Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests - Wikipedia
9 people in discussion
Just in case anyone wonders where all the statements about Miskin's case have disappeared, Phil Sandler deleted it, terming removal of statements to some obscure talk page a "new move" on his part. On my talk page, he threatened me to revert war if I dare to restore my statement. I presume that the "new move" was sanctioned by the arbitrators, but still I consider it my duty to speak out. Sorry, what's the point of listing me as a "party" if I have no right to speak here? Since I was listed as a "commenting party", I take it as an invitation to comment. What else does that mean? I consider the removal of my comments as a slap in the face, aimed to discourage me and others from following the page, which Phil deemed "unreadable". By the way, it'd be great to know who appoints clerks for each particular case. I consider Snowspinner the last person to be neutral, given the nature of the current arbitration. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- They weren't deleted, they were moved, near as I can tell. I know I've seen this done before and personally don't have a problem with the practice--nothing is actually lost, and the size of the main page stays manageable. Judging from Paul's revert there's disagreement, though. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- (edit conflict) The Miskin case is now in the process of being opened (by Penwhale), so hopefully as applied to this specific case this issue is moot. More generally, there was a longer discussion about whether non-party statements should be kept on the main RfAr page or moved to a talkpage, earlier this year. See here. I believe that most of the participating arbitrators requested that the statements be left on the main RfAr page. Granted, in both Miskin and PalestineRemembered the number of non-party comments was high, but in itself that can be a useful datum for the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- The statements were moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. This has happened and been discussed before, as noted by Brad. Thatcher131 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- My feeling, as the clerk who did this, was that 30+ statements int he PalestineRemembered case was too many to be useful, and that the statements were at that point an impedement to arbitrator understanding rather than an aid. It's a subjective judgment - I certainly wouldn't support Taylorizing the process and robotically shooting all non-participant statements in all cases. But Miskin and PalestineRemembered were both vastly overlong, and had a lot of "me-too" statements that lacked much in the way of new perspectives. That's unhelpful to everyone. Phil Sandifer 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- The statements were moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. This has happened and been discussed before, as noted by Brad. Thatcher131 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I restored the statements in the "PalestineRemembered" request (and would have in the "Miskin" request had that case not been opened) because I generally find all such statements very useful, I also prefer to have them conveniently located in one place. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I promise to care about that as soon as you're an arbitrator. Until then, so far the only arbitrator to comment has been in favor of it, so I think your preference to be, shall we say, less relevant than his. Phil Sandifer 02:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- You may want to start caring fairly shortly. Paul is an arbitrator, he was elected in the end of 2006 elections. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Um, yes, I was just going to point that out.Proabivouac 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- No need to remove your remarks, Phil I found them amusing ;-) Paul August ☎ 04:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I swear I looked at the list before I wrote that, too. :( Phil Sandifer 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- No need to remove your remarks, Phil I found them amusing ;-) Paul August ☎ 04:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I promise to care about that as soon as you're an arbitrator. Until then, so far the only arbitrator to comment has been in favor of it, so I think your preference to be, shall we say, less relevant than his. Phil Sandifer 02:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Ghirla: 1) The moves were not explicitly "sanctioned by the arbitrators" but were done by Phil's exercising his initiative as clerk. 2) I don't know what the "commenting party" section means, and I don't remember seeing it before, it may be an inovation of Swatjester, but it was reasonable to assume that a comment by you was being requested. 3) I don't believe that anyone "appoints" a clerk for a case, I think they are self-selected, it looks like Penwhale is clerking the Miskin case. Paul August ☎ 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- As new cases come up, we clerks typically discuss assignments on our Clerks Noticeboard. Mostly we try to distribute the workload approximately equally among the three active clerks (Thatcher131, Srikeit, and me) and some other editors who have been kind enough to assist (Penwhale, David.Mestel, and now Picaroon). Beyond that, it's often just a function of who has time available when it's time to open the case. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I found Paul's and Brad's comments really helpful, so I don't see any reason in pressing the matter further. What disturbs me is the extent of clerks' powers, as interpreted by Phil. One thing is to refactor overlong or incivil statements according to the guidelines. That's what clerks are for, in my understanding. Quite different thing is to "remove" most statements to some talk page, which smacks of censorship. Who decides whether the page is readable or unreadable? What seems "unreadable" to Phil may be perfectly readable for others. We trust that our arbitrators have necessary skills to wade through a complexly structured page. What's the purpose of RfAr if not to list statements submitted by parties? Furthermore, the "new move" means that a clerk may add or remove parties at his own will, thus altering the scope of each case, which is also better avoided. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just saw this: Yeah, the commenting party thing was my idea, it was so people who had commented on my talk page about it could be noted to the ArbCom, but they really have nothing to do with the case.
