Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop

Possible motion to narrow focus of this case.

I'd like to propose a motion, but before proposing it formally, I'm presenting it here to get some feedback on it. This is the idea:

This RfAr is over quite a number of possible issues. The only issue that was ripe for arbitration, where WP:DR had actually been followed to the appropriate precedent level, was the specific issue of administrative recusal. If I was in error on that, then my actions with respect to JzG can be seen as unnecessarily disruptive, wearing him down, etc. Combine that with my loquaciousness, my persistence in what I think important, and many other possible faults, it could add up to a problem where some kind of warning or sanction would be appropriate.

On the other hand, if I was correct, that the issue was important and worthy of consideration, up to ArbComm if necessary, then my actions may have been justified, nay, even necessary. Without having a decision first on the question of recusal, we can end up debating very complex issues without having the history of community examination, compilation of evidence, and attempts to resolve short of ArbComm, and this can lead to defective consideration and sometimes poor decisions.

Hence I suggest that ArbComm formally restrict the present case to the issue of JzG recusal, and possible responses or sanctions with respect to that. Then, at the same time, anyone who feels that I've been abusive may start appropriate dispute resolution process with me (which starts below RfC, ideally; but there are some editors who may have laid down the preconditions for RfC already). If there remains an unresolved issue of weight, then it can come back to ArbComm as a case purely about my alleged bad behavior.

Restriction like this should greatly simplify this case, and it might be over quickly if this is done.

Similarly, there are other issues of weight involved now, such as how the blacklist is being used. This has very little to do with JzG and alleged failure to recuse, but it's quite serious enough to merit A/C attention if not resolvable short of that. Again, mixing this up with JzG's issues and my issues will simply confuse the case. None of these matters were mature, ready for A/C consideation. It's tempting to try to get it all resolved at once, but I have years of experience, off-wiki, with consensus process and dispute resolution, and trying to resolve too many conflicts at once is a formula for failure. I'll think about an exact wording, or suggestions are welcome. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I don't think you've done anything particularly wrong. You could completely innoculate yourself, I think, by stating that you agree to abide by the results of this arbitration and not raise the matter again--whether you agree with the results or not.

It is our tradition that once a case reaches arbitration, we deal with all the attached matters. Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've already said that. No harm in saying it again. I agree to abide by the decision of ArbComm. Whether or not that prevents me from raising the issue again, or a similar issue, depends on ArbComm's decision, doesn't it? As to tradition, maybe some of our "traditions" are what prevent certain tenacious problems from being resolved. A much longer-standing tradition, based on centuries of experience, requires that a motion before an assembly deal with one question only, not multiple questions. ArbComm has the authority to determine its own process, that's also based on long, long experience. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting here is that the question of my behavior, the necessity for my defense of it, etc., is dependent on the decision regarding JzG. Not "desysopping," mind you, but simply with regard to the legitimacy of my "complaint" about recusal. Since my behavior wasn't ripe for ArbComm, and could be a quite complex question even without hanging it on the JzG hook, and much of it may not require ArbComm attention and could be dealt with, one way or another, short of ArbComm by ordinary process, I'm suggesting that ordinary process should first be tried for my case. It's not that I'm not willing to face ArbComm, my goal here is truly to be more efficient and for process to come up with cleaner decisions. My behavior has nothing to with whether or not JzG should be censured or sanctioned, I could be truly atrocious and it would not excuse him, and I could be a saint and it certainly would not impeach him. Saints can be wrong. Linking the issues does exactly what should be avoided: editors line up by affiliation, defend their own, attack the "enemy." Look at the evidence presented by Beetstra, it's all over the map. Look at the statements and comments in the RfAr, which raise a host of unrelated behavioral issues; I can't say this about all editors, but I can say that editors with a clear POV history with Cold fusion showed up and presented laundry lists. But I like that long blue chart that was dropped on my Talk page and cited in the RfAr.[1] Way cool.

