Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Cool Hand Luke
 * 2) Coren
 * 3) FayssalF
 * 4) FloNight
 * 5) Jayvdb
 * 6) Newyorkbrad
 * 7) Rlevse
 * 8) Roger Davies
 * 9) Stephen Bain
 * 10) Vassyana
 * 11) Wizardman

Inactive:
 * (None.)

Recused:
 * 1) Carcharoth
 * 2) Casliber
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin
 * 4) Risker

Enforcement
Shouldn't the link say "A Man In Black" and not "Casename"? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it should. Fixed. Wizardman  04:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"A Man In Black blocked Ikip on April 26 for canvassing, where he claimed himself to be an involved administrator. "
Wait, what? When did I claim that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that's a typo and should read "uninvolved" Hobit (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Hobit is right, though I've left a query for Wizardman as the drafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - dunno how I messed that up, rather significant gaffe.  Wizardman  11:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black-Ikip involvement
What are the practical implications of this? Is it stating that my involvement at ARS before April 26 was something other than criticism of canvassing conduct, was motivated by something other than a desire to curtail inappropriate conduct, or that my involvement after April 26 makes the block inappropriate, or some other thing? Is this an endorsement of Rootology's standard of involvement (interaction before or after the block and philosophical disagreement), or some other standard? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noting (yet again, and I think for actually the 11th time) that my proposed standard of involvement is not something I just pulled out of thin air but how I've seen the community treat it in practice and also per how the Arbcom has been deciding cases for years now, per this link. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Arbitration in dispute resolution" and topic bans
How does "Arbitration in dispute resolution" reconcile with the topic bans? I cannot avail myself of dispute resolution tools if I am enjoined from using them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm kind of vague on the reasoning for the topic bans, because none of the remedies currently link to FOFs to support them. There's no FOF that I've inappropriately commented on Ikip's conduct, and the only FOF about ARS is the single edit war. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs revising
More generally, some proposals here are getting ahead of themselves. For instance, there is an FoF which states things AMIB did as an involved admin, but there is no principle about what makes someone involved, or why acting as an involved admin is bad. Further, there is a remedy to topic ban AMIB from the ARS, but only one FoF about it, and that mentions Ikip's disruption too. Since there's no topic ban of Ikip anywhere, I can only assume this isn't the FoF on which AMIB's topic ban is based. – Steel 12:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A Man In Black-Ikip involvement still refers to AMIB's tape-Ikip-up page as an attack page when the general agreement is that it isn't per . This seems to me pretty uncontroversial.
 * A Man In Black has engaged in sockpuppetry accuses AMIB of block evasion. My suspicion is that this is still being blown out of proportion (I mean, at first people were mistakenly referring to it as IPblock exemption abuse until I chased them up about it). It would be nice if someone would confirm or deny whether this was a "go back to your main account" kind of block. If so, this finding loses its clout.
 * A Man In Black has used his tools inappropriately mentions that AMIB twice deleted a page Ikip created. What it fails to mention is that (a) the first time round, it was a WP:POINT creation and Ikip didn't protest its deletion (AMIB was complaining about the "inclusionist" template ARS/Tagged, so Ikip made him a "deletionist" version AfD/Tagged ); and (b) the second time round, AMIB reversed himself within five minutes.
 * I'd like to echo the statement that there should be a principle about involvement if there's a finding of fact regarding it. ArbCom should at least define the terms it uses in its findings.  Them From  Space  16:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Themfromspace. With respect to the "attack" page, it sounds like it wasn't intended as an attack, but I certainly viewed it as as one.  Given the context, I'm not sure what it was other than a really poor idea. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting needed
In the remedies sections about topic bans, the opening sentance is this,

A Man In Black is topic-banned from for one year.

I assume between the 'from' and the 'for' should be the subject he is topic banned from, though one could just as easily remove the 'from' and it will still read properly. I will let Wizardman make that decision for himself, but he should know that some of his items needs editing. Contributions/198.161.174.194 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been addressed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
Where are the rules for how opposes, support and abstentions are counted? I'd have assumed you'd need something like Support + 1/2 abstain > #arbs/2 or some such. But the way the votes are being tallied, that doesn't seem to be the case. Pointers? Hobit (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstentions are not factored into the majority at all. From Arbitration/Policy:
 * Dissenting votes for and opinions on parts that pass will be noted. Arbitrators who abstain from a particular part will be treated as having recused from that part of the decision, which may lower the majority needed to pass that part. In the event of no options for action gaining majority support, no decision will be made, and no action will be taken.
 * --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that works out to be the same as the formula I posted. Either way, I think that the "passing" of some of the motions seems wrong at the moment.  Finding 8 for example. By my math with 11 arbs, 3 abstaining means you need 5 supporting to have a majority. Am I misunderstanding something? Hobit (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 should not be passing. I noticed it earlier. Still more people to vote so we will clean it up when a few more people vote. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration totals
Ikip asked that I post this for him:

