Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop

Clarify intent/purpose
My understanding of the purpose fulfilled by this procedure is more to provide guidance, and not summarily ban anyone proven to have a WP:COI. Instead this would be like an explanation to anyone found by the arbcom in need of correction. I want to make it a principle that nobody will be banned based on what has happened and what is cited in evidence, not even COFS. I get the feeling this case has increased tension among contentious editors which is counterproductive and unnecessary if my perception is correct.

As I understand it a WP:BAN would only be something explored if any of the participants (myself included of course) continue acting contrary whatever the ruling is, assuming the arbcom finds that a problem exists. If so, nobody needs to worry about judgment coming in and have been banned for a period of time or forever.

Is there a way to work this principle into a part of the workshop? Anynobody 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. If ArbCom finds it necessary to issue bans as a remedy (and I'm not saying there's any indication we might -- this is purely hypothetical/procedural), then no proposed principle put forth on the workshop will prevent us from doing so. -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * May I interject? Last night I asked Newyorkbrad about WP:BAN in connection to this case from another angle: despite the Committee's previous endorsement of the community's right to impose topic bans, current banning policy language makes no mention of topic bans.  Part of my notes includes a specific statement from Justanother after the topic ban proposal on COFS closed: Justanother read over the policy and reached a reasonable conclusion that community bans are the same thing as sitebans (since that's what current policy implies), that I was out of process in proposing a brief topic ban, and that I shouldn't have allowed the community sanction thread to continue at all.  This angle dovetails with some vigorous disagreements from March and April 2007 at the talk pages of WP:BAN and WP:DE and the recently rejected spoiler warning arbitration request - particularly Fred Bauder's question about whether policy should be written by whoever is most aggressive: all mention of topic bans got deleted from the policy even though I identified the GordonWatts arbitration precedent.  My perspective probably isn't entirely objective, but it sure looks to me like group of editors were setting themselves above the Committee.  Durova  Charge! 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is assuming nobody makes any particularly egregious edits/comments. The thing about COI is that it's hard to get people to acknowledge one, if the arbcom finds (if being the key word) COI to be the problem this could be the first time they realize it. If so a ban seems to be a harsh solution. (Again, assuming everyone behaves.) Anynobody 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC) I'm not trying to test your patience; I'll give you the short SHORT version please correct me where I err: If editors believe they could be banned for something they've already done, but received no warning from the arbcom about, it's going to make things that much more tense. Anynobody 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, put whatever proposals you want on the workshop page. That's what it's for. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Unless a serious policy is or was violated, nobody is getting banned for editing under a COI, etc. right?
 * 2) It is my understanding that in order to be banned, COFS or whoever, would have to keep doing the same thing and be brought to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
 * Purpose of the case is to stop disruptive editing so that editors can get back to our core mission of writing an encyclopedia. ArbCom might ban an user(s) during this case without warning first if that is seen as the best way to deal with the disruption caused by breaking policies. Not saying that we are going to ban anyone in this case. Just that it is possible. It would not be for breaking the Wikipedia rules related to COI since those do not prohibit someone with a COI from editing. The ban would be for the breaches in policy that often come from editing with a COI. FloNight 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's my belief that previous attempts to resolve the problem at WP:COIN and WP:CSN failed to achieve consensus because multiple disruptive editors on both sides of the issue engaged in tactics to delay and obstruct process. Hopefully Arbcom will judge the participants according to how they have behaved and set strict limits so there is no further disruption.  Do I need to state this in the workshop, or is it completely obvious? Jehochman  Talk 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First there needs to be specific evidence placed on Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. Then write proposed Principles, Findning of Fact, and Remedies for Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop to address the evidence. I suggest that you look through other cases where disruptive editing is addressed to get ideas about what ArbCom has done in similar situations. FloNight 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen to get a bunch of editors banned when it would be much simpler for them to back off and play nice, but given the way this arbitration has been going, there is no indication that they get the message. I am disappointed and feel sad that it's come to this.  Jehochman  Talk 14:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing worth noting here is that the original terms of the Disruptive editing guideline would have prevented partisans of both sides from having a direct say on the WP:CSN outcome. They would have commented and provided evidence while uninvolved editors reached a consensus decision. In mid-March 2007 that clause got removed from the guideline by a consensus that was (IMHO) much smaller than the original discussion that had addressed it at length and adopted it. This COFS issue is the second case I've referred to arbitration in whole or in part because of that clause's deletion: I opened the Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram request when Ideogram arguably canvassed for POV support for a community siteban. Durova Charge! 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct use of WP:CSN and inclusion of that in this arbitration
This started as a response to Durova but it is better placed as a motion and so I will post it there. --Justanother 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My posts above were really requests to the arbitrators for advisement. I hope they will express the appropriate scope of the case and the Committee's mandate.  In a nutshell, I'd like to demonstrate how some aggressive changes at the policy and guideline level were partially responsible for precipitating this case.  One element of that at the policy level disregarded an existing arbitration precedent.  Durova  Charge! 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