Yes. If JzG is determined to have acted properly, it would be appropriate to, without opening a new case, deal with the disruptive editors. That would be efficient. However, if JzG screwed up, should I defend, in advance, every time I jaywalked or was "harsh" confronting an admin's behavior? Should I now look over all the comments in the RfAr and find and present evidence defending myself? This, indeed, is chilling, it requires those who address problems with administrative abuse to be saints. No wonder so few are willing to do it!

As to the motion, when it's presented, ArbComm can take it or leave it. They are sovereign over their own process.--Abd (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some advice here, but the situation is beginning to seriously spin out on the Evidence page, and I need to at least present this as a Request of some kind, or else I may need to start responding to massive irrelevancy that includes ABF attacks on me, serious misunderstanding of important issues that are nevertheless not relevant to the central issues here, etc. I may get the form wrong, so all assistance is appreciated. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with NYB that there are thin grounds for pursuing this case. There's no obvious reason why the arbs can't simply say "You know what? We really don't need to deal with this" and throw the whole thing out of court. But if the case continues it needs to examine all aspects of the dispute and the behavior of all involved parties -- a principle that most of the arbs who voted to accept made quite clear and explicit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite's removal

Can we sort this out please? He removed the proposals, now restored by Abd. Hipocrite has now removed his own text, which makes some of us (including me) look like we're arguing with ourselves over imaginary disputes. Can we either restore the comments (struck-through if need be) or remove the sections in their entirety. Without context, the comments of others are pointless. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove your comments. Hipocrite (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, some of us have to read these pages and make decisions based on what they say. What the heck is going on around here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that I was threatened offline with administrative sanction for my workshop proposals, I removed them. Abd was desperate to portray me in a bad light, so he returned them. I removed my name and all my my comments from the section. I am eagerly trying to walk away from this yet another arbcom disaster, but Abd is busy wikistalking me. Have him leave me alone so I can avoid this garbage, like I was so successfully doing for a month. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm blanking the whole section. I'll draw the arbitrators' attention to it via e-mail so it isn't overlooked, but we're not going to have much more of this sort of thing. Incidentally, could someone enlighten us (via e-mail) regarding who threatened you offline with sanctions for making proposals? (Personally, I was not in agreement with the proposals, but that hardly means that a user could be sanctioned for offering them.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted it and asked for strikes (and was in the process of leaving a note here), but I obviously defer to Newyorkbrad. KnightLago (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And I was just leaving you a note on the Clerks' Noticeboard. :) Normally, reverting with strikes would be absolutely the correct reaction. However, in this case, Hipocrite's withdrawal of his support for the proposals left them without any proponent, and they involved an editor (Viridae) who is not even a party to the case. I've e-mailed the complete text of the disputed section to the arbitrators' mailing list so anyone there who disagrees with me about the proposals not being relevant can review them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record (to ensure transparency), the section removed was here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And the most complete version of the section (including all of Hipocrite's comments) was on this version of the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NYB. I agree with the removal of it all, in the end, and my only concern is the continued disruption on the part of Hipocrite; the whole flap about Viridae's alleged violation of the promise not to reverse JzG's actions was created and fomented by Hipocrite,[2], with a first edit in two weeks. While accusing me of wikistalking and various offenses for which evidence is obscure, Hipocrite has, been, since the topic ban of ScienceApologist, stirring up as much shit as he can manage (the editor seems to have identified me as an enemy of SA, which I wasn't), but this RfAr is not the place to address it. TenOfAllTrades picked up on this misapplication of the ArbComm decision and repeated it the next day on the Evidence page. --Abd (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of comments on talk pages

@Hipocrite-- generally, it is best to not remove/alter contents after others have commented in turn. It is best to strike through and comment on the reason for striking. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing of threads

