→Bookkeeping: re. Colin |
|||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
* FoF 4 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#CFCF]] specifically links to my evidence at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#CFCF]]. That section contains a faulty link. I asked on talk if that link could be corrected at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Comments by SandyGeorgia]]-- before the case closed-- and received no answer. Could someone advise if the link can or will be corrected (and why no answer was given on case talk pages)? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
* FoF 4 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#CFCF]] specifically links to my evidence at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#CFCF]]. That section contains a faulty link. I asked on talk if that link could be corrected at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Comments by SandyGeorgia]]-- before the case closed-- and received no answer. Could someone advise if the link can or will be corrected (and why no answer was given on case talk pages)? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
* FoF 5 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Colin]], Joe Roe cast the deciding vote, and specifically mentioned Bluerasberry's evidence, which-- as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop&diff=956197479&oldid=956194206 explained by WAID here]-- are words extracted from a page by a computer program without context, using a well-rejected methodology known as [[tone policing]]. There were multiple examples of such diffless "evidence". And yet Joe Roe later indicated that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision&diff=960496875&oldid=960496316 he wasn't aware what was being referenced,] when his vote was a deciding point in a finding about a productive editor. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
* FoF 5 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Colin]], Joe Roe cast the deciding vote, and specifically mentioned Bluerasberry's evidence, which-- as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop&diff=956197479&oldid=956194206 explained by WAID here]-- are words extracted from a page by a computer program without context, using a well-rejected methodology known as [[tone policing]]. There were multiple examples of such diffless "evidence". And yet Joe Roe later indicated that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision&diff=960496875&oldid=960496316 he wasn't aware what was being referenced,] when his vote was a deciding point in a finding about a productive editor. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
::This isn't quite an accurate summary. Tryptofish asked me a question about a specific piece of "information about automated word recognition". Since there was no link I asked him to clarify what information that was. The case was closed before he could respond, but we followed up at [[User talk:Joe Roe#Your question to me]]. In retrospect I don't think I misunderstood anything about Bluerasberry's comment and wouldn't change my vote. To reiterate that vote, the only conclusion I drew from the cited evidence was that {{tq|Colin has at times commented on the contributor rather than the content of a dispute}}. Is that in any way in doubt? – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* FoF 6 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Doc James]] states that "Doc James (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit-warred[53][54] to add or retain pricing information in articles", but the diffs point to evidence of edit warring that goes well beyond "pricing information".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952310800#Case_study:_Schizophrenia,_James_editwars_with_senior_editors_and_content_experts] Could the arbs please explain why evidence of extensive edit warring was diffed in the finding, and yet the finding was restricted to only drug pricing? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
* FoF 6 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Doc James]] states that "Doc James (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit-warred[53][54] to add or retain pricing information in articles", but the diffs point to evidence of edit warring that goes well beyond "pricing information".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence&oldid=952310800#Case_study:_Schizophrenia,_James_editwars_with_senior_editors_and_content_experts] Could the arbs please explain why evidence of extensive edit warring was diffed in the finding, and yet the finding was restricted to only drug pricing? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
* At [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages]], no clerk or arb responded directly to my question about referred pages in userspace, although David Fuchs did say that referred pages did not need to be moved. I entered several referred pages as evidence, and now am being requested to delete them.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=960764702#User:SandyGeorgia/Response_to_Trypto_diffs] It would have been helpful to have been told I needed to subst the evidence at the time the question was asked on talk. Is the old finding referenced by Jo-Jo on my talk still accurate, and considering that I did not receive an answer from a clerk or arb about referred pages, is a courtesy blanking necessary? Deleting the pages will remove evidence, which seems counter-productive and not helpful, particularly after no arb or clerk answered my question about referred pages, and David Fuchs' answer to Colin left the clear impression they were not a problem. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
