Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Proposed decision

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Casliber
3. Cool Hand Luke
4. FayssalF
5. FloNight
6. Jayvdb
7. Kirill Lokshin
8. Newyorkbrad
9. Risker
10. Rlevse
11. Roger Davies
12. Sam Blacketer
13. Stephen Bain
14. Vassyana
15. Wizardman

Inactive:

1. Coren

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Please note that I won't be available for the next few days (at least until Tuesday) due to personal (religious) reasons. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering aloud here, but how often does the Committee simply decide that the original decision to accept the case was the wrong one? With this particular case, it seems like the best option is to simply end the case and start a new one if problems re-emerge (I doubt they will). Though I suppose there's added complication due to the de-adminning. Just out of curiosity, has "throwing a case out" been done previously? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"if problems re-emerge (I doubt they will)" I'm afraid I totally disagree. It is quite clear, from Aitias's ignoring the RFC concerns, and the responses made here, that he's not interested in reforming. I think it would be best if the case went through, though it is incredibly slow and tedious. The only thing *I* personally wish for is for Aitias to be required to go through RFA again, should he want the tools back. Majorly talk 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After skimming the /Workshop, I think the underlying point I was attempting to make is that while there have been a few issues of concern, compared to past cases, this one seems rather lightweight. Given the high number of other issues that need attention from the Committee, perhaps a motion or two would be preferable. I realize that there's no deadline to these cases and that they could simply be postponed for months without real issue (as other cases have been in the past), however it's quite nasty to be subject to one of these cases and have it "hanging over your head" indefinitely. Just my two cents. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several instances in which the committee has dismissed a case without findings or remedies, either because it decided that its initial decision to take up the case was improvident, or because subsequent developments had lain the controversy to rest, or in one or two instances a couple of years ago, seemingly simply because the committee was unable to arrive at a majority determination. I do not recall any such dispositions in the past year or so, however. Examples of cases that were accepted and opened but later dismissed can be found on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. To the extent you or anyone believes dismissal (with or without an accompanying explanation) would be an appropriate disposition of this case (a matter on which I express no view), a proposed motion, with an explanation of why such disposition is warranted, can be offered at the top of the workshop page (that would probably be more prominent than continuing the discussion here). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid comes to mind. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, removing Aitias' administrator rights is a disproportionate response to the evidence presented. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 arbitrators (including the drafting one) who have voted are relatively new, though, I doubt I can use that as a mitigating factor for much longer - it's been 5 long months. But I'm unimpressed by the fact that despite concerns being voiced over a number of years, proposed decisions are not being published in the workshop for comment by the community. FloNight & Kirill, I distinctly remember that you both were around when the concerns were raised - why did you not bother to ensure that the drafting arb (Wizardman) has completed this step? Or even reminded him? It sadly appears to be standard that ArbCom are to make the same mistakes repeatedly over an extended period of time - I suppose it all comes down to compulsory training. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if presenting the PD to the community for comment before voting is compulsory. In both theory and practice, the community would have had the chance and enough time to solve the issue its way but once the case arrives before ArbCom then ArbCom becomes the body in charge of sorting it out the way it sees it fit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting it on the workshop is only a recommended step, which would only delay the case based on the straightforwardness of the proposal and the lack of much of anything going on on this workshop. Wizardman 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you have me do - open another ArbCom RfC within months and have endorsements to the contrary? Seriously. The "lack of much of anything going on in this workshop" can change when proposals aren't majorly skewed. Sometimes, the flaws with arbitrator proposals are pointed out to begin with at workshop and at least somewhat resolved before they are on PD rather than just repasted on PD, where the concerns are just sweepingly ignored because of narrow arbitrator-rationales like "my view is different, so shoo". And as for ArbCom sorting it out the way it sees fit, we all know what became of more than one case that failed to adequately account for the community's views. How can we forget the sourcing adjudication board? Hoffman? And so on. And given that civility is an ever-present issue, perhaps other (useful) suggestions worth-trying would be made based on the proposals an arbitrator makes. I don't mind this particular case going forward, but this should be a very limited exception rather than the start of a pattern where ArbCom walks backwards. Now if any arbitrator (still) feels my view on this isn't widely shared, then I request a confirmation to that effect, because frankly, some have failed to comment on this so far. I don't mind bringing forward ArbCom review earlier than planned, though I deliberately delayed it so that the new case format could be tried first. In the meantime, something has to give. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist... Again, you are discussing issues with a very aggressive manner (compulsory training and nonsense). You can open an RfC any time you sees it fit and please stop talking about 'you bring forward, you deliberately, you, you'. You've been following this path for a long time and I am probably thinking about opening an RfC in relation to this attitude and approach you are taking against ArbCom. As I said, it is not compulsory and people should use their common sense. Since you 'don't mind this particular case going forward' then what's the problem and why are you being unimpressed aggressively? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, I don't believe I am being very aggressive, as I previewed and modified my posts many times before posting, but I'm more than happy to discuss it with you in a more appropriate venue, like Email or user talk. I know I can open an RfC anytime - if you don't have a better suggestion, then a 'why not' would suffice to answer my questions. Precisely what is the problem if I brought something forward, or delayed it for a net benefit? You've repeatedly suggested I'm on some sort of path, but I now wonder if some of you are having some sort of personal vendetta against certain users who have dared to find issues with decisions you've made collectively. You are welcome to open an RfC as you are well aware; but usually, actively trying to resolve your issues with the person at an appropriate venue is more useful, and I'm very curious to hear your suggested solutions. I think the community would prefer if it is compulsory (to the point we assume it is); common sense would suggest we codify that. I brought this up here because clearly, MZM wished to comment on the remedy proposal - that would've saved a comment on this page had the decision been posted at workshop. Also, I don't believe this is a one-off - which is why I raised it here rather than pile on growing concerns in a case that has been open for many months. Lack of direction by the experienced arbitrators led to skipping workshop as I understand - that goes back to training, so no, I don't see how it is 'nonsense' when I look at the pattern of this sort of 'walking backwards'. But seeing you insist it is optional, we might as well review that issue altogether - something has to give. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, I have given my opinion internally that the Workshop page is useful. But it is not mandatory for arbs to place their finding on the Workshop page first and I'm not going to push the point. Any user can add suggested proposals to the workshop page. If you want them discussed then adding them there yourself would be a useful step. I don't make my decision based on the number of opinions expressed in support for an idea but on the quality of the ideas expressed. With this case, the options were limited, so the need for the ruling to be placed on the Workshop page is not as great as for some cases. I read comments here and on all case pages up until the case closes and change my vote if I think a change is warranted. If you make comments then I will consider them. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight, thank you for clarifying this for me - I was going to add some more proposals to the list here, but on reflection, most of these are moot now. Just for the future though, navigating certain workshop pages that are very large in size can be a problem for me - would a subpage be okay in those circumstances? Should I link to it on the PD talk page, or is there a better venue? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Workshop page size and design frustrates everyone :-( We have yet to come up with a good way to make it work. I think that is the reason that some arbs and involved parties stay away from the page. If you want to place suggested proposals in a subpage and link here that would work since this page is read prior to and during voting. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NCM, yes, you're being combative and hostile again. Since you find so many flaws with arbcom, why don't you throw your hat in the ring at the next election and get elected so you can fix everything? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be surely better for the current arbs to fix the flaws raised, instead of trying to make it someone elses problem. Majorly talk 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, Majorly; however, something to keep in mind is that we often get feedback from community members that is contradictory. There are plenty of people saying the Committee is introducing too much "process", while others are complaining that it isn't enough, or that it's the *wrong* kind of process. If we fix things to satisfy one group, we will find another group dissatisfied. One way to assess the community's view (at least in part) on some new ideas is to look at the positions of the successful candidates. Risker (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly has hit the nail on the head in response to the question. To add to that, you guys threw your hats in knowing that ArbCom get criticised for poor decisions they make, let alone any questionable ones. It would be extremely foolish to imagine that it would be any different merely because you are not the same people as prior years. For an issue like the one I'd raised here, one person cannot fix it - it's a group issue that requires a group effort, which is why I specifically addressed it here mentioning a few arbitrators names, rather than settle it at the user talk page of a single arbitrator. But I note that Risker's point, in some cases, has at least some validity.

