SheriffIsInTown (talk | contribs) →Statement by SheriffIsInTown: Clarify Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
=== Statement by SheriffIsInTown === |
=== Statement by SheriffIsInTown === |
||
Although, I am thankful that {{u|DBigXray}}'s message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of [[WP:Assume bad faith|assumption of bad faith]] in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing [[Siachen Glacier]]", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so [[WP:Assume good faith|assuming good faith]], the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] | [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] | 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by DBigXray === |
=== Statement by DBigXray === |
Revision as of 15:21, 4 October 2018
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Michael Hardy
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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. Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by BeeblebroxThe 2016 committee decided a “reminder” was a sufficient remedy in this case. That reminder has clearly failed to have the desired effect as disruption in this area has continued and taken much time and resources from the community. The remedy reminds Michael Hardy that “Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.” and the finding of fact upon wich this remedy was based, [1] reads, in part, that “(Michael Hardy) has perpetuated the dispute with his own actions. Hardy has assumed bad faith of the editors criticizing his behavior and failed to drop the stick.” If he was failing to drop the stick two years ago, and is still causing disruption in this exact same area even after a full arbitration case by now it must at least be failure to drop a limb or a tree trunk. Here is the recent AN thread [2] a village pump thread [3] and a recent thread at Jimbotalk [4]. Hardy’s talk page and block log also contain relevant material showing that this is part of the same issue as the previous full case. I would suggest that this sort of behavior is unbecoming of an administrator, and for failing to heed this warning, Michael Hardy be removed as an administrator. I would stress that I am not alleging tool misuse but rather a clear, prolonged unwillingness or inability to abide by expected standards of admin behavior, as outlined in the committee’s previous decision. I believe the community has failed itself by not bringing this forward sooner, allowing the committee to sit on it’s hands and do nothing while all this disruption has gone on in project space. (To be clear, I am automatically listed as a party due to filing this request but I have had no involvement whatsoever in the current dispute and cycle of blocking and unblocking. I am including those admins as parties here as I’m sure they will each have their own opinions to proffer) To those who seem to think I wish to re-litigate the recent AN thread and the assosciated blocks: I do not. Whether he shoud have been blocked for his behavior was addressed by the community, and it seems, finally, to have made up its mind. What I am looking to do is assess whether Hardy should still be an admin, which is the exclusive purview of the committee and it has already ruled once on his behavior in this specific topic area and how it reflects on his continued membership in the admin corps. I might have done this sooner but I was camping for the last week and when I came back and saw the drama had continued but it still hadn’t been brought here as it should’ve been. Arbcom doesn’t go looking for cases and requests even if it is well aware of the issues, somebody has to bring it to them, and nobody else seemed like they were going to do it. I may be pressing the word limit now, but in answers to “why now” I would again suggest that this is what should’ve been done to begin with, as there was already a full case on this exact issue. I was unavailable at the time the AN thread was closed and the unblocking occured and looking at the closde thread I was surprised to find that seemingly it hadn’t occured to anyone that this was already Arbcom’s problem since they issued a ruling on this editor’s behavior in this specific topic area previously, and also the issue of conduct unbecoming an admin is not an issue the community is equipped to deal with, only the committee is. His fitness as an editor is not the topic here, only how his behavior reflects on his staus as an admin, which he was explicitly warned about by this committee. Statement by Michael HardyIf I had not been completely blindsided by learning of the existence of the corruption, dishonesty, and bullying that is the dominant behavior of the Administrators' Noticeboards, I would have conducted myself differently in the recent events. However, there is no reason for me to recant or apologize for allegations of dishonesty, corruption, and bullying. And those are accusations, not "personal attacks". There are accusations against me on this present page, and no one is calling those "personal attacks" or "insults". That discrepancy is in itself dishonest. It is a fact that on Administrators' Noticeboards and like venues, there are unstated unadmitted pecking orders, and those who rank high in that unacknowledged system, and their sycophants and other supporters, have de-facto licenses to accuse others without being accused of "personal attacks" or "insults", while others who make accusations of the same kinds, myself obviously included, are accused of "personal attacks" and when making assertions that are factually correct or factually incorrect and that are in fact accusations. And that situation does not scratch the surface of the deep corruption in such forums. I don't even have any idea how to collect sycophants and it has never occurred to me to wish to do so, but as we see, some are masters of that art. One thing I find disturbing that I have not yet commented on is an exchange with Alex Shih. I said that nobody had attempted to explain why allegations are not libelous, that say that the only reason why professors at respected universities use the standard terminology of their