* At [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages]], no clerk or arb responded directly to my question about referred pages in userspace, although David Fuchs did say that referred pages did not need to be moved. I entered several referred pages as evidence, and now am being requested to delete them.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&oldid=960764702#User:SandyGeorgia/Response_to_Trypto_diffs] It would have been helpful to have been told I needed to subst the evidence at the time the question was asked on talk. Is the old finding referenced by Jo-Jo on my talk still accurate, and considering that I did not receive an answer from a clerk or arb about referred pages, is a courtesy blanking necessary? Deleting the pages will remove evidence, which seems counter-productive and not helpful, particularly after no arb or clerk answered my question about referred pages, and David Fuchs' answer to Colin left the clear impression they were not a problem. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:37, 5 June 2020
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)
- Original announcement
- First, I would like to thank the arbs for this motion. Second, it is quite possible that we soon start getting questions similar to ARBPIA: which articles are eligible, and who may add notices at talk pages. Should we assume that the answers to these questions are the same as ARBPIA4?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- My thanks to the arbs as well. I'm cautiously hopeful this will help. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since World War II in Poland is generally considered to have started in 1939, I just wanted to ask: was "1933-1945" intentional or a typo? Nyttend backup (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- It was the original scope of the Antisemitism in Poland restriction, but also matches the sanctions from WP:ARBGWE scope, which was 1932-1945. I proposed the wording on the ARBGWE sanction that defines it 1932-1945, and the reason for that was to broadly define the WW2 era to include anything involving the Nazi German government, its rise to power, and the war. It's very difficult to talk about the history of Europe in the 1930s without the context of what happened 1939-1945, and I think Wikipedia using a broad definition of 1932/33-1945 is likely a good way to handle it. Basically you can think of it as The World War II era or The Nazi era. The events of that terrible period in human history were set in motion in the early 1930s, and it's very difficult to understand the events of the War without understanding the decade prior. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Feedback
I left some feedback to ArbCom here on the PD talk page: [1], but I think it's worth repeating two points here. First, the decision to eliminate word count and diff count limits was an experiment that should not be repeated. (No problem with the normal practice of extending limits on individual request, case-by-case.) Some editors just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, and there was too much tit-for-tat. Also, too many editors used the evidence page to post opinion essays instead of evidence with diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- yep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Topic continued in #Bookkeeping, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Adminship and sanctions
I agree with Beeblebrox's concern mentioned under "Comments:" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Doc_James_restricted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree (although I think it's more of a comment than a concern). No prejudice on regaining at RfA, but I firmly believe that any sysop who "needs" an editing restriction should be reevaluated for community trust. I imagine this would make ArbCom less likely to place editing restrictions on sysops, which is not a good outcome, so I can't quite square those two beliefs, but I do agree. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would actually prefer that ARBCOM be willing to sanction admins without desysopping them. It's critical to remember that admins are humans and are not perfect; certainly, there have been administrators who've made misjudgements severe enough to require a desysop, but there's been others who have exhibited a single blind spot where their judgement is impaired. We should be willing to recognize that those folks can still be a net positive with the tools. Desysopping any admin for behavior worthy of a sanction risks further inflating our standards for adminship. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- +1, Vanamonde. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would actually prefer that ARBCOM be willing to sanction admins without desysopping them. It's critical to remember that admins are humans and are not perfect; certainly, there have been administrators who've made misjudgements severe enough to require a desysop, but there's been others who have exhibited a single blind spot where their judgement is impaired. We should be willing to recognize that those folks can still be a net positive with the tools. Desysopping any admin for behavior worthy of a sanction risks further inflating our standards for adminship. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
QuackGuru's topic ban
- The evidence[2] does not match the remedy.[3] User:Bluerasberry pointed out there is an evidence-remedy mismatch. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_bluerasberry. No editor or admin responded to the concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- (Is it all right to do subsections here? Please just remove my header if it's not.) QuackGuru's topic ban from "articles relating to medicine, broadly construed" seems very broad. The finding of fact concerns drug pricing and e-cigs (and, glancingly, Judeo-Christian articles, but those are obviously not in question here). He's surely a useful editor in medicine-related articles generally. See also this comment by Bluerasberry. Would any arb like to indicate why the ban isn't from drug pricing and e-cigs rather than medicine generally? @Newyorkbrad:? Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC).