As for the movement, why is this being discussed? Miskin's comments were more than 500 words. The template and the RFAR instructions explicitly say "keep it under 500". If you can't follow the rules, don't complain when they're enforced. Why does this seem to be a recurring trend with this arbitration??? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I believe that the ArbCom should examine whether or not repeated "speedy closings" of discussions, especially when other discussions have reached different results, constitute a wheel warreached different results, constitute a wheel war.
- Hmm... no, that's editwar :P. Wheel war is repeated undiscussed reverting of administrativeactions. Closing a discussion doesn't make use of the sysop tools. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Technically no, but closing discussions (except uncontroversial ones) is an action reserved to sysops, even if it doesn't use the sysop tools per se, and any decision involving deletion or undeletion involves that particular sysop tool anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Closing a discussion often does involve use of admin tools (for example, closing an XfD as "delete" or a DRV as "restore".) There are reasons non-admins are only allowed to close discussions with certain results-only an admin can perform deletion or undeletion if that's the result. It seems to me disingenuous to claim that because you were "closing a discussion" (that had only been open a few hours, and hadn't reached anything like a definitive result), you weren't wheel warring. (We're not talking about legitimate closures after appropriate lengths here, obviously if a DRV's consensus is to overturn after it runs its course you're not engaging in wheel-warring by closing it as such.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- No, I did not wheel war, as I did not evert any other admin, whereas my actions were reverted on the act without discussion yet I didn't redid it again, as I wasn't going to revert the reversion -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Closing a discussion often does involve use of admin tools (for example, closing an XfD as "delete" or a DRV as "restore".) There are reasons non-admins are only allowed to close discussions with certain results-only an admin can perform deletion or undeletion if that's the result. It seems to me disingenuous to claim that because you were "closing a discussion" (that had only been open a few hours, and hadn't reached anything like a definitive result), you weren't wheel warring. (We're not talking about legitimate closures after appropriate lengths here, obviously if a DRV's consensus is to overturn after it runs its course you're not engaging in wheel-warring by closing it as such.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Technically no, but closing discussions (except uncontroversial ones) is an action reserved to sysops, even if it doesn't use the sysop tools per se, and any decision involving deletion or undeletion involves that particular sysop tool anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
For about 24 hours yesterday and this morning, there were no new RfAr requests pending. (I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't want to tempt fate ... although even though I didn't, we are now back to business as usual.) I don't recall seeing the page with no pending requests since I started paying attention to RfAr, and just was wondering if anyone recalls when this lasdt occurred before. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
If this case is accepted, I suggest that it not be named "QZ" or the arbitration pages will show up in Google searches forever. Perhaps "QZ deletion" instead? Kla'quot 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Doesn't matter, anyway. At 1-6, it wasn't going to be accepted, so I zapped the whole thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thatcher131 states "the clerks will list as involved parties those editors who deleted, undeleted, or listed or closed AfD and DRV discussions". Now, I filled a RfC with a very limited focus on the continuing behaviour of one user - not on the deletion process itself, nor on a string of past acts. I recognise in filing the case, it is legitimate for any of my own acts to be scrutinised. I also recognise the right of arbcom to broaden this case out if and as they see fit - I have no right to determine the scope. Arbcom must do as it sees fit. But it seems to me that neither the clerks nor other commentators who want to focus on other things have the right to force arbcom's hands. Perhaps arbs, if they are accepting this, should indicate their desired scope.--Docg 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I hope so too. The arbitrators are generally not shy in telling us what to do. However, there is a distinction to be made between the focus, to use your word, and the parties. While you have filed a case focusing on Jeff's actions, he may very well want to cite certain other actions (such as AfD and DRV closures) in his defense. Those admins may be "parties to the dispute" even if they are ultimately not brought into the proposed remedies. On the other hand, editors who have an opinion on the matter but who have not been actively in conflict over the various AfD and DRV processes are free to comment, but they are certainly not "parties to the dispute." Thatcher131 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree that if arbcom accept this, it would be helpful if they set the terms of reference.