fields in public is to create a false impression of legitimacy. Alex Shih responded that many people had explained that to me. When asked for diffs, he linked to the very page on which many had refused to explain that, plus a page on which another user, Guy Macon, had asserted that meetings at which professors present their research findings to each other are "unquestionably highly lucrative", at best an implausible statement, and therefore those professors are dishonest. I can only wonder if Alex Shih was paying attention to what he wrote. (I actually suspect Guy Macon of honesty, which his followers seem to lack, since he was willing to attempt to give some comprehensible reason for his position. But he has not found out that meetings at which professors present their research findings to each other are not the same thing as marketing fad diets to the public, nor that such meetings are a standard practice among academics.) Possibly I will file an ArbCom case, but that may be too expensive. I will probably want to be advise in the matter by counsel who is thoroughly familiar ArbCom proceedings. This is an important matter. If I do that, I may or may not include some mention of the I asked "NewYorkBrad" in an email if there is some rational grounds for confidence in the integrity and competence of the Arbitration Committee. Some time later he has not replied. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SarekOfVulcanStatement by JzGIs this a "live case or controversy"? I thought it had finally died down? Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ritchie333My thoughts are as follows:
I don't have any strong opinions on what to happen next, but this is simply the current state of affairs as I see it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by SwarmMichael Hardy was indefinitely blocked for, essentially, repeatedly complaining about a group of editors who responded to a complaint he made here, and refusing to drop the stick about it. For reasons I explained in my assessment here and here, the treatment MH received was very unfair and problematic, so much so that I apologized to him on behalf of AN. Myself and a group of other admins eventually negotiated an unblock in which Michael agreed to not bring it up anymore. We let him have the last word, and he appears to have moved on since then, with no further issues. I have no idea why someone would try to rehash this all now, days after the situation had been reasonably resolved. There was no significant offense here, just some very human righteous indignation.
Statement by SchroCatBeeblebrox, I’m only passing through, having seen the link elsewhere, so I can’t comment on the situation here, but I think I’m right in saying that little will happen without diffs to show the behaviour you outline. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by FloqThis seems like picking at a fresh scab, Beeb. I'd have waited to see what happens now that the recent troubles appear to have died down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Paul AugustNo. Michael Hardy validly complained about AN/ANI, refused to stop complaining about AN/ANI, and was blocked by AN/ANI. Perhaps instead AN/ANI ought to be "reminded". Paul August ☎ 22:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DaveI absolutely agree Micheal should be desysopped for their behaviour but the drama's died down and they've finally dropped the stick so in my eyes the best course of action would be to leave them be and if they start again then Arb is (or should be) the first port of call. I just don't see the point in rehashing it all out again. –Davey2010Talk 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by AlanscottwalkerThis is a model of poor AN behavior, and it is so because of the ad hominem of which Michael Hardy was the victim, in the form of 'Because it is you, Michael Hardy . . .'. So, it is AN that is in need of reminding that WP:CIV explicitly seeks to prevent bringing up the past in such a manner ("it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Black KiteYes, Michael should have been desysopped during the period of chaos that resulted from his persistent personal attacks on other editors (his actions were clearly not in keeping with anyone who holds advanced permissions), but this seems like a strange time to be bringing a case now, when everything has died down and Michael has promised not to repeat his actions. Obviously, if such editing were to reoccur, a desysopping would be a slam dunk, but I'd like to think that we'd give someone a chance to show they can carry on with their (obviously positive) editing without such an issue happening again. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Alex ShihOut of the blue, Michael Hardy blanked the AfD ([5]) that hasn't been edited since 2016 (the one that initiated the arbitration case in 2016), and re-litigated their argument from two years ago at M. A. Bruhn's talk page ([6]) who hasn't edited since December 2016, and also left a similar message to Orangemike ([7]), who started the AfD in question two years ago. The behaviours of some editors at the noticeboard was certainly hostile and troubling, but to completely ignore how the thread originated, the conduct of Michael Hardy, and the context of this entire situation is also not correct I think. In conclusion, the point that the issue would have gone away if people simply left Michael Hardy alone is not entirely correct when considering the subsequent development.While the AfD question has been resolved, what I think the points Beeblebrox are raising is that 1) The original remedies has proven to be inadequate, and should be updated with motion 2) Similar to the Andrevan case request, the fact there weren't misuse of tools is irrelevant as that is not the only aspect of adminship covered by the requirements of accountability. The fact that a case wasn't brought forward should not be a justification that there were no merits for a case, rather the lack of editors who are capable of bringing such a case, involving many bizarre and unusual aspects, correctly. While the timing has indeed passed and nothing can really be done