I would like to request that threads not be collapsed. Collapsing makes it impossible to search for key words involving specific points. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept this, though I don't necessarily collapse something I think important enough to be searchable. I'll small-text it. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Small-text is an annoyance to those of us of a certain age, though it may be an acceptable compromise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer collapse as a kind of easy hypertext. Perhaps if you want to search a page where there is collapse, hit edit for the page and search the wikitext? What do others think about this? --Abd (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Too awkward; the reader shouldn't be expected to do something unusual. Just keeping all the text in the usual way would be my preference, but if you want to save space then small text is OK if used sparingly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What would be nice would be a collapse box with an option to "show" when opening the page (as in {{collapse top|default=show}}). You would still have the option to tl;dr it with one click when reading the text, but the page would be searchable. Franamax (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The collapse box is nice because it encourages me to separate my text into two parts: a precis or what's most important, and then extended discussion for the user who is interested in that. I'm not sure I should avoid collapse because of the need of someone to search the page; they can search the whole page if they hit edit the edit tab. (I'm assuming that the editor is using a browser search feature). It would be nice if there was a collapse that makes the text invisible but searchable by browser, I'm sure it could be done. --Abd (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the collapse box template. Glad you like it! Could you put extended discussion here on the talk page, and just reference it with a link? Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Figured this out

I think we have figured this out. Could you arbs please copy Fritzpoll's set of proposals over, do any needed copy editing, and then rubber stamp everything for us? Thank you very much. We all have work to get back to. This case should not be kept open longer than needed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tools, capabilities, principles and admins

1. I sense participants in this proceeding are grappling with some basic "proposed principles" for both use of the blacklist and use of admin tools. I'd like to point out that both the blacklist and "admin bit" are software tools with certain technical capabilities. These capabilities may not always map precisely to principles Arbcomm might enunciate here. I find my self answering "yes, but" as I read read various proposed principles at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop. For example, 98+% of the time, the blacklist is used to block links to sites that have been persistently spammed and are insufficiently unencyclopaedic (even if otherwise interesting) to be of use here. Yet the software tool has capabilities that can sometimes be used to further other interests of the project in implementing our policies and guidelines.
2. Admins do frequently make content decisions, most obviously in deletion decisions. Usually, they're straightforward executions of community consensus as expressed in discussions among what's often fewer than 10 editors. But perhaps 5% of the time, admins are called upon to go against the consensus of these small discussions, overriding discussion results that conflict with the much broader community consensus embodied in our policies and guidelines.
3. Admins may not give a flip about a particular topic but be drawn into protecting an article against systematic abuse and/or editorial disputes. In making hard, controversial decisions, they may appear to have conflicts of interest. For instance, they may take actions seemingly favoring Side A of a conflict, but due to persistently inappropriate behaviour by some editor on Side B. A Side B proponent gets blocked but nobody on Side A gets blocked, but that's just because the Side B guy started calling the Side A editors nasty names; the admin may no personal opinion on the relative merits of arcane 15th century theological positions within Coptic Christianity. Yet, does he have to stop administrating after a few rounds as a result of Side B's perceptions of COI?

I suggest arbitrators may want to make a narrow decision as opposed to setting overly broad precedents with their selection of "principles" in this case.

I have to stop for now; I may tweak this a bit more in a few hours. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid repetition

