Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Enterprisey (Talk) & L235 (Talk)

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.

Check of Athaenara

@TheresNoTime: thanks for your evidence. In your private correspondence with us you explained why you checked Athaenara. Because we are handling this case publicly can you please add to your evidence with that explanation? You're well below the 1000 word limit for a party to the case but if you think you'd need additional words please let the drafting arbs (L235 and Enterprisey) know and they can grant you an extension. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I'd already mentioned most of it in this section. Have expanded as you suggested though — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that extra bit was helpful (at least for me). Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Length Check?

Dreamy Jazz is my section, to which I do not anticipate adding further, still an acceptable length for a non party? My word processor suggests it may be over <10%, but I'm not entirely sure how clerks count. If not, please advise so I can revise. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to my word counting tool you are at 509 words. If you don't add more content that should be fine. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am over the word limit & requesting increase

I apologise, I seem to have gone over the 1000-word limit (1,319 by my count). Please may I request an increase to the limit? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, 1500. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheresNoTime -- I would personally appreciate your current stance on whether your actions (the reblock and the two checks) were, at the time they were made, prohibited by WP:INVOLVED. In your email submission, you explicitly said you disagreed with the notion that any of your actions were prohibited by the policy on administrator involvement. I see that your on-wiki submission is somewhat less clear, saying that I reacted as I would expect any administrator to have [...] thus reducing, but certainly not mitigating entirely, concerns of WP:INVOLVED (emphasis added) but nonetheless that My checks were within policy. If you need a further extension to respond, you can have one up to 2,000 words. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence stage closing soon

The evidence stage of this case will close 23:59 23 October 2022 (UTC). Editors are encouraged to ensure that they add their evidence with plenty of time beforehand to account for any unexpected issues, such as internet outage, which may affect posting your evidence. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phase has now closed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Evidence presented by David Fuchs

Evidence phase closed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I haven't commented much on this entire event, but I'd like to stress that, at ANI, I especially found former arb David Fuchs' (no ping) continued obfuscation of bigotry, hate speech even, as a mere personal attack in isolation — both puzzling and disconcerting. So I'd like to at least have something on the record concerning this. El_C 21:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largely un-RE-lated to his actual evidence, though, which I've yet to reviiew closely. Just a note about who compiled it. Which might still be of interest. El_C 21:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the absence of a workshop phase, are we even allowed to comment on the evidence that has been provided? Because there's at least one assertion in David's evidence that seems incorrect to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what workshops are for. It's possible that nobody knows what they're for (maybe they were just designed to confuse the masses?). El_C 21:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself and not any other arb, the drafters, or the Committee, there is an "Analysis of Evidence" section that perhaps should have been moved from Workshop to Evidence for this case and oculd have contained what Sideswipe suggests. The stated purpose of the Workshop is to provide feedback on what the Arbs should include in the proposed decision. This can be generated from community members, parties, or Arbs. Even when it does this successfully there's often a lot of less userful material to wade through. And El C I'd suggest "a release valve for the masses" is far more accurate than "designed to confuse the masses". Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, perhaps not. The arbitration guide about workshops states The Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community, and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. What is analysis of the evidence if not commentary on it?

However, as I remembered that there were diffs that could rebut one of my concerns about David's evidence, I have now added that as evidence to the case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, fair (Valve). Still, the borderline un-readable format... Oy! I still vaguely recall Sarah's (RIP) effort to abolish the workshop phase outright. What ever happened with that? El_C 22:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know necessarily about Sarah's efforts but the ability to skip the workshop, as in this case, came about after Wanda/Flying. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th You do realize that "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" from WP:INVOLVED means "pretty much every" administrator, not "at least one" administrator, right? Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: No, by a plain reading "any" does not equal "every". In most circumstances I'm aware of when it comes to misconduct inquiries, the defence to "any reasonable X would do the same action" is to prove that at least one peer would have undertaken the same action. In any event, in addition to the two uninvolved admins I have named, Deepfriedokra has also just said Unblocking Athaenara was a well intentioned error and it was reasonable to reverse it. Whilst it might have been better for TNT to allow some other reasonable Admin to do it, I cannot see reblocking as the wrong thing to do. (diff:[1]) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the consensus in the AN thread was heading toward reblocking, I think it was pretty uncontroversial. And I think the discussion between Lourdes and TNT lends credence to that thought. Personally, I would have let/asked someone else to do the reblocking, too much Law and Order. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th You have your boolean backwards; the defence to "any reasonable X would do the same action" is to prove that at least one peer would have not undertaken the same action. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Are you sure? Why would a reasonable peer not undertaking the same action prove the statement "any reasonable X would do the same action"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set it up with a different scenario and run through it a few times in your mind. The fact that 1,2,3,...N administrators (where N is some number less than our currently active corps) would have ALSO done the same contested thing doesn't mean that "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion," while one administrator going "I'm reasonable, and no, I would not have done that contested thing" is probably sufficient to torpedo the assertion that anyone else (really, meaning everyone else) would have done the same thing. Any/Every in English usage is not as straightforward as it would be if the language were designed by computer programmers. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Reasonable people will disagree on a course of action. If the statement was "every reasonable X would do the same action", then you're right in that one reasonable X saying they wouldn't do the action would disprove it. However that is not what was said, nor is it what my evidence (I hope) addresses.

To take this back to the realm of the case instead of paraphrasing, David said The argument that "It has been proven that any reasonable administrator would have reinstated the block." is impossible to actually prove, unless someone can slip to an alternate dimension and know that Athaenara was going to be blocked by another admin in the same amount of time. Accordingly, by a plain reading of the words, David is making the claim that it is impossible to prove the statement that any reasonable administrator would have reinstated the block. I realise I've left out the words It has been proven from that last quotation, however because David is asserting that the entire quotation is impossible to prove, those words are extraneous to the core of the argument.

While there are certainly reasonable administrators, like David, who would not have reinstated the block in the same circumstances, there are also reasonable administrators like Red Phoenix, Black Kite, and Deepfriedokra who would have reinstated the block in the same circumstances. Therefore the statement that any reasonable administrator would have made the same action is in fact proven, because we have three administrators who would have made the same block. Whether or not you consider the action to be reasonable, does not change the fact that those three administrators are currently held in good standing, and as such I believe it fair to say they are reasonable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "any" in WP:INVOLVED is using definition 1b, not definition 1a? If INVOLVED meant "at least one reasonable administrator would take the same action", the exception would swallow up the rule. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by deepfried okra.

I just added a clarification of what I meant. Too late, it appears. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So that's gone. Anyway, I would have happily reblocked as an uninvolved admin. Had I been involved, I'd have asked someone. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]