That aside, Rlevse, the earlier part of your comment was plainly unhelpful (even inappropriate) in light of the recent response I gave to FayssalF. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Risker said, no matter what arbcom does, we'll make some users happy and upset others. Arbs, just like crats, are elected to make tough decisions, decisions that rarely make everyone happy. So, we make the best decisions we can. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But just as those situations exist, I can also think of situations where that conclusion won't fit. For example, you are making a decision, people have expressed concerns, they've suggested ways to resolve those concerns (in part or full), you do nothing to change your decision to accomodate or at least try to satisfy those concerns, and then the community consensus indirectly overturns the effect of the part of the decision they were concerned with. (I've made it a hypothetical than use specific examples). Clearly, it was not a matter of capability, otherwise the community would have in that situation initiated a re-election (I doubt Jimbo would say no) and convincingly voted you off - the step of 'overturning' was taken in that situation because you did not want to make the best decision you can based on the additional feedback you received, but they put it down to a lapse in judgement.

I believe the community does not want a repeat of prior years mistakes/issues or patterns of mistakes/issues, or a new pattern of mistakes/issues to emerge. That's in essence what most criticisms try to address, so taking it personally as a single user or as a group does zilch to benefit the project in the long run. I am not discarding what you and Risker are saying - obviously, there are some things that there will be division on even within the community, and some things that require more negotiation, and some things (ideally) where there is universal agreement or disagreement. So how to resolve that issue? People will accept that you are making the best decision you can when that happens if there was more evidence of using such feedback. Unless it's an urgent item like BLP, or something undisputed at its very core like Purpose or Conduct or Editorial process, there's no compelling need to have a perfect 16 supports all the time or have a personal view reflected all the time. I'm sure that on some occasions at least, an appropriate number of arbitrators can give up their proportion of the vote in favour of accomodating a concern or perspective of a proportion of the community, and having it reflected in a decision. I don't think the tension between ArbCom and community would rise as a result of this - quite the opposite. And I also don't think it's too much to expect either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're suggesting mandatory proportional representation, Ncmvocalist, something that doesn't have strong support in the real world, let alone the wiki-world. This particular iteration of the Arbitration Committee is by far the most diverse and representative group that has been brought together for dispute resolution, and I think it's pretty clear from the decisions we have made to date that a wide range of opinions and potential resolutions are being put forth by the individual members of the committee; there have been very few unanimous votes outside of the "principles" areas. I think most of us at minimum consider what is written by both involved and uninvolved editors on various workshops and talk pages; however, we are charged with looking beyond even that group to the encyclopedia and the community as a whole as well. I'm concerned that you seem to suggest that arbitrators consider voting against their own professed convictions to act as representatives to what may well be the views of a small minority within the project. Risker (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding you correctly, no, mandatory proportional representation would be riddled with far more problems in the grand scheme, even if it did get support on-wiki. (I can see the issues now, with the proportions who want civility and edit-warring principles gone - as I said, I'm not suggesting going quite that far). It's a noble dream to not say that ArbCom writes policy from time to time; see for example the writing of the relevant part of NLT policy following Haines case - I'm talking more about an issue of that sort. When objections are raised, greater consideration of that could be reflected in the decision itself rather than making the community rewrite policy on those disputed issues. I wonder if this is getting too convoluted now. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have generally found the workshop useful in presenting draft decisions. Aficionadoes of the arbitration process will have observed that in cases I have drafted, even where the substance of the proposed decision is identical or similar to what I earlier posted on workshop, I will often tweak the wording to address concerns raised or implement an improvement that has been suggested. It is not mandatory that proposals be workshopped, and I have occasionally skipped that step, but on at least one occasion when I did that, I came to wish I hadn't.

Another virtue to the workshop page is that it gives non-arbitrators an opportunity to turn their general ideas for how they would resolve a case into the concrete proposals that solidify thinking. It's not always as easy as it looks. At the same time, sometimes the drafting arbitrator will be able to select well-honed and well-supported proposals from the workshop for inclusion in the final decision. (I found that I "drafted" a couple of decisions in 2007 in this fashion even though I wasn't an arbitrator in 2008.) So I would encourage drafting arbitrators to use the workshop both by reviewing others' proposals and posting their own, unless they have a specific reason not to, but that's just my view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...at the same time I don't believe we should adopt an inflexible interpretation that could be misused to suggest that anyone who has chosen to vanish may not later change his or her mind."

Vanishing is intended to be permanent. We (the community) extend certain favors toward the person vanishing in order to let them leave in peace. But it is always done with the idea that the person will not be returning.

As far as I'm aware, this is established back to the Meatball Wiki (cf. meatball:RightToVanish "...you probably won't be able to vanish on a whim, and this isn't a ReversibleChange.") and to Meta (cf. m:Right to vanish "The principle it embodies is that contributors leaving a project permanently may have any personal contributions unrelated to the core mission of the project removed.")

A principle stating that vanishing is intended to be permanent seems perfectly acceptable. I kindly ask any opposers to reconsider their votes. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the way to go is to raise the bar slightly on unvanishing. People do storm off in a huff and only later realise that "vanishing" was the wrong way to leave. There should be a penalty of some kind to pay, but we shouldn't be discouraging people from realising, in good-faith, that they made a mistake. Vanishing works when people do leave permanently, but it was only ever intended to help people leave with dignity intact and to not have their mistakes follow them around. That original stance has hardened somewhat as vanish requests made by users not in good standing are treated more sceptically now - or should be. In essence, users vanishing can do so under a cloud, or in "good standing". Those who vanish in good standing and politely request unvanishing, with an acknowledgment and apology that they made a mistake in requesting vanishing, should be allowed straight back in. Those who vanish "under a cloud" (to use the phrase that some dislike) should be given a warning if they unvanish, and then have subsequent vanishing requests (if anyone remembers) declined or postponed. Many of the "dramatic" vanishing requests would be easily dealt with if the response was: "Due to the circumstances under which you have requested 'right to vanish', the request will not be granted immediately. If nothing further is heard from you after one month, your request will be granted". This allows the recent history and contribs and talk page to be examined by others if there was an ongoing dispute, and the contribs can be checked after a month. If the editor has slunk back in, or been drawn back to comment or !vote on RFAs, then the request to vanish can be marked as denied because the editor has returned. An important principle here is that the returning editor should be required to acknowledge the seriousness of a vanishing request, and be judged on how seriously they take the 'right to vanish'. Equally, those upset by an editor 'vanishing' and then returning and not acknowledging the return, should restrain themselves from comments such as "haven't you retired yet" or suchlike (a recent comment like that has been mentioned in another arbitration case). Kicking people while they are down is not good. Frowning at them and saying "you really should take the 'right to vanish' more seriously" (and declining or postponing subsequent requests) is about the limit of what should be acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tl:dr version? Temporary "permanent" retirements are for drama queens. The 'right to vanish' is for those who are serious about leaving permanently. If you are in any way uncertain, do not request the right to vanish. If you make a mistake and want to unvanish, you must apologise and recognise the seriousness of the request and the community time it has wasted and drama it will have generated. See also User:NoSeptember/Leaving. Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree proper usage needs to be pointed out, I think Nyb's oppose and reasons for opposing strike the right balance overall. Demanding or even expecting an apology is far too extreme in my opinion; I expect no one to grovel on-wiki, except in circumstances that truly warrant it - I don't believe this is one of them (it does not amount to the problems caused with serious off-wiki threats for example). That said, I won't be so strongly opposed to a requirement to merely recognise the seriousness of the request and the community time and drama it may have generated, depending on the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some disagreement over whether the conduct was "incivil" or something else. I would point out that only Juliancolton's and one line of Acalamari's evidence mentions incivility specifically. The majority of the evidence is about being sarcastic, rude, and/or dismissisve rather than overtly incivil. Mr.Z-man 03:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have poked Coren, the only arb left to vote, because this remedy is currently hung. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]