- Speaking for myself: the narrower a topic ban is the harder it is to enforce. Since the work of enforcing it is almost never actually done by ArbCom, I try to avoid burdening AE-patrolling admins and the community in general with the responsibility of micromanaging another editor's conduct. The evidence showed that QuackGuru has been disruptive within the medicine topic and that similar conduct in other topics was enough to get him topic banned and blocked. A topic ban from medicine is therefore proportional because no editor is irreplaceable. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the premise behind WP:YANI but I never thought I would ever see an arbitrator cite that as a supporting tenet for an imposed remedy. No opinion either way about it, just a bit surprised.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, yeah; WP:YANI gets on average one view a week. And I'm not of the ilk that says "That's just an essay so can be ignored": some essays are treated almost as de facto policy, after all. ——Serial # 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's an excellent essay, and is often in my mind when we're asked to weigh the productivity of an editor against disruption they cause (which is often). A similar sentiment is expressed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Sanctions_and_circumstances, which has been part of many previous ArbCom decisions. – Joe (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, yeah; WP:YANI gets on average one view a week. And I'm not of the ilk that says "That's just an essay so can be ignored": some essays are treated almost as de facto policy, after all. ——Serial # 12:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the premise behind WP:YANI but I never thought I would ever see an arbitrator cite that as a supporting tenet for an imposed remedy. No opinion either way about it, just a bit surprised.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: I was recused in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- As someone who patrols AE, a very wide topic ban actually makes it more difficult for admins at AE. To use this example, it is very obvious to work out if an editor is breaking a topic ban on e-cigs or drug pricing, whereas a ban from a really vague area like "medicine" means there are going to be thousands of edge cases. And in this case, whilst something like Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes is obviously covered by a medicine topic ban, one could argue that the main Electronic cigarette article actually isn't. And certainly e-cig related articles like Vape shop or Flavored tobacco? Not covered, as far as I can see. Given that one of the loci of the dispute was e-cigarettes, this seems like a shoddy remedy. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The broad topic ban was because QuackGuru keep demonstrating themselves unable to edit and collaborate constructively in contentious topics, and as such medical articles are best done without him. The argument in the workshop against removing him entirely from these topics is "but those are the only topics QuackGuru edits", which seems to me the entire problem right there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- My point was though that by only imposing the broad topic ban on medicine, ArbCom has actually failed to topic ban QG from many of the articles related to the the actual dispute that was being dealt with, because they're not covered by it. In just QG's last 100 edits, I see Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette), Construction of electronic cigarettes, Pax Labs, Juul, Heated tobacco product and so on. These are not medical topics. One could even argue that large parts of articles like Nicotine aren't even covered. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's not unlike any other controversial topic area ranging from GG to GMO to AP2. I'm well aware of indef t-bans that were issued for much less, and the decision was made to make it broadly construed because it becomes too difficult to unravel the complexities of what applies to the t-ban and what doesn't. Like politics, medicine is everywhere. Atsme Talk 📧 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- There's already sanctions in the e-cigs area. If Quack runs afoul of those again, he'll be blocked (again). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- The broad topic ban was because QuackGuru keep demonstrating themselves unable to edit and collaborate constructively in contentious topics, and as such medical articles are best done without him. The argument in the workshop against removing him entirely from these topics is "but those are the only topics QuackGuru edits", which seems to me the entire problem right there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself: the narrower a topic ban is the harder it is to enforce. Since the work of enforcing it is almost never actually done by ArbCom, I try to avoid burdening AE-patrolling admins and the community in general with the responsibility of micromanaging another editor's conduct. The evidence showed that QuackGuru has been disruptive within the medicine topic and that similar conduct in other topics was enough to get him topic banned and blocked. A topic ban from medicine is therefore proportional because no editor is irreplaceable. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Didn't QuackGuru completely abstain from the case despite being unblocked so he could participate? More than anything, he could have shown he can actually listen and work with other editors. Now it's spilt milk. --Pudeo (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- When I spent time to really examined QG's history I was surprised at what I found. I feel like if a case had been brought against QG specifically, and I would argue such a case would have been likely to be accepted had it been brought given the numerous efforts stretching back years to address disruptive behavior, that a single topic ban would have been among the mildest outcomes ArbCom could have imposed. I think QG benefitted from being a small part of a larger case and also from their tactical decision to not participate in the case despite being unblocked in order to do so. I didn't comment about this at the PD phase despite thinking about doing so because this topic ban seemed, again, the mildest such remedy for QG and I am not "out for blood" against an editor who has given so much and done a lot in fighting "woo" on Wikipedia. So I have no issue with this remedy, as I'd have had no issue with more severe remedies, and hope QG can find productive ways to edit going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Bookkeeping
- FoF 4 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#CFCF specifically links to my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#CFCF. That section contains a faulty link. I asked on talk if that link could be corrected at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Comments by SandyGeorgia-- before the case closed-- and received no answer. Could someone advise if the link can or will be corrected (and why no answer was given on case talk pages)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- FoF 5 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision#Colin, Joe Roe cast the deciding vote, and specifically mentioned Bluerasberry's evidence, which-- as explained by WAID here-- are words extracted from a page by a computer program without context, using a well-rejected methodology known as tone policing. There were multiple examples of such diffless "evidence". And yet Joe Roe later indicated that he wasn't aware what was being referenced, when his vote was a deciding point in a finding about a productive editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't quite an accurate summary. Tryptofish asked me a question about a specific piece of "information about automated word recognition". Since there was no link I asked him to clarify what information that was. The case was closed before he could respond, but we followed up at User talk:Joe Roe#Your question to me. In retrospect I don't think I misunderstood anything about Bluerasberry's comment and wouldn't change my vote. To reiterate that vote, the only conclusion I drew from the cited evidence was that
Colin has at times commented on the contributor rather than the content of a dispute
. Is that in any way in doubt? – Joe (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't quite an accurate summary. Tryptofish asked me a question about a specific piece of "information about automated word recognition". Since there was no link I asked him to clarify what information that was. The case was closed before he could respond, but we followed up at User talk:Joe Roe#Your question to me. In retrospect I don't think I misunderstood anything about Bluerasberry's comment and wouldn't change my vote. To reiterate that vote, the only conclusion I drew from the cited evidence was that
- FoF 6 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Doc James states that "Doc James (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit-warred[53][54] to add or retain pricing information in articles", but the diffs point to evidence of edit warring that goes well beyond "pricing information".[4] Could the arbs please explain why evidence of extensive edit warring was diffed in the finding, and yet the finding was restricted to only drug pricing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages, no clerk or arb responded directly to my question about referred pages in userspace, although David Fuchs did say that referred pages did not need to be moved. I entered several referred pages as evidence, and now am being requested to delete them.[5] It would have been helpful to have been told I needed to subst the evidence at the time the question was asked on talk. Is the old finding referenced by Jo-Jo on my talk still accurate, and considering that I did not receive an answer from a clerk or arb about referred pages, is a courtesy blanking necessary? Deleting the pages will remove evidence, which seems counter-productive and not helpful, particularly after no arb or clerk answered my question about referred pages, and David Fuchs' answer to Colin left the clear impression they were not a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The sum of these questions is that communication could be improved, and there were multiple indications that not all arbs were reading the pages or the evidence. Perhaps ArbCom will review its procedures relating to necessary recusals, so that editors asking for recusal do not risk becoming the target of reprisal.
There were around a dozen indications that arbs had not read the evidence or the case pages. Can we expect some internal ArbCom reckoning? If so, I will post my list of the astounding instances of statements made on case pages that clearly indicate parties were not reading the case pages.
Is there an explanation for there not being more active clerking of the case pages, including answers to queries on talk, and removal of diffless allegations? In this ArbCase, a finding about an editor is entered with the arb casting the deciding vote clearly stating they were not aware of the problems with the evidence.