Based on AGK's findings:
 * Proposals which pass
 * principles: 1-7, 8-10
 * findings: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7,.
 * remedies: 2.
 * enforcement provisions: none.
 * Proposals which do not pass
 * principles: 7A.
 * findings: 2.1, 3.1, 4, 4.1, 5.1, 9
 * remedies: 1, 3, 4, 5

He emailed me a request to post his "summary of conclusions of editors". I post it with no other comment.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is no longer up to date per this. Administrators involved in disputes and A Man In Black’s block of Ikip both have 6 supports now and thus “pass.”  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the above way of calculating the majority is not correct. The Oppose votes are not subtracted from the Support votes. The Committee rulings are decided by a majority of the Committee voting to support a proposal. So if the number of active arb is 11, then 6 arbs make a majority. That means that more that 50% of the arbs must support a proposal in order for it to pass. The abstains mean the same as a recuse for that one proposal, and lower the majority on the proposal. (For example, if the total active is 11 and 3 abstain, then the new number of voting arbs is 8, and the new majority is 5.) I hope that helps. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And for those that like formulas, I think 2*support+abstain > #of admins is passing. In FloNight's example, that would be 2*5+3>11.  Hobit (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where you write "#of admins" you mean the number of active arbs. However your formula above is only correct when the number of active arbs is odd. The general formula for calculating the of the majority (M), given the number of active arbs (Ac) and abstentions (Ab) is M = floor((Ac - Ab) / 2) + 1 where floor(x) is the greatest integer smaller than or equal to x. Paul August &#9742; 15:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For # of admins, you are right, I mean active arbs. That said, I can't find an example where our formulas give different results. Could you give an example where they don't?  Note, you are defining "Majority" and I'm defining "pass" which are slightly different... Hobit (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. Paul August &#9742; 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was fairly certain but did want someone to double check. And now a bit of math humor:.
 * Humm, when looking at the Erdos Number talk page I see you already saw the comic. Ah well.  It did prompt me to figure out my number (3).  Woot!  Not bad for a hardware guy. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration totals (#2)
Since he is following these discussions, Ikip wrote me again and asked that I post his revised "summary of conclusions of editors". Ikip says that "anyone is welcome to correct mistakes and update totals". However, he also says that he earlier "did not update the pass/fail conclusions of AGK, despite the 2 arbcoms recent votes".

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 4 recused), so 6 votes are a majority. Abstain votes, are neutral, they do not subtract or add to support votes. The abstains mean the same as a recuse for that one proposal, and lower the majority on the proposal. (For example, if the total active is 11 and 3 abstain, then the new number of voting arbs is 8, and the new majority is 5.) Thank you for the clear explanation Flonight!


 * Notes

Again, Ikip says that "anyone is welcome to correct mistakes and update totals"... so here it is.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a particularly complicated case in terms of how ArbCom voting goes. An arbitrator or clerk will post an implementation note when the time is right, and others will check over it, to make sure of what proposals pass or not. The interest of everyone posting on this page is appreciated, but it really is not necessary to prepare vote-counting tables for the case; these things will be calculated automatically, and then if you see any mistakes or have any questions, that is the best time to raise them here. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've been keeping a half eye on the case before I start my break, just in case any questions get asked of me and I think people are too worried. The heated workshop aside this hasn't even been half as contentious as half the AC cases out there. For the curious keeping score, this is how easy this case is to track--here are the remedies as of my posting this, 6 being the baseline passing count for this case:
 * Passing:
 * AMIB desysopped (6-1-0)
 * AMIB topic-banned from ARS (4-0-3, with 3 abstains, 3 support needed)
 * AMIB topic-banned from Ikip (4-1-2, with 2 abstains, 4 support needed)
 * AMIB revert limits (4-0-2, with 2 abstains, 4 support needed)
 * Not passing:
 * Ikip warned (4-2-1, with 1 abstains, 5 support needed)
 * Anyway, that's all you need to track this in your head. It's not even as complex as baseball scoring, on this one. Of course, now watch I've screwed up myself on the tracking of it... rootology ( C )( T ) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is incorrect, at the moment the only passing remedy is R1. Paul August &#9742; 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I called my own screw up. ;) rootology ( C )( T ) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Brad above I'm puzzled why everyone seems intent on posting their own versions of what proposals they think are passing and what are not, however please see Implementation notes for what I believe is the current situation. Paul August &#9742; 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ikip and concerns
"Ikip should take the concerns expressed in this case seriously into account in connection with his or her future behavior, but at this stage I am not certain they need to be addressed in a formal arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)"

For a possible indication of Ikip's future consideration of the concerns raised, one may examine his reactions on the pages of this case. Three editors (A Man In Black, Flatscan, and Themfromspace) and Steel provided evidence, to which Ikip has responded. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If he chills out from the borderline stuff some feel he's done upon his return from his vacation, he can vehemently deny anything here. The same with AMIB and his workshop commentary, as well. The way I've already read an AC case is that it judges based on the evidence up to that point, and remedies are issued based on that to modify future behavior. Keeping with that line of thinking, the finding about him if it passes is about as big of a warning to "chill" as anyone can get. The next time, the AC would take a harder stance. That's usually how it goes... rootology ( C )( T ) 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the problematic behavior stops, then no sanctions are necessary. "Past performance does not guarantee future results." My comment was directed at NYB's request for the abstains to revisit and if it passes. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Worries
I am worried about the exact phrasing of some of these remedies. The "topic ban" from Ikip is, IMO, unclear and probably too open to gaming/abuse by other parties. It's not quite passing, but it's still a problem as I read it. There must be other times when users have been asked to avoid one another that has better language than this. I worry about AfDs where AMIB comments and then Ikip comments on AMIB's !vote. What is AMIB to do at that point? Ick.

