Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 16 June 2010

Questions about procedures

Please place any questions about the specific procedures here. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if the arbitors are going to create a finalized list of questions before evidence begins? Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Furhter, what is to be done about questions which imply the answer? I thought questions were to be neutrally worded. I can certainly change my questions to imply obvious answer, if that was the goal. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversely I'd rather not imply answers. If anyone thinks any of my questions do that I want to know about it, and I will try my best to revise them (or take suggestions on board from others on wording). Please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I found your question "Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should be abrogated?" to be one-sided. A better way of writing that question without assuming the conclusion can be found in my presentation of questions - "How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?" I additionally take issue This with your questions 2, which assumes that such has happened, and question 3, which assumes that such has happened. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well as to Scibaby, I didn't think your question is a substitute, or I wouldn't have asked mine. As to 2, I think the evidence likely to be introduced will do fine at showing that it happened... that's not the point. As I've said before, I do sometimes think that AGW is so dire a threat to mankind that extraordinary measures ought to be taken and some things here changed a bit to deal with the topic area. If so, I'd like that made explicit rather than implicit, though. As to 3, I don't follow your objection, exactly. Could you elaborate? In any case I'm very open to suggested alternate wordings, but the wording needs to address the points I am trying to bring out as needing answering (for example, your sock question is not a substitute for mine as it doesn't address the specific points I think need answering) ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Is SciBaby being dealt with appropriately?"

"Is the editing environment at Global Warming appropriate? If not, is any inapropriatenss mitigated by quality articles?"

"Does the definititon of uninvolved used at CCRE appropriate? If so, does it reflect practice elsewhere? If not, should other practices be changed?"

IE - stop assuming the answer. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take your suggestions on board but I don't think these rewords get at what I'm actually asking. I'm not sure you've an open enough mind. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar, do you see how some of your wordings could be viewed as merely polemic questions designed to get the reader to say "yes, that's right," as opposed to a neutral question that imparts the view of both sides? You state " Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should be abrogated?" How do you think I would ask that question (IE, write for the enemy) I'll give you a hint: "Is the massive disruption caused by Scibaby appropriately dealt with through the plodding RFCU process, and it's archaic "not for fishing," requirements, or are more serious and direct measures required to deal with the persistant disruption?" Same question, except it assumes the opposite starting point. Find a way to write an answerable question, please, as opposed to a polemic. Hipocrite (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop hectoring me, Hipocrite. I have made some modifications, because as I said I would, I took your input on board. My questions were 'answerable' before I started, actually. Do you take input on board as readily? You are not exactly a stranger to writing polemics, you know. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Lar, whatever. Pure as the driven snow, you are. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. You're doing it again. I changed my questions. If you have further comment that's useful and actionable, I'm willing to hear you out, though. I suggest my talk so as not to monopolize this page. But drop the invective, please. We are all of us imperfect. Some of us realise it. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The questions are what you would like to be seen answered in the Committee's decision final decision. It would necessarily behoove you to present evidence directed toward answering your questions, and any that others posted that you feel should be dealt with, as well as eventually give proposals toward those same ends. Posting pointed questions, however tempting, is a foolish idea - the procedures state very clearly that each question should be "one-sentence, neutrally worded." The goal of arbitration is to "break the back" of the dispute at hand. That means answering unanswered questions, clarifying unclear issues, and solving unsolved problems. Pointed or loaded questions don't advance the situation. These questions are not the place to present evidence or argument, and I will remove any that blatantly attempt to do so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow that there is necessarily a need to introduce evidence because a particular question is raised. If the questions I ask admitted easily of evidence, I'd probably just introduce the evidence and then introduce findings in workshop. ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask that you carefully review the following questions, Amorymeltzer:

LHVU 5, Cla68 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Lar 2, 3, 6, Polargeo 1, ATren 1, 2, 3, 4, as they all assume the conclusion, and do not lead to a helpful basis for discussion - they are all either implicitly limiting, or merely polemic questions - asked to get a "yes, obviously," to structure that individual as "right," without actually presenting an issue for contemplation. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd make a slightly different list but agree with your larger point about position statements disguised as questions. Whether and how Arbcom handles this stuff will telegraph much about their intentions regarding the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing that always seems to happen with cases like this, and I probably share some blame for this also, is that the parties start trying to campaign for their side on the case talk pages. I believe the Committee members are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions in the case, and don't need everything that everyone says interpreted for them. Hipocrite and SBHB, just present your evidence and let's get through this. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions vs. Evidence