F451, on your recent edit
By making this edit here [], does that mean you're making yourself a party to this arbitration?HubcapD 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On the whole...
On the whole this seems to need a more focused set of findings of fact. The proposed ones are vague, contradictory and worded like policy items, not facts of the case. After those are cleared up one can talk about remedy's. --Rocksanddirt 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody and Bishonen (and Bishzilla) (side issue, sorry)
Please forgive me, dear reader, for following Anynobody so far off topic here, but I'm beginning to think I owe it to myself to clear up one small thing that he has brought up a number of times. Anynobody, I see you all over these pages, trying to make out that I was being biased when I deleted your ever-loving RfC against User:Justanother, because I had a... I don't know, friendship? Romantic interest? in Justanother. Your evidence is one much-posted diff where User:Bishzilla—not User:Bishonen— calls Justanother "a total sweetheart"... sheesh! All due respect to Justanother, but I don't share Bishzilla's tastes or ... proclivities. Let me tell you about Bishzilla, Anynobody. She's not me. She's an oversexed dinosaur with a heart of gold. I'm not. I hope you don't, for instance, take me to have a hopeless passion for Muzzy, like Bishzilla? Or an interest in Mothra? You surely don't hold me responsible for Bishzilla's edits? Have you ever tried to keep a ten-storeys-high prehistoric monster on a leash? Yes, Bishzilla is my sock (=acknowledged alternative account). Sure. So? She's very independent. She spends her life trying to get away from me, like Pinocchio from Geppetto, or Asimov's robot from his creator, Man—it's a favored literary theme. She claims I'm scared of her ! (Not true. Down, Bishzilla ! ) She thwarts me at every turn, and, significantly in this context, has been known to protect little users from my administrative wrath. Do you know, you are the very first person to crassly assume that she's me—the rest of the community doesn't seem to have any trouble telling us apart. So much so that some highly respected users admire Bishzilla, but are fairly cool towards Bishonen. Her wikicareer is admittedly more impressive than mine, and she's much more loved. (Yes, creating her was a mistake. I feel like Frankenstein.) I count at least three arbitrators supporting her request for adminship—pretty good for a sock ! She has a couple of bureaucrats in her pocket, []   something I can only dream of. She's quite likely to comment on an RfC or RFAr off her own bat, and always commands respect when she does,  which is more than can be said for Bishonen. She has started to refer disparagingly to me as "little 'shonen" and takes every opportunity to call me a "wienie" or "weenie" admin, whatever that may mean. She has recently asserted her independence by pointedly creating a sock of her own ! (Am I supposed to be responsible for his actions, too?) My point is that Bishzilla is, well, just not me. I'm an articulate, analytical sort of cuss, as unlikely to call Justanother a "sweetheart" as I am to post an RfC "Outside view" consisting of the word "roarr" Bishzilla has a warm heart beneath a rugged exterior; I'm disagreeable clear through. Do try to have a little sense of context. Here are a couple of links that your research has apparently failed to turn up, even though your friend and collaborator Orsini carefully pointed them out to you:    They show my real opinion of Justanother at the time in question. (It has improved since.) Bishonen | talk 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
 * I'd like to hear Bishzilla's side of the story before forming an opinion. Jehochman Talk 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You brought the side issue up Bishonen:


 * Evidence page before yours:


 * 20 July
 * Your edit:


 * 20 July

22 July
 * Workshop page before your edits:


 * Your edits of 22 July:

  
 * 


 * Honestly I've never seen anything like this in the past arbcom cases I've looked at so I felt I had better respond with my view of the disagreement. Anynobody 22:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lighten up, Anynobody. As in, you know, lighten up, laugh a little, relax, unclench, etc. --Justanother 22:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ps. I apologize just in case you think this is pestering (it's not, it is sincere) and once the "pestering ban" takes effect communication such as this would not be permitted. We will both have to be careful. --Justanother 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, you misunderstand me. As I explained in my reply to you on the workshop, the side issue is you versus me, and it's all your idea that that has any relevance to this arbitration. What I posted evidence about on July 20 was the subject you versus Justanother. Are you going to start addressing that anytime soon? Read ad hominem and think about it. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC).


 * I know this wasn't intended, but reading up on bishzilla gave me a good laugh today!HubcapD 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And how do you know it wasn't intended, little user? Peace. Lsi john 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, somehow I doubt this was all set up for my amusement. However, if I should ever run afoul of Bishzilla, I will remember to thank her before I flee, sceaming in terror!HubcapD 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * /me hands little user HubcapD a nice acid-proof raincoat. (It won't completely protect but its good for a 5 second head start). Peace. Lsi john 13:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ['Zilla stares quizzically at the little Lsi john, breathes lightly on him. Watches benevolently as his hair catches fire, then turns attention to Jehochman. ] Little user want Bishzilla story? Propose finding fact: puny 'shonen not playing with full deck. Propose remedy: desysop weirdo Bishonen, support 'Zilla4admin !    bishzilla     ROA R R! !    14:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Hey Bishzilla, thanks for the laughs! [Flees in terror] AIIIIIEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HubcapD 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [Tolerantly. ] Wittering in circles is best technique!   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC).
 * I am not here. Indeed, you are not here, either.  What are we?  In this medium, we are words.  It's one of the lessons of the Essjay mess: on Wikipedia, nobody knows you're not a dog.  On Wikipedia, we are our words.  We are two people to the degree that speech communities, discourse, and argument diverge from one another.  The fundamental mistake is not understanding this.  Even if they don't use inkhorn concepts, I think most of the people able to support/engage/talk with Bishzilla understand this fundamental paradox of Wikipedia.  The more Bishzilla speaks a different language from Bishonen, the more it is a separate rhetorical entity, the more it is a separate entity, a separate "person(a)."  Putting a quote from Bishzilla on your page is either a sign of your sense of humor or your inability to understand the indeterminacy of Wikipedia.  Geogre 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying an editor can't have multiple accounts on Wikipedia, and I also understand how they are supposed to be considered different (I'd liken it to a ventriloquist or maybe a Mr. Garrison/Mr. Hat relationship.) I further understand that many editors enjoy that kind of interaction. The way I see it, if playing a dual role makes people happy at nobody's expense then I'm all for it as long as we don't have to believe there really are two people and remarks by one or the other can be seen as a "joke". (Besides, in their routine ((the comedic sense of the word)) I haven't seen them "fight" or disagree before now, so expecting somebody to assume the "jokiness" of said statement based on no experience seems like a steep learning curve at the least.)
 * Also, commenting on a person's sense of humor as a point in an indeterminable environment like Wikipedia is probably not the best strategy when trying to point out how vague communication can be here. (In order to laugh at a joke one needs to know what made it funny; In an indeterminable environment that can be quite difficult.) Anynobody 09:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Without getting involved in the dispute between AN and /zilla (I type therefore I am), I do agree with you, AN, on the issue of humor in this environment. I will repeat here