The ARS ban has similar problems though not as bad. If someone from ARS rescues an article and brings that to and AfD that AMIB is involved in, can he comment on the improvements? Ick.

Honestly this is looking like a ban from notability/AfD/DrV discussions in effect, and I don't think that's justified. I say that as someone who very very rarely agrees with AMIB on those topics. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been no-interaction conditions imposed on individuals in the past, but I too have problems with seeing how the topic ban from ARS can work without more specific wording. Far too open to tag-teaming and gaming. pablo hablo. 19:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Avoiding ARS would be a good idea for him as that is a major locus of dispute and edit-warring as far as with Ikip, why not make it a mutual topic ban, i.e. where they avoid commenting in any AfDs in which the other has commented first? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally think that's a better way to go too. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the ARS ban open to tag teaming and gaming? In practice this would mean that AMIB is simply not welcome to edit any ARS pages, remove ARS templates, or weigh in on the ARS again. There are lots of bans like this in place and they work to keep the peace in a variety of ways; when I proposed this on the Workshop it wasn't some new concept I'd made up. AMIB can certainly participate in AFDs with this restrictions, but a given AFD isn't ever supposed to be about the ARS. Why wouldn't he be able to say Keep or Delete, or nominate something for deletion? Again, these restrictions are really normal. When I was unbanned in May 2008, I was asked to not weigh in again on User:MONGO, or anything related to the September 11 attacks. I still don't feel I was ever disruptive on the 9/11 stuff (I still believe I principally tried to push NPOV & BLP there), but it keeps the peace by keeping everyone calm. rootology ( C )( T ) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, but does this topic ban prevent him from commenting on AfDs Ikip has? What if he commented first?  Same wrt improvements made under the banner of the ARS.  Staying away from topics is clear cut.  Staying away from people in articles is generally clear-cut.  But in AfDs and DrVs I feel it needs to be made more clear how the committee expects things to go.  I don't think it's horrible, I just think it's unclear and could (will?) drive him from AfDs and DrVs, a place he's contributed quite a bit.  I'm okay with that if that's what the committee means to do.  I just think it should be made plain.  I'd prefer the mutual ban per A. Nobody (above).  Hobit (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Practice will tell, but since the reason we should edit AFD/DRV is to discuss the merits of the articles in question as they meet WP:N and WP:BLP, and not ARS, it should be easy. If this precludes AMIB from involved ARS-related discussion in a given DRV/AFD, then that's what comes with such a ban. Even if MONGO and I ended up on a community discussion for example, I shouldn't (or couldn't, I dunno) comment on his commentary. That's just how it goes if you're under such a restriction. Is it awkward, and preclude you from a tiny fraction of discussion? Sure, but that's the price you pay sometimes. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I share the concerns with the ARS topic ban remedy as written. Rootology's fairly limited interpretation is reasonable, but the remedy contains "Broadly construed". I would significantly prefer official clarification, although not necessarily in the remedy itself. Consider these possible interpretations:
 * AMIB may not participate in the deletion discussion of any page tagged with . I think this is too broad.
 * AMIB may not focus his deletion discussion participation on -tagged pages. This is more reasonable on its face, but how should "focus" be defined? More than half of AMIB's AfD participation and/or the ARS list?
 * Assuming that someone does not present a prohibited example that would be considered non-disruptive for an unrestricted editor, I would support an explicit blanket exemption for "normal and on-topic deletion discussion participation". An ARS-related sub-discussion in a deletion discussion would be off-topic, and AMIB wouldn't be able to participate even if it occurred elsewhere. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly needs to be more specific.
 * "AMiB may not edit any of the ARS project pages" - this, for example is clearly defined.
 * "Broadly construed, A Man In Black may not contact, interact with, nor comment on in any capacity, from article space to project space, about the Article Rescue Squadron." - this isn't; especially given the ARS' self-defined broad scope of all "badly-formed encyclopedia content". pablo hablo. 05:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed reword:
 * A Man In Black is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron for one year. A Man In Black is prohibited, broadly construed, from contacting, interacting with, and commenting on, in any capacity (in article space and in project space), the Article Rescue Squadron. Should AMiB violate this ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified below.

still seems to me vague. This is the first Arbcom case that I have followed, is it usual to have decisions so "broadly construed"? There are many editors who identify themselves with ARS. The ARS's scope as defined on its project page is huge; all "badly-formed encyclopedia content". With that many "involved" editors, and that many potential troublesome articles (I've never seen a perfectly-formed one) it is hard to see how AMiB can contribute. pablo hablo. 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)