anymore, the fact that ADMINACCT and some arbitration remedies are so inconsistently or selectively enforced (like in this case), and avoiding to tackle the core of a problem that would more than likely to re-surface, are not some of the principles that should be upheld. While regular editors should walk away from the timesink, this is the kind of job that Arbcom needs to do. Alex Shih (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Statement by JohnuniqSince the fuss, MH has edited 38 articles and one DYK and has made no mention of the excitement that I can see. Picking at the scab is most undesirable. There has been no suggestion that admin tools have been misused so removing them would be pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Boing! said ZebedeeAs one who was trying to de-escalate the latest fracas, I simply want to offer my opinion that Ritchie333's statement is an accurate and fair account of what happened, and his opinion that "A significant amount of disruption and drama would go away if people just left Michael alone" is sound. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by SeraphimbladeI think "staleness" can matter in some cases. The crucial distinction that I think exists here is that Michael Hardy is not accused of any misuse of the admin tools, nor is there any substantial cause for concern that he will abuse them going forward. This is, rather, just a "conduct unbecoming" case (and having looked at what happened, Michael Hardy is not the only one whose conduct was not the greatest). If Michael (and everyone else) really will drop the matter, then it's over with and nothing further is needed. If he doesn't intend to do that, desysopping won't prevent him from raising it again anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPantsI was one of the parties in the case referenced. I'm of the opinion that the way MH was handled most recently was the best way to do it: When he throws a fit about something, block him until he agrees to stop throwing a fit about it, then unblock him so he can continue editing. This is, IMHO, an editor who's behavior needs managing, but who contributes quite usefully to the project. So let's just handle the behavior and let him keep contributing. Note that my value judgement of the behavior would read very differently, but since we're not here to teach adulting lessons, we should focus on what helps the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by David TornheimI commend Michael Hardy for speaking the truth about the double-standards and other serious long-standing problems at Wikipedia at Jimbo's page, even if he goes overboard with hyperbole. The numerous attempts to silence him (via multiple A/N and ArbCom filings, warnings, and blocks) for raising legitimate concerns is sickening: It confirms exactly what he has been saying about bullying--bullying to silence him. His accusers can run circles around him with filings like this taunting him and and provoking him into restating his concerns about being bullied, but somehow that is okay. He did, in fact, promise to stop talking about these problems--something he should never have been required to do. I see the opening of this ArbCom amendment as an open invitation for him to restate his concerns about the double-standards. I agree with those who have stated that there are problems on "both sides". If we can agree on that, we might get somewhere. What we need is more uniform application of civility rules, which I did see with a recent revert and block by Boing!_said_Zebedee. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Michael Hardy: Clerk notes
Michael Hardy: Arbitrator views and discussion
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.
|
Clarification request: ARBIPA topic ban clarification
Initiated by Ivanvector at 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- SheriffIsInTown (among others) topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan"
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- diff of notification SheriffIsInTown
- diff of notification DBigXray
Statement by Ivanvector
I am seeking clarification on whether the article on the geographical feature Siachen Glacier is covered by the scope of the aforementioned sanction in its entirety because it contains a section describing the Siachen conflict (actually two sections) which itself is a dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in response to DBigXray posting a note ([8]) to SheriffIsInTown that their semi-automated filling of a reference within the description of the conflict ([9]) was a violation of their topic ban, which they acknowledged and self-reverted ([10]). While nobody here disagrees that this specific edit was strictly a topic ban violation, I've been challenged on my interpretation ([11]) that hypothetical constructive edits to the significant portions of the article which do not concern the conflict would not violate this sanction, and so I am seeking clarification on that point.
I'd also like to point out that I restored the ref-fill edit as it was clearly constructive. I was then referred to the "banned means banned" section of the banning policy, which does not state that edits made in violation of a ban must be reverted; on the contrary it states that "obviously helpful changes ... can be allowed to stand". And I'd also like to draw the reviewers' attention to an essentially concurrent discussion ([12]) in which another editor was sanctioned for attempted frivolous enforcement of this same decision. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Cameron11598: thank you, that was a silly omission on my part. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SheriffIsInTown
Although, I am thankful that DBigXray's message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of assumption of bad faith in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so assuming good faith, the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DBigXray
Statement by Fetchie Mankala
I think that in this case, the entire article is subject to ARBCOM rulings. It's clear from looking at it that the conflict is more than a mere mention in this article.