An Arbcase should help end or contain extended disputes that the community cannot resolve, but there are so many loose ends here that I fear that just the opposite will occur. The Principles are not reflected in Findings of Fact or remedies (like reminders), the basic bookkeeping has inconsistencies, and problems may fester as a result. Could the arbs explicitly let me know-- since I did not receive an answer when I asked six weeks ago-- what is the consensus now on referred pages? And since the impression six weeks ago was that they were fine, should the text now be retroactively inserted so the evidence is not blanked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding linking to other pages, did you link to a specific version? If so, the link will continue to point to the text you were referring to at that time. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Which is what I was told at the time, but now I am being asked to delete those pages. Which means diffless aspersions which were cast at me get to remain on the page, while I am expected to delete my response. I would like for the arbs to help resolve this dilemma, since they apparently were not responding to talk page queries during the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages, you asked about linking to subpages of Colin's user page as evidence. If you had asked about analysis that you documented in subpages of your own user page, then I would have advised including it directly on the workshop page, as per standard practice. (Evidence of things that happened can be pointed to; analysis is new and should be part of the case pages.) isaacl (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not really; Colin asked about his pages. I asked "what happens in the future vis-a-vis arb archives, when evidence is stored in user space?" and indicated that "I also need to build some lengthy evidence in my user space (if I can ever get the WMFLabs tools to cooperate)". I got NO answer from any arb or clerk. End result is that aspersions that were cast at me get to stand on the page, multiple pages, multiple instances, no diffs, but now it appears that my responses may be deleted, along with a lot of evidence in the case (that was possibly never read). If arbs did not even read User:SandyGeorgia/Dyslexia GA diffs, it is no wonder they did not have an FoF of coordinated editing. Reading the evidence helps, and it appears they may not have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- I went back and looked at the Dyslexia GA page in this context. What I think is of little importance, but I can imagine a scenario in which Arbs did read it, and were just not persuaded. So I'd also be interested in having a direct reply from Arbs about Sandy's points. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Further, I think it's just the way that arbitration works, that case pages end up having negative assertions about editors on them, not all of which are true. If ArbCom does not include those assertions in the final decision as findings of fact, then there is a presumption that the editors who were criticized may not really have been at fault. There is no assumed need for it all to be refuted. And it would be rather strange to go back and scrub all the case pages of every negative assertion that was made. But pages in userspace that specifically focus on assertions of editor wrongdoing really do fall under WP:POLEMIC and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Deletion of evidence sub-pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Although I think a temporary exception would be made if there is still going to be dispute resolution about the content of those pages, along the lines of "ArbCom got it wrong", per what WP:POLEMIC says about timely use. But not beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I re-read that conversation too quickly. Yeah, the development of new text on a user subpage should just be a place to draft; standard practice is to put all new text on the case pages. I suggest to the arbitrators and clerks that the text be moved appropriately. isaacl (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not really; Colin asked about his pages. I asked "what happens in the future vis-a-vis arb archives, when evidence is stored in user space?" and indicated that "I also need to build some lengthy evidence in my user space (if I can ever get the WMFLabs tools to cooperate)". I got NO answer from any arb or clerk. End result is that aspersions that were cast at me get to stand on the page, multiple pages, multiple instances, no diffs, but now it appears that my responses may be deleted, along with a lot of evidence in the case (that was possibly never read). If arbs did not even read User:SandyGeorgia/Dyslexia GA diffs, it is no wonder they did not have an FoF of coordinated editing. Reading the evidence helps, and it appears they may not have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages, you asked about linking to subpages of Colin's user page as evidence. If you had asked about analysis that you documented in subpages of your own user page, then I would have advised including it directly on the workshop page, as per standard practice. (Evidence of things that happened can be pointed to; analysis is new and should be part of the case pages.) isaacl (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Which is what I was told at the time, but now I am being asked to delete those pages. Which means diffless aspersions which were cast at me get to remain on the page, while I am