusations without evidence is wrong. Tag-team revert warring is wrong. Constantly personalizing disputes with established editors is wrong. Abusing and gaming new editors is wrong. Misrepresenting oversighted edits is wrong. Tactical archiving of pages is wrong. Making Wikipedia a battleground is wrong. In general, assuming or claiming bad faith in one's opponents is not an excuse for breaching basic community values. At least in my view these basic recognitions are the most important part. Mackan79 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Merzul, somewhat. My modestly inflamatory comments on the nature of the proposed decision are intended to encourage the committee to be aggressive in dealing with longstanding disrupitve problems with the encyclopedia. My orginal research observation is that they would rather not be aggressive with the axe (deadmin), and that it their perogative. As has been observed however, when the evidence points to a few direct problems, and excesive good faith is extended it doesn't work out in the long run. The workshop page is not convoluted, just long, with lots of creative suggestions. It doesn't get a lot of external attention, because long time users are wary of getting on SV's enemies list and having to defend themselves from the behavior shown on the evidence page based on the expectation of a limited decision from the committee. I do agree with William C, remove abusive people from editing, our policies and rules are well enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(William) "What will allow peace is permitting admins to block people for abusive behaviour." I believe uninvolved administrators are currently permitted to block users for abusive behavior. Your statement also fails to define the term "abusive behaviour". Admins are simply editors (with their own interests and agendas) possessing a set of extra tools. Those tools should not be used to advance one's own interests or agendas. --SimpleParadox 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but use of the admin tools notwithstanding, admins can and should be held to higher behavioural standards. If and when the trust placed in them by the community expires for whatever neutrally demonstrable reasons (i.e. even if it's completely unrelated to the use of the admin tools), it's time to give the community another go at evaluating whether or not they do in fact still trust that user, even if it's just to prevent the impression that Wikipedia is a 'cliquocracy', or a 'claquocracy', for that matter. dorftrottel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

SP: unfortately, uninvolved admins don't know whats going on. If you think the system is working well, I invite you to review Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. D: taking tools away from people who are using them usefully merely to prevent "impressions" doesn't seem very sensible to me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "even if it's just". In this case, there are long-term behavioural issues that need to be addressed that merit desysopping several times over. dorftrottel (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence so strong that you're convinced that it merits desysopping several times over, then (a) don't waste your time on trivia like impressions (b) don't waste your time arguing here - your case is won, no? OTOH, if (as seems rather more likely) your evidence is nowhere near as strong as you're asserting, you'll need to keep talking here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, no? And yes, the presented evidence is making a strong case for strong measures. I am very much in favour of Alanyst's proposal. Simply make all of the involved admins go through RfA again. Let the community determine if they still trust the candidates. If there really is nothing wrong, they should easily pass again. dorftrottel (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you have to defend your argument, you must be wrong." So, are you presenting a false dichotomy, or do you truly base all your arguments on the power of belief؟

--129.67.162.133 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

William, one concern is long-term editors who seem to have an opinion, possibly formed years ago, independent of any evidence that has been or could be presented. I read you to have said above that if SV were more able to block editors we wouldn't have a problem. Is this really your assessment? I'm not sure how it has anything to do with any of the evidence presented or any situation SV has found herself in the last couple of years. Mackan79 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly which of my statements you mean. Nothing I've said applies to SV especially. If you mean What will allow peace is permitting admins to block people for abusive behaviour then I'd qualify that as being over-optimistic. It won't bring peace by itself, but it will certainly help. It isn't even particularly applicable to this case - have we/I got sidetracked? Probably the only relevance is that I'd like it to be a principle that arbcomm should estalish William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) WMC: I am fairly aware of most of the issues surrounding that particular article, including but not limited to the recently declined request for arbitration. I understand frustration with the apparent inefficiency of policy strongly discouraging a block of a disruptive user on an article with which an admin is involved or policy stating that edits to a fully protected page should be done only when clear consensus is reached on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, while your particular actions may be for the betterment of that specific article, the temptation to use the tools in order to advance one's own understanding of NPOV (which is generally painted by one's own interests, opinions, and agendas) on any given article may be too great if those policies were not in place. In light of the importance of preventing the intentional or unintentional misuse of tools in those cases, I think a little bit of inefficiency and the 'trouble' of creating an "impression" of propriety is a small price to pay. --SimpleParadox 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The inefficiency of the policy is all to apparent. Your description of the problems at Allegations as "a little bit of inefficiency" is incomprehensible to me. That it has had to escalate to a vast waste of arbcomm/everyones time is deeply inefficient; and you are neglecting the burn-out issues that have been all too well documented William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Long Pages, functionality and clerking

Ironically, this discussion was started on the Workshop page. The clerk has moved it here as it is discussion about the page rather than discussing the meat of the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that (very) long pages like this serve a useful purpose. I've noticed that threads tend to have a period of activity, followed by atrophy - there are many such examples above. Quite what the time period for a 'thread lifecycle' is, I'm totally unsure about, but I am sure that it's bloomin hard to sort the wood from the trees, and I've got a few ideas about what might help;

How about far more agressive clerking? - some sort of subpage sorting? How about specific editors offering to lead discussions (kinda like Analyst above) - and defined areas for this to occur?

I'd happily support anyone shuffling this single page into, oh, about 10 subpages, each linked to clearly from here - maybe that'll help? thoughts most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am having greta trouble finding section srelevant to my part of the case, I must say. Viridae^Talk 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That greta ... she's nothing but trouble so it's no wonder! As to what the relevance of most of the sections to your part of the case is... got me. I think I've said more than once, I feel merging these cases is a mistake and wish it could be undone. I think my analysis (in evidence) of the JzG RfC was intended more to show that it was a valid and useful RfC and Cla68 did the wiki a service by bringing it (contrary to the assertions of some), rather than to analyse what transpired afterwards, which I have not, as it is tangential to that point. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know once there is a workable plan to reshuffle the page, after it has some consensus. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• How about spinning out the Jzg/Viridae part for starters? dorftrottel (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. As time goes by it is more and more apparent that the cases have no relation. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It was apparent from the start, Lar. I'm a great believer in assuming good faith, but this merging of the cases reeks, to me, of deliberate obfuscation. Muddy waters are very hard to peer through with any hope of seeing clearly what lies at the bottom. One brief and hasty comment by JF, without substantive argument for the merge, followed by some "me too" endorsements was rather rapidly closed as an acceptance of the merging of JzG into this case. I think there are roughly 12 active arbitrators (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, why weren't all their voices heard before the JzG case was merged, because there was significant opposition to that particular course of action. I strongly urge unmerging the cases. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)