Speaking of questions that imply answers... Polargeo's question may be more suitable as evidence. I think the matters it queries are adequately covered in other questions, and the rest perhaps ought to be moved? It may be necessary to counsel him about proper decorum in an arbcom case, as I'd hate to see him disenfranchised early. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is perhaps the most obvious of the leading questions, yes. However, there are issues in almost all of the presented questioners. You may wish to review my most recent edit to my questions to see what I'm talking about. In fact, I have not seen a single presentation of questions that was not, at first edit, a list of answers to be questions as opposed to questions to be answered, which is why I'm hopeful that arbcom will state which of the questions are to be adressed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Two of your four points are not even questions, so I'm not sure what you're driving at. Polargeo's "question" prior to revision was full of accusation. And thus full of fail. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your questions remain full of accusations - perhaps more than the now revised Polargeo question, which used to be "the most obvious of the leading questions." Unlike you, however, when presented with deficiencies in my questions, I fix them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fail. But that makes me think of another question, actually. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote myself mere hours ago, Quit it. Both of you are unnecessarily trying to antagonizing each other and taking the others' bait. Going after each other isn't productive and does nobody good. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to separate "Issues for discussion" from "Evidence", then I'd like to suggest that the clerks enforce some sort of decorum. Otherwise it seems like just another venue for venting. I agree that in the majority of the questions/issues presented, it seems like the presenters already have a pretty good idea of the answer they'd like to see. Ronnotel (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory of mind, but as for mine, I don't think I know the answers that ArbCom is likely to give. Else I wouldn't have asked them. Especially the one about GW being so important that we ought to do things differently than normal. I honestly think we should give that idea careful consideration. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure, also, how I would like ArbCom to handle this case and to what findings they make; and I am almost as sure that my wishes will not be fulfilled in every event, and even aware that I may see the reverse of what I want. Of course I know the answers I would prefer, since if I consider these points to be major issues then I am very likely to have an opinion of my own on them (and would wish the conclusions of others to be that of mine). My preferences for a certain result, however, are not the point - my point is that the issues I have voiced I would prefer to have addressed within this case. I would hope that this is the case for all those who have tried to frame questions that address concerns that they feel should be examined within this case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prefering one answer is very different than asking a question designed to get only one answer. My preferred answer to "How do we deal with SciBaby?" is "Ban every SPA who shows up at global warming. If they complain, topic ban them from all Global warming for 6 months. If they survive 6 months of doing something else, apologize." I did not ask "SciBaby is a growing and dangerous threat who has created 600 socks and has inserted purile vandalism into hundreds of articles. Should strong measures be taken to quell this ongoing threat?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Appointing administrators...

This has come up a couple of times, e.g. in JohnWBarber's question. Is this remotely possible? It's not as if we have the problem of a large set of uninvolved admins standing ready to be appointed - on the contrary, we have a small and somewhat inbred group with various degrees of (un-)involvement. ArbCom can only appoint people who volunteer in the first place... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible? I think so. I assume that if ArbCom seriously considers the matter it would (a) privately agree to try to set this up; (b) ask around, privately, to see if it can find some admins willing to do this; (c) make it part of the decision if it has already privately come up with either a definite list or has reason to believe that there are enough admins to do this. We've had quite a few admins step up to do this thankless task already in the past five months. I assume that being appointed by ArbCom to do this difficult task would be a feather in the cap of any admin dumb ambitious enough to want the even greater glory of ArbCom membership or some other elective post. I have no idea why this is satisfying to some people, but apparently there are people willing to do it. I don't see how vandalism patrolling or fixing spelling errors would be fun either, but apparently some do. I've sometimes made mind-numbing edits to " in poetry" articles, and even I don't know why I get some satisfaction out of it. Well, actually, I do: I feel that I'm doing something that will help someone, and I like the final result. I guess that's the reason so many of us occupy ourselves with drudgery here. I'll tell you one thing -- it's a helluva lot more satisfying than bickering, and you can listen to the radio or television while you do it. Although that probably doesn't apply as much to GSCC ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think this would be a good idea if it could be pulled off. If the admins were appointed by Arbcom then presumably everyone would have in mind that Arbcom was watching, which would help keep admins on the straight and narrow while at the same time giving them more implied authority to act. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I think that on most articles, Misplaced Pages does well with a pretty freewheeling way of coming to consensus and working with others. When we get into intractable disputes like this, I'd rather see more authority exerted, as long as it's accountable authority. I expect private conversations between ArbCom members and admins would be very useful in helping admins not repeat some mistakes. ArbCom will get complaints about admins, and if the complaints are public, admins are more likely to take them seriously, wondering if ArbCom members will. Private conversations among admins and arbs are going to be very useful in either reassuring admins or adjusting their behavior or strategies. There will still be plenty of mistakes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to Clerk