expected to delete my response. I would like for the arbs to help resolve this dilemma, since they apparently were not responding to talk page queries during the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- So, we probably need to talk about this. In this arbitration case, the committee decided to try something new and lift word limits entirely. What we hoped by doing that was that people would present evidence more clearly, and that diffs would be accompanied by context, quotations, and analysis to make it easier to understand. While that certainly happened, we also ended up with vast quantities of evidence that was less relevant to the actual substance of the case. Even more problematic was the fact that so much evidence was submitted that it was overwhelming to even read it all. All told, this case had over 52,000 words on the evidence page and 86,000 words on the workshop. Both of these pages are longer than ANI at the time I write this. For further context on just how much information this represents, Moby Dick is about 95,000 words, and takes about 8 hours to read. Suffice it to say, this is an experiment that should not be repeated. 1000 words is clearly not enough – I believe we all agree on that – but unlimited is clearly not the right approach. SandyGeorgia, I'm sorry we weren't able to answer all of your questions. I am confident that we got the final decision right at the end of the day, but the process was harder than it should have been, and there may still be details that were missed. I will draw the rest of the committee's attention to your comments and questions above. – bradv🍁 21:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering, Bradv (and for your attempts during the case to encourage others to actually engage the facts); however, I still need answers to many of my main questions above (the specific ones I asked). Separately, that the Committee decided not to engage or act on an abundance of evidence of the type that would result in sanctions for most regular editors is a different thing than "we also ended up with vast quantities of evidence that was less relevant to the actual substance of the case". That those who decided to make it not relevant had not fully digested the evidence, or decided to ignore it, is why we are left with no workable remedies. This case achieved not one single thing except to remind CFCF not to cast aspersions. Curiously, the Omnibus Case of 2008 was much longer, and those arbs managed to understand Coordinated Editing, digest the big picture, and put up reasonable findings that ended the problem, for good. Perhaps it was because we had a smaller committee in those days, so the arbs had to actually pay attention-- and now with a larger committee, attention is disperse and we end up in this sort of problem, which past committees were able to deal with. Or perhaps the problem is that modern ArbComs are passing their work off on to admins via AE-- and yet in a case this big and with this much misbehavior, how do we expect AE to get their arms around something when ArbCom did not even provide any workable remedies for them to deal with ? We don't have solutions in this case-- just minimal hard-to-understand read-between-the-lines remedies, that don't address a single problem and won't solve a single problem. I suggest that taking more time to digest and understand the full picture would have been better than overlooking evidence, and leaving the clear impression of a marked double standard applied to different kinds of editors. Also, what is the reason for clerks and arbs not keeping up with diffless casting of aspersions? Bluerasberry's type of evidence should never have been used for a finding, particularly not one that prejudiced an editor simply trying to uphold policy, while the fait accompli of those not respecting policy was solidified by the findings and remedies here. I appreciate that you allowed full evidence to be presented, but considering the time available to all of you to read and digest it, saying it was overwhelming (yes, try editing in that environment) so as to avoid addressing the serious problems is not a good way to do business. It is a big problem-- one affecting content that matters-- the community expects and deserves for the Arb Committee to sift through a big problem enough to grasp the nature of just how serious it is. Most editors would be banned from Wikipedia for one-tenth of what is going on here, and yet we end up with a series of non-remedies, combined with a series of uncorrected diffless casting of aspersions on Arb pages. It's just not right for the Arb Committee to punt a case because they couldn't digest it, and yet to lodge a finding based on spurious evidence that was not even read by the arb member who cast the deciding vote. No, I don't think "too much evidence" is a valid excuse for not getting some job-- any job-- done here. Even some minimal remedies or findings of fact that actually relate to the principals-- which the arbs acknowledged-- could help in enforcement. As it stands, this committee left AE nothing workable to enforce that will affect the problem in any meaningful way-- all you did was enshrine five years of fait accompli. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I asked Joe Roe some questions about Blue's evidence at Joe's talk page, and there is an interesting discussion there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Joe Roe said,
In those cases, I'm minded to give more weight on the assessment of a sensible and respected editor like Bluerasberry than to isolated diffs. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
. And that is just astounding. Personalities over facts and diffs? This merely confirms-- in black and white-- exactly what was seen throughout this case. The evidence was not difficult to follow or overwhelming-- it just didn't lead where some wanted to go, so we are left with an unsolved problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Joe Roe said,
Specifically, to resolve
We have contradictory or incomplete input from case talk pages (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Referred pages), feedback from a former arb, feedback from two uninvolved editors, and yet a threat from Tryptofish on my talk about evidence lodged on case pages.[6]. Some resolution is needed because when I asked on case talk, the impression was left that referred pages were acceptable for evidence. Remember-- an Arbcase is supposed to resolve conflict, yet here we have a new conflict, that is directly a result of poor communication on the arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, just wow. Maybe this should be a request for clarification, so please tell me or Sandy if it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, it used to be standard practice for ArbCom to mandate the deletion of evidence subpages once the case is over (example). Even though we did not pass such a remedy here, I would encourage you to follow that precedent. You'll also recall that I substed a few of your evidence subpages onto the actual case once the evidence phase closed, so there shouldn't be a need for these anymore. – bradv🍁 22:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Bradv: that is precisely part of my confusion. Because you decidedly replaced my subst'd pages with the actual text-- while leaving the others intact-- I took that as additional feedback that the referred pages were allowed (as expressed on the case talk pages). Could we hear from more of the committee on this? If we have to delete all the referred pages (I think there are about a dozen), then the case evidence is gutted, and this is a bad precedent to set based on a lack of communication on case pages when the question was first raised. I am quite concerned that you are often the only arb responding and would like to see some Committee functioning, as there will be a lot of confusion just like this as a result of how this case was handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, are there others that are
substedtranscluded? I thought I got them all. – bradv🍁 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)- I think the only one where there is any dispute is the one that has me named in the pagename. The ones about drug prices and so forth are fine. If Sandy wants a discussion from the full Committee, ARCA is probably the place to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Changing my mind about that. Rather, I think that pages with data about drug prices and so forth are fine, but pages that assert wrongdoing by editors, particularly when the final decision did not treat that as having been wrongdoing, should all be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Bradv:, sometimes I know just enough to be dangerous; I hope I am using the term Subst'd correctly. I
subst'dtranscluded some evidence pages, and linked others. You replaced the subst'd pages with exact text, but left the linked pages as links, which I interpreted to mean the links would stand, consistent with the responses on the Evidence talk page. To my knowledge, there are at least these pages-- there may be others. I am quite concerned that we hear from more of the committee on this, as if we have to delete all of the linked pages, the case evidence is gutted, and we would be doing that because the arbs failed to answer the question when it was directly raised at the talk page of the Evidence page. Could we see more of the arbs engaging on this matter? I am concerned about the lack of engagement throughout this case, and that you seem to be doing all the reading and heavy lifting; that is not optimal ArbCom functioning. Is it the intent of the committee that linked evidence-- which was allowed to stand per talk page queries-- should now be deleted? (I will be making the six-hour drive to my cabin in the morning, and need to load the car now-- I can read and make limited posts from iPhone hotpot on iPad, but nothing significant, so please allow time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the only one where there is any dispute is the one that has me named in the pagename. The ones about drug prices and so forth are fine. If Sandy wants a discussion from the full Committee, ARCA is probably the place to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, are there others that are
- @Bradv: that is precisely part of my confusion. Because you decidedly replaced my subst'd pages with the actual text-- while leaving the others intact-- I took that as additional feedback that the referred pages were allowed (as expressed on the case talk pages). Could we hear from more of the committee on this? If we have to delete all the referred pages (I think there are about a dozen), then the case evidence is gutted, and this is a bad precedent to set based on a lack of communication on case pages when the question was first raised. I am quite concerned that you are often the only arb responding and would like to see some Committee functioning, as there will be a lot of confusion just like this as a result of how this case was handled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)