Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop

Comments
Thatcher131 is a party to this case, I have moved all his "Comment by others:" to "Comment by parties:".  Cbrown1023   talk   16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like force of habit from so much clerking. Picaroon (t) 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. :)  Cbrown1023   talk   22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would someone clarify to me how Thatcher131 is a party? The deletions and undeletions appeared to me to be by other people. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 01:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Typically, the editor who initiated the arbitration case is included on the list of "parties" for purposes of receiving notifications, etc. This does not necessarily imply that that editor played a role in the underlying dispute. (This is why I denoted Thatcher131 as the "initiating party" on the list of parties on the case page.) Newyorkbrad 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. :)  Cbrown1023   talk   02:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused by how these specific deletions/undeletions got here to arbitration, While actions by User:Alkivar were certainly reversed, there never seemed to be an escalated debate with Alkivar, and he never even followed up with me. I'm assuming this case has been brought by User:Thatcher131 acting as some sort of State's Attorney on behalf of the community?  I got added as a party by User:Cyde  after the case request for arbitration was in progress (acting as Assistant State's Attorney?).  If this arbitration ends up not being much about the specific administrators involved, it could still be useful to answer issues regarding the content and licensing issues though. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Thatcher did not act in any official or clerking capacity when he did this; he was just an editor of the encyclopedia who thought that this would be a good thing to be sent to arbitration per the Arbitration policy.  Cyde was also acting as an individual; he thought it was clear that you were a party to this dispute.  Then the arbitrators accepted it 4/0/1/0.  Being a party does not mean anything negative in itself; the Arbitration Committee will look at every indididual's role in the dispute and act accordingly.  Cbrown1023    talk   02:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree that the actions were not done as a function of arbcom, just that I never seemed to be at an impasse with any of the other named parties, so is this more along the lines of Wikipedia v.s. the parties? —  xaosflux  Talk 03:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't believe you should be listed as a party to the case, you may suggest a motion on the workshop that you be removed from the list. I will mention that Cyde's having added you as a party and explaining why he did so in his edit summary, without having actually made a statement in the case, is a bit unusual. (He's provided a little more explanation on in response to a question I posed on his talk.) As has been indicated, though, in general whether an editor is formally named as a party generally is not important to the outcome of a case. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, I'm fine being on the list, as I am at least slightly involved. Thanks, —  xaosflux  Talk 03:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As the timeline in my evidence shows, Georgewilliamherbert only undeleted about half of BJAODN. The next day, Xaosflux undeleted the rest. I'm not sure whether the argument "undeleted for consistency" makes more sense than "keep deleted during DRV", so I didn't offer any proposed findings, but the timeline is there if someone else wants to suggest that Xaosflux made a mistake. Thatcher131 13:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbcom has stated on more than one occasion that admins should not reverse each other's actions without discussion (unless it is an emrgency). But Arbcom does not open cases on its own.  (This is an interesting discussion.)  I wanted to give the Committee an opportunity to review these actions and make a more forceful restatement of the principle if they wanted to.  They could have declined it on the basis of "not a big deal" or "not really a wheel war" but 4 arbitrators chose to hear and none opposed, so it opened. Thatcher131 13:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of 'wheel war'
It may be important to include a definition of what a "wheel war" is. Some people argue, per WP:WHEEL, that repeating a contested admin action is wheel warring. Others argue, per ArbCom precedent, that undoing another admin action even once is wheel warring. Yet others argue that the numbers are unimportant, it's the principle that counts.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Was brought up in Evidence and is also listed on the Workshop already for discussion (by me).  Cbrown1023   talk   00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is unnecessary. All that is required is to determine whether or not the actions in question were bad, and if so, how bad. There is no need to label them in jargon. Wheel wars can come in so many shapes and sizes that it is an exercise in futility to try to encapsulate them all in one definition. Which is why WP:WHEEL is flimsier than a flimsy piece of flim. Instead, people should move towards providing localised descriptions of what they saw. Did you see "disruption of the deletion process"? Maybe "disruption of the undeletion process". Do you see "contentious adminning", or perhaps something else? Splash - tk 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would probably be dangerous to include a definition of "wheel warring". If admin actions can't be undone even once without discussing with the first admin, that essentially gives me a free pass to do whatever I want and anyone who uses admin tools to disagree with me is a wheel warrior. It should be the end result that we look at, not the number of admin actions it took to arrive there: any definition including numbers will be wikilawyerable. (Part of the outcome is of course the amount of drama and unrest created in the community). Kusma (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but the solution there is to come up with a definition that doesn't say "X actions of admin reversion is a wheel war", not to make it a vague undefined term. If we don't say what wheel warring means, then you don't even need to Wikilawyer to abuse the term. -Amarkov moo! 06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no. If the term can be gracefully retired from respectable conversation, then "you are wheelwarring" can be squelched like "you counted the votes wrong in AfD" can be squelched. On the other hand, an alternative route for the committee is to take a 'case law' approach and simply decide whether a particular (set of) actions are a wheel war, declaring in a finding "(actions) constituted a wheel war" or "X has wheel warred". That leaves the impossible-to-find and imo unhelpful definition out of the game, but helps to build up understanding of what will and will not be viewed in this way. I'm not a big fan of jargon-ising the situation though, when a descriptive approach could work so much more precisely. Jargon carries with it an assumed body of meaning that often fails to apply properly to new situations, and especially on Wikipedia tends to become a bullet to be fired/dodged. Splash - tk 09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Random question
How often is "Questions for the parties" used anyway? Kwsn  (Ni!)  14:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not very. I think I've posed questions to parties twice, which I think were useful. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspective
Alkivar took the seven-year-old TV from the employee lounge and threw it in the dumpster outback. A short while later, Georgewilliamherbet grabbed it out of the dumpster and put it back in the employee's lounge. None of the customer's was disturbed and everyone still is working well with each other. Why are we in court over this? --  Jreferee  (Talk) 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not, the Arbs are currently voting on a motion to dismiss. :-)  Cbrown1023   talk   19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)