--Docg 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- This will be my only statement on this specific matter, but I'm not sure what the focus on me is for except as a furthering of the general tenor of what I've had to put up with. If disagreeing with administrators is a Wiki-crime, then I'm guilty as charged. If requesting DRVs of out of process deletions (even if they're closed early (see: Brandt wheel war decision)) is a crime, lock me up. If finding RfC to be a farce is an actionable offense, I own up to it. But (I hope) we all realize the true scope of this, and it goes beyond any individual's actions. When I brought this up over the weekend, I was very careful and cognizant in not implicating any specific person over another (although I did miss people along the way). This presentation, in comparison, gives the appearance of wanting to avoid the issues that are causing the dispute in an attempt to finally put a thorn in people's sides to rest. Doc glasgow has generally given me a fair shake, historically, and if that was his intent, I'm very discouraged, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm misreading it - if I am misreading it, I won't be the only one to do so, and that can easily be rectified. So ArbCom can focus, name, do whatever they want with this case, obviously, but let's be realistic about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I still want to give you a fair shake. Indeed I've said that as much as many administrators (indeed most of the community) do not share your extreme views on inclusionism or process, they are legitimate views and indeed often a necessary corrective. It isn't even as if I always disagree with you in specific cases, either. However, a fair shake is one thing - shake it too much and you can break it. There comes a time where your stubborn refusal to let things lie is disruptive. There comes a point where playing games with a BLP is unacceptable. There was a debate, the community spoke, a sane admin closed the afd as delete. Even you have admitted the truth of that. The rest of this is because people wanted another go, and another go, and another go - until they got it right. Now, if this was a webcomic or a nursery school on the fringes of notability, I'd shrug, and let you play the process game and until we settled it - or until someone won the war of attrition. But this is a real person, and we're having this argument about them in a public forum. There is a time to say - STOP - BNO - ENOUGH. We don't case if process 45b3a hasn't been followed - we don't care what the arithmetic is - we don't care how many Goggle hits it has - we are an encyclopedia - we let this be. No wars of attrition. The problem is that you don't seem to realise when we have reached that point.--Docg 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I'll only say that I still think you have the timeline wrong. People didn't want "another go, and another go, and another go" - they wanted the one go they were entitled to once the DRV overturned the original closure. If that one AfD ran all the way through, would we even be talking about this? Really? This isn't the "form 45b3a" nonsense du jour, this is simple respect for your fellow editors who ultimately want the same thing - a good, comprehensive encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- But you are still at it - demanding that process be followed here (and a selectively chosen process at that since you focus on one particular DRV instead of the valid Afd before it). BLPs are not footballs for process. And particularly not when you are insisting you'll keep coming to DRV until you get the right answer.--Docg 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Definitely - I'm still at this because the process (and I'm not selectively choosing, I'm recognizing that the process issues started with the improper closing of AfD 2). And I have not once insisted I'd come to DRV until I get the right answer. That is a misinterpretation of what I've actually said. I want a resolution, plain and simple. It's gotten to this point due to the consistent denials allowing such resolution, and not by me, and if it were by me, not by myself acting alone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- But you are still at it - demanding that process be followed here (and a selectively chosen process at that since you focus on one particular DRV instead of the valid Afd before it). BLPs are not footballs for process. And particularly not when you are insisting you'll keep coming to DRV until you get the right answer.--Docg 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I'll only say that I still think you have the timeline wrong. People didn't want "another go, and another go, and another go" - they wanted the one go they were entitled to once the DRV overturned the original closure. If that one AfD ran all the way through, would we even be talking about this? Really? This isn't the "form 45b3a" nonsense du jour, this is simple respect for your fellow editors who ultimately want the same thing - a good, comprehensive encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I still want to give you a fair shake. Indeed I've said that as much as many administrators (indeed most of the community) do not share your extreme views on inclusionism or process, they are legitimate views and indeed often a necessary corrective. It isn't even as if I always disagree with you in specific cases, either. However, a fair shake is one thing - shake it too much and you can break it. There comes a time where your stubborn refusal to let things lie is disruptive. There comes a point where playing games with a BLP is unacceptable. There was a debate, the community spoke, a sane admin closed the afd as delete. Even you have admitted the truth of that. The rest of this is because people wanted another go, and another go, and another go - until they got it right. Now, if this was a webcomic or a nursery school on the fringes of notability, I'd shrug, and let you play the process game and until we settled it - or until someone won the war of attrition. But this is a real person, and we're having this argument about them in a public forum. There is a time to say - STOP - BNO - ENOUGH. We don't case if process 45b3a hasn't been followed - we don't care what the arithmetic is - we don't care how many Goggle hits it has - we are an encyclopedia - we let this be. No wars of attrition. The problem is that you don't seem to realise when we have reached that point.