Much of the current discussion on the workshop page has become repetitious. This makes the page harder to use and contributes to some editors' developing the view that the workshop in general is not a helpful part of the arbitration process. I would ask those editors who have already participated in the workshop extensively to add further comments only if they make new points that have not already been developed. (For what it's worth, I will be reading through the case in greater detail and commenting on various proposals, I hope, this evening.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NYB. It's helpful to have guidance on this. I do have ideas about how to improve workshop process and have started to apply the principles in mini-article RfCs. Briefly, discussion on the TWorkshop page should be separated from the proposals, with the proposer maintaining a summary of the arguments for a proposal, so that, by the time we are done, there is a set of coherent proposals with coherent arguments (and evidence as needed), being the best of each as seen by the proposer. There is then a much tighter body of work for arbitrators to review. That's not the complete idea, for sure.... the community should be preparing, for ArbComm, a consensus report, with all notable views included and covered and unresolved arguments documented. --Abd (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In brief, we know how to edit an article on a topic; we should do similarly with editorial controversies, with the Wikipedia database serving as reliable source, attribution required for anything not accepted by consensus as fact.... there would still be full discussion, but not in the consensus document that would be our community report to ArbComm. As with RfC, sections of the report might have endorsements, though, in my view, a proposal and one independent endorsement by a registered editor (possibly with some restrictions, i.e., > N edits or > length of time registered, or some combination) should be enough to keep it in. A proposal that doesn't get one independent endorsement (classically, a "second,") shouldn't be presented to the Committee, though any arbitrator could pick it up for the Proposed Decision page. We need to start learning from what other organizations have done for centuries.... --Abd (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG admonished over Civility discussion

from Workshop Proposed: JzG is again admonished and instructed to avoid the following:

(i) Uncivil comments to or regarding other editors, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations of bad faith;

(ii) use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute; JzG, having previously been admonished by this Committee with respect to this issue, should be especially cautious in this area and should refer any potential use of administrator tools that may be controversial in this regard to a noticeboard or another administrator;

(iii) Unnecessary involvement in disputes or administrator actions as to which a he may be unable to remain civil and professional or to avoid excessive emotional involvement, provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary;

Alec, you have a longstanding feud with JzG. Why do you seek to involve yourself here? You we're a party to the underlying matters at cold fusion, were you? Whether you realize it or not, you are disrupting this case. Please stop now. Jehochman ^Talk 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

An Apology and an Explanation

Jehochman-- I'm genuinely sorry if I appear to you to be doing nothing more than engaging in some sort of ancient tit-for-tat vendetta. I promise you, I'm not. I contemplated writing a little summation explaining my motivation-- I didn't, but based on your confusion about my motives, I think that was a mistake, and I should have taken the time to type this out.

I involve myself here because I think JzG causes a _lot_ of unnecessary strife, because I truly believe in his ability to adapt, and because I think he is invaluable resource to this project.

It's easy to try to shoot the messenger, but let's be honest-- it's undisputed that JzG has difficulty with civility. He himself is the first to admit this, I think. He recognizes it's an issue, my impression is that it's one he IS working on, and I think he's made real progress. He's doing his part-- now it's up to the rest of us to either help him learn by pointing out when he makes a mistakes, so he can avoid them in the future. Or we can take the easy road, defend him because he is an awesome asset, and turn a blind eye for now-- until one day he does something too egregious to be ignored and has to be desysopped.

I do understand the sentiment that says we should rally round a good friend who's being criticized-- it's a commendable sentiment-- but I personally believe that it's detrimental in the long run. I have confidence that JzG can do better. He's a great member of the team, he fights the good fights, and he just needs our help to call foul when he crossing the line, so that he can see the line a little more clearly.

JzG is a controversial admin who makes mistakes-- that's okay! This _is_ just wikipedia. JzG hasn't done anything truly bad. He hasn't killed anybody, he hasn't tortured anybody, he hasn't robbed anybody. He's made a couple of mistakes, and if we can help him out by pointing out where he went wrong, then he'll go on to become an ever BETTER admin than he already is.

He shouldn't engage in namecalling like "troll" or "don't be a dick" or "you must be autistic". He shouldn't delete comments from the RFC against him, he shouldn't try to have the RFC itself deleted, and he shouldn't just dismiss the comments he gets by calling them "people who have a grudge". He should have asked for help with the Cold Fusion crowd instead of doing it himself.

So he made some mistakes-- These aren't the seven deadly sins! These are misdemeanors that just need to be acknowledged, learned from, and avoided in the future. He doesn't need the death penalty, he needs an inexpensive parking ticket-- he needs the project to point out his mistakes, reiterate that he's expect to avoid these sorts of mistakes, and then we move on.

Instead, out of good intentions, we often do things the other way-- we defend and defend and defend until the behavior is indefensible, and then we suddenly desysop. By the time we get to the end of our collective rope, the desysop is the only thing to do... But it would be far better to intervene at an earlier stage.

The last arbcom decision with JzG seemed to help. If we do our job on this one and point out room for improvement, this arbcom could help even more-- and if we do this one right, maybe there won't ever BE another arbcom for JzG and Civility. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of the present case there will be further arbcoms, etc on JzG until he's de-sysopped or run off the project. There is an identifiable group who despise him implacably. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, all the more reason to help JzG learn to deprive them of ammunition.

Personally, I wish the project culture allowed for no-fault desysopping. Constant battle against unending streams of fringe POVs-- it's no wonder people get exasperated. Michael Jordan is supposedly the greatest basketball player in history-- but even he sat on the bench about one quarter per game. He didn't do anything bad to merit a "punishment" of being benched-- his coaches just recognized that after a certain amount of exhaustion, there were other people on the team who could get the job done a little better.

But, anyway, for better or for worse, desysops are seen a big scarlet letter in the current wikipedia culture, a sentence for wrongdoing rather than a pat on the back for a job well-done. So that's just wishful thinking I guess. Point being is, we can expect Guy to improve or else to take off the admin hat for a while-- but we can't cast stones his direction. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I rather doubt that any of this further process will come from me. There is a group that despises JzG, I'd say SBHB is correct. However, I don't see that this group was doing much beyond, here and there, complaining about this or that action, which is legitimate. I saw such a complaint on Jehochman Talk and made a comment, then JzG responded with what seemed incivility to me (not directed at me), and that caused me to investigate more deeply. If there are editors who strongly dislike him, maybe there is a reason, and maybe it's not that he's done some necessary dirty work. Maybe he's done unnecessary dirty work. What damage, exactly, was ongoing, from the cold fusion information sites he blacklisted? How much disruption was Jed Rothwell causing? How much editor time was being wasted by Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science? If JzG had not blocked the IP editor who made a brief negative comment in his RfC, what sky would have fallen? And compare this with the disruption caused by his insistence on these actions and his continued stonewalling on the question of recusal?

After reams of discussion, newenergytimes.com is delisted. Lenr-canr.org is still listed at meta, blacklistings there are quite tenacious, this is not limited to this case. The delisting request here was closed as moot, but we now have three links whitelisted, and I expect more, and eventually site-wide whitelisting here, followed by a delisting request at meta (and even then meta may refuse, it's not easy to predict). I will note that Durova resigned as an administrator rather than see the disruption of a defended RfAr over what was, in fact, a recusal failure of a subtle kind (private identification of a sock puppet using confidential techniques, and block after private disclosure instead of allowing someone else to make the judgment), and in that case, Durova recognized her error and unblocked within forty minutes. JzG isn't editing at all now. He could have avoided all this massive discussion by a simple comment. I'd say he's showing that he doesn't care if there is disruption, the contrast with Durova is striking. I don't believe in punishing editors for anything, we only protect. But when an admin will not acknowledge error on a serious matter, and recusal failure is serious even when the matter seems minor, I don't see how we have any other reasonable choice except to remove the privileges. JzG must gain an understanding of what involvement and recusal mean, or he cannot be trusted with the tools and, indeed, he will be back here before ArbComm even if all the present "anti-JzG cabal" disappears, because he will create a new one. If he has really learned, as some have claimed, then, why doesn't he simply acknowledge it? --Abd (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion: it might be helpful if Abd returned to namespace editing of uncontroversial subjects. That way he might develop a sense of proportion and a healthier attitude to how this encyclopedia is built. Why is Abd now discussing Durova's resignation, which has nothing at all to do with this case? Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)