In various places I have seen things like "X is to be done within Y days after posting of the case." For the sake of clarity, could these instances be annotated with a specific date and time? For example, "All (evidence, questions, comments, whatever) must be entered by 28 June at 16:47 UTC" or similar wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Does "sanction" in the Workshop guidelines mean any ArbCom action, including "cautioning"?

I assume an ArbCom remedy that "advises" or "cautions" an editor without providing any other remedy is still considered a "sanction". When I use the word "sanction" in my list of subissues, that's what I mean -- essentially "should some ArbCom remedy apply to editor X for this?" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for Arbitrators/Clerks

I could compile a great deal of evidence for this case, depending on which issues ArbCom wishes to focus on. If ArbCom wishes to remove the editors it feels are not contributing to a stable and healthy editing environment, I would compile an assessment of the behavior and editing of the most frequent climate change editors. If, however, ArbCom wishes to address the more fundamental issues that make this area so turbulent, as they did in WP:ARBPIA, then I would have to tailor my evidence accordingly. Which issue should I focus on in my evidence? NW (Talk) 07:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SPOV and other similar arguments

Folks, if you look into the ArcCom documentation, you will see that the SPOV argument and similar arguments that their nominated "experts" are allowed special privileged are doomed to fail. In short, it is a WP:FRINGE view in ArbCom that carriers very little if any weight. Public and civil organizations, that are open to all, generally don't allow such exclusive rights. Misplaced Pages could lose it's non-profit status. I'll save the details for if the arguments proceed; however, I want to provide advanced notice for contributors to read the Arbcom documentation before proceeding. I would like folks to have a fair hearing; however, there may be less frustration if they look at the precedents. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Misplaced Pages could lose it's non-profit status - this is pushing nonsense to new heights William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, It would depend on how "experts" are allowed to harm others by Misplaced Pages. Any organization that allows it's members to harm others is suspect to civil, if not criminal charges. Best not to define harm, until someone feels harmed. Even better to uphold civility above all else. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's feasible for Misplaced Pages to define a class of members based on qualifications; however, that's not the real issue in this dispute (it's a straw man to cover for your behavior). I suspect Misplaced Pages favors growing "newbie" membership (and content) over protecting a "vested" group. Once a class of "vested" contributors appears, well then POV sets in and it's a pain in ass to deal with vested interests within a non-profit model. Especially when there are very little paid staff to handle the high maintenance service that vested folks require. Folks interested in "vesting" members with special rights, would be better off fund-raising or paying memberships fee's to cover their cost for fairly qualifying them as "vested" and enforcing their special rights. Frankly, it nearly impossible to have a non-vested group (Arbs and Admins) appointing rights to "vest" special users, without going to the Board of Directors. This is the wrong forum, plan on the long haul and take it to the Board if you want special status. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that people not respond to this further. There is about a zero percent chance that any action taken on any of these articles will impact the WMF's non-profit status. If anyone had a serious concern about this, as opposed to raising it on the talk page of a workshop page, they'd contact legal. If ArbCom wants to hear more about how these actions might impact the tax status of the foundation, of course, they could communicate with the plebians, who could then present it - but currently, the effects on the tax status are not in the proposed list of issues to be resolved, let alone the final list. Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What SPOV "Expert" rights are being sought?

Well, let's get real then ... Can someone help me understand what special considerations the proposed qualified SPOV "experts" are seeking? How would their credentials be fairly assessed ... verified and validated and rights maintained? Would they like to sustain an edit after a revert war? Would they like to be immune from PA removal? Would they like to control drafting final RFC findings? Would they like to veto an admin block? Would they like to overrule an arbcom finding? Would they like their vested POV to become Misplaced Pages's definition of NPOV? Would they like to increase Misplaced Pages's costs to everone for their new vested services? If Misplaced Pages charges membership fees, does this affect the non-profit status? How would an abusive "expert" be diciplined? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me understand what special considerations the proposed qualified SPOV "experts" are seeking? - none. You have completely failed to understand the argument William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to help, with out focusing me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)