--Docg 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Whatever jeff's view may be, it is my view that the close by Drini was not a valid close, on several grounds (which i argued in the first DRV discussion) and that the overturn of it by DRV was proper, and in any case well within the reasonable range of judgment that DRV may exercise. Given that, the second Afd was IMO fully proper, and its speedy-close, and all other actions thereafter aimed at preventing a second full AfD discussion by blanking or reverting discussion, or by speedy closing AfD or DRV page, were improper, and that the arbcom should address this, and declare those actions to be improperly taken as violative of the DRV consensus discussion. I do not want endless debate over the article -- If there is a single new AfD, free of gross errors of procedure, and closed after a full discussion by a previously uninvolved editor, i will not so much as take the matter to DRV, and i won't argue about the matter afterwards, either, even if I disagree with the decision in that AfD -- although i may discuss it as a reason for proposing future policy changes. I frankly doubt that jeff eould either, but I can't speak for jeff. DES (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, Matt Crypto's improper revert of a close of an AfD in which he had previously commented and expressed a keep view should also be addressed, IMO. DES (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just a quick one, since when did arbitration turn into a court with the need for lawyers to represent the accused? [1] [2] Ryan Postlethwaite 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- It never did. Chovain (talk · contribs)'s "status" as PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs)'s advocate is not, in fact, a status at all. There are arbitrators, there are clerks/clerk helpers, there are parties, and then there's everybody else, and Chovain is in the last category. What he calls himself/what role he serves is up to him and him alone. Picaroon (Talk) 22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- It just seems to be turning the whole process a bit bureaucratic that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- He's welcome to it, but he'll need buy-in from the arbitrators. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Turning it bureaucratic? Yeah, just like grass turns green! (Hey, clerk helpers can have opinions too.) But seriously, I don't think this is actively making the process more bureaucratic, because the role is completely unofficial - in other words, advocates do not exist. I see nothing about advocates having an official role of their own in the arbitration policy, and until there is something there, the recurring (remember the AMA?) role of advocates is not instruction creep to worry about. Picaroon (Talk) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I just don't get why users should have other people representing their case for them, everyone can edit the workshop/evidence pages - if users have particular issues with something that's been said, then they can speak up there - no need for someone to be "officially" campaigning on their behalf. I think it's time for a cup of tea....... :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- By the way, just to clarify, I'm not taking a stab at the arbs or clerks/helpers - you guys do a great job keeping everything in order enough of the sucking up! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I just don't get why users should have other people representing their case for them, everyone can edit the workshop/evidence pages - if users have particular issues with something that's been said, then they can speak up there - no need for someone to be "officially" campaigning on their behalf. I think it's time for a cup of tea....... :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- It just seems to be turning the whole process a bit bureaucratic that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hang all lawyers. That's a start.--Docg 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I sure think Newyorkbrad and Fred Bauder would appreciate that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Hang all lawyers, suspend laptop from the gallows so Fred Bauder and Newyorkbrad can continue their excellent work here? Look ma, I'm compromising! --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think appointing some users a 'Champion' would be wise, even if it's an almost totally informal position with no powers or perks. It's possible to contribute to Wikipedia even if someone's not fluent in English, but arguing an ArbCom case requires professional-level English skills. If someone's not a native English speaker, they're at a significant disadvantage. Anyone considered trying to create a consistent pool of volunteers? Chris Croy 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Arbcom is not like court where the eloquence of the lawyers' arguments can sway the jury and people need to hire professionals who are skilled in speaking to the courtroom. Arbcom cases hinge on cold, hard evidence of incivility, edit-warring and disruption. You don't need to be fluent in English to be incivil or disruptive, equally you don't need to be fluent in English to present evidence in an Arbcom case. I don't think you could point to a single Arbcom case where someone was sanctioned due to their poor English ability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply