Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

  • Blnguyen
  • Charles Matthews
  • FloNight
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jdforrester
  • Jpgordon
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Mackensen
  • Matthew Brown (Morven)
  • Paul August
  • SimonP
  • UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away

  • Flcelloguy
  • Neutrality
  • Raul654

[edit] Concern

Sorry guys, I normally let you get on with things when it comes to decision making but I believe a caution for both parties is excessive here. Swatjester and Miskin were acting in good faith with their actions so IMHO, advice to both parties is better here than a formal reprimand. I could understand if, prior to the month long block, Miskin had been involved in revert warring - but the fact is he hadn't - the previous blocks were from 2005. Swatjester on the other hand, may have been excessive with the month long block - but he took it to AN/I and it seems it was a minor error of judgement rather than re-occurance of previous poor blocks. I really hope you can consider this because otherwise it seem ArbCom are ruling for the sake of ruling. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong in principle with issuing a caution over behaviour which was done in good faith. Plenty of people have done wrong while thinking they were doing right. Sam Blacketer 11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
My gripe is with the Arbitrators' reluctance to comment on the principle of block logs in perpetuity. Nowadays, allusions to a "dirty" log are used against a wikipedian in every sort of dispute. Some of the blocks may be rogue, others may be two- or three-year old, but they still will be used against you to make a facile judgment. Given this attitude, the only solution for some wikipedians is to leave their unfairly "compromised" accounts behind, from time to time, on the model of Khoikhoi and Giano. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making my self active

I'm making myself active on this case. Remain inactive on other cases where I have not voted. FloNight 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed principle #7.2

I've just found this case, as a link was made to the Proposed decision page on a page that was on my watchlist. The link was a direct one to Proposed principle 7.2, rather than to the top of the page. It says:

In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions for an extended period of time.

This may seem slightly stupid, but I'd like it reworded to make it absolutely clear that the "extended period of time" refers to the block and not to the "substantial history of valid contributions". I thought that was the probable meaning, but it only became completely obvious when I looked at #7 and #7.1. If it passes, it will be moved to the main page of this ArbCom case, where the proposals that did not pass will not be seen. ElinorD (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there may be two readings of the above principle, given the background for this case. The Arbitrators hereby sanction off-wiki channels of discussion for short-term blocks, which will lead to further abuse of e-mail correspondence, IRC channels, and administrators' noticeboards for the block shopping. This attitude is eyebrow-raising, to say the least. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to outlaw the discussion of Wikipedia outside Wikipedia you're free to propose such a policy. I think it's been attempted before, without success. Arbitrators don't make policy, and there have been numerous situations in the past where non-public discussion was both prudent and necessary. The obvious implication of the statement is that off-wiki discussion is fine for emergency blocks. That reflects existing practice. In this case, short-term blocks were not at issue and this ruling doesn't talk about them. Furthermore, this ruling explicitly calls for discussion with long-term blocks of established editors; vandalism blocks don't fall under this ruling at all. This also, I think reflects desired practice and the community's wishes. Mackensen (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you for your explanation, Mackensen. I'm alarmed that this principle will be interpreted so as to qualify every trivial complaint as an "emergency situation". We really have to be clear about this, because everyday there are controversial blocks of established contributors without prior on-wiki discussion. An hour ago, User:FayssalF blocked User:Petri Krohn for 72 hours for "tedious editing". I'm struggling to find the relevant on-wiki discussion. We have numerous examples along these lines. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded principle 7.2 to read:

In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking, for an extended period of time, long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions.

I hope this makes it clear that "for an extended period of time" refers to "blocking". Ghirla's concerns above that this principle sanctions "off-wiki channels of discussion for short-term blocks", is unfounded. The principle gives sufficient conditions for on-wiki discussions, not necessary ones. Paul August ☎ 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Some sysop may be beholden unto users over and above their fealty to the project"

I urge the Arbitrators to cast some light on this mysterious phrase. If there is evidence against any of the involved sysops, it should be produced and reviewed on Wikipedia. Otherwise, you deny the accused an opportunity to defend himself against allegations which may turn out to be fraudulent. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I didn't quite get this myself. Maybe it's my English. Can that sentence be clarified please? NikoSilver 12:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what the ArbCom's private mailing list is for: so they can review it and decide amongst themselves, while maintaining the confidentiality of those involved. Maybe you're confusing arbitration with a real-life court of law: the same rules do not apply, nor should they. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this case just be dismissed?

By way of preface, I'm writing here as an least somewhat involved party, so bear that in mind.

It has become apparent to me that this case is no longer serving much of a purpose. The arbitrators would never have accepted a request for arbitration to examine whether a given user broke 3RR in a particular instance, or whether one specific block was excessive. For this reason, I was quite surprised when the arbitrators voted to open the case to begin with. The backdrop to their doing so was the somewhat uncivil discussion on ANI coupled with the serious allegations of "administrators in users' pockets." Yet, none of the proposed principles, findings, or remedies deal with these issues and it seems to be apparent that insufficient evidence has been produced either on- or off-wiki for a majority of the arbitrators to feel comfortable addressing them in this case.

Thus, the draft decision finds that Miskin (and arguably other editors) violated 3RR one day two and one-half months ago, and that the block SWATJester imposed for this infraction was excessive (with the latter I certainly agree), and reminds them both to avoid similar problems in the future. But as I have noted, and as arbitrator UninvitedCompany has observed with regard to SWATJester, this is normally not the stuff of proposals and remedies in an arbitration case. It seems to me that if these users would not have been sanctioned (even with simple admonitions or reminders) but for the presence of allegations that turned out to be unfounded or unproved, then it makes no sense to sanction them anyway simply because the committee went through the time and effort of hearing a case only to conclude that the situation was much less serious than some people initially suspected it to be.

Accordingly, if there are no further developments, the fairest result here may simply be a dismissal of the case with no action taken. Newyorkbrad 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correction of a proposed finding

With regard to UninvitedCompany's proposed finding of fact 1.1, I do not believe that Miskin's sole block in 2006 was for a 3rr violation. Per the block log and discussion on evidence, that block arose from a pagemove issue, and was lifted in under an hour. Miskin's most recent block for 3rr was approximately 17 months before the incident giving rise to this case. Newyorkbrad 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now corrected this. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this. Paul August ☎ 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)