Statement by Thryduulf
Before I looked at the article I was expecting to opine that the parts of the article related to the geographical/geological/environmental/etc aspects of the glacier would be fine to edit. However, after having read the article it seems that everything is intimately tied up with the conflict, or its origins, history or effects. I would recommend topic banned users give this article a miss in its entirety.
Ivanvector is correct though regarding reinstating the self-reverted edit. WP:PROXYING is the relevant policy here - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." [emphasis in original]. The edit in question was clearly productive, and there is no suggestion that it was performed at the direction of anyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WBG
I do not have an affinity for boundary-testing-experiments but IMO, if Sheriff can manage to edit the article excluding anything tangential to the conflict, there's no problem.
The entire second paragraph of lead, etymology-section and drainage-section ought not be any related to the conflict.
I would advise against the seemingly-innocent section of Environmental issues courtesy that they are caused by the presence of forces et al, which links up to the conflict.
The rest of the sections are a clear-red-zone.
I concur with Ivan's restoration and commend him for rising above petty process-wonkery. Whilst I agree that this particular edit violated Sheriff's T-Ban, I don't have any idea as to why DBigXray asked for a revert; a plain note of caution would have been sufficient.∯WBGconverse 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Adamgerber80
I agree with the current action taken by Ivanvector and believe that this was a constructive edit. IMO, as long as we are here, there is an issue with this topic ban from the point of view of it's scope. Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the ban or trying to dig into the reasons behind it. My intention here is to clearly list what is allowed and what is not allowed under this topic-ban, for the sake of the editors who are under the ban and other editors who edit in the general area. When the ban was crafted there was some degree of ambiguity to it (not certain if that was deliberate or not) which has led different administrators to derive different interpretations from it and impose it per their view. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to maybe make a small list of gray areas to remove procedural overhead of people reporting each other and leading to more discussions. I would present two scenarios which happened recently because of the aforementioned ambiguity. There was a WP:ANI discussion about an editor who was involved in the area and some editors who participated in the discussion were briefly banned since this was considered a violation of their topic ban. Another scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion where there was a discussion about inclusion/exclusion of countries (along with India and Pakistan). I don't have a strong opinion in either of these cases or other gray areas but feel listing no-go zones and okay zones might be easier for all of us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- @Ivanvector:, just a heads up I added the diffs of your notifications for you. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: no problem! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Arbitrator views and discussion
- General comment: I should know better to ask this after almost nine years on the ArbCom, but is it altogether impossible for common sense to govern this sort of question? My thanks to those who have already employed this underutilized dispute-resolution tool. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- We run into this issue quite a bit and may times where the intent is not innocent. In those cases, we have taken a hard line stance on the wording of "broadly construed", especially if it is apparent the editor in question has difficulty disengaged and continuously tests the waters. In this case, broadly construed was also used in the discretionary sanction and editors were expressly warned that "testing of the edges of the topic ban are likely to be met with either an indefinite IPA topic ban or an indefinite block". That being said, it appears the intent was accidental and SheriffIsInTown immediately reverted their actions once they were notified. No block was issued and I think it was handled reasonably well by both involved. We allow administrators to rely their judgement when enforcing discretionary sanctions on a case-by-case basis. In this case a notification was a measured and appropriate response. Mkdw talk 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- As Mkdw says, this is an issue which comes up a lot. Technically if the edit has absolutely nothing whatsoever (note the broadly construed) to do with the conflict between the two countries then it would be okay. However, administrators and the Committee have taken a fairly hard line in interpreting what is and what is not covered by a sanction. There are a number of things which need to be considered when determining whether an edit is a violation of a sanction and what, if any, action should be taken, these include the history of the editor and sanction, conflict on the article in the past, what exactly is edited and what, if discernible, the intent of the edit was. In this case, I believe that the correct action was taken and nothing more needs to be done. SheriffIsInTown reverted their edit when they where alerted that it might be a violation of the topic ban rather than fight about it (which is another factor in deciding what to do). Looking at the article, I believe that it would be difficult to edit much of it without the edit being at least tangentially related to the India-Pakistan conflict so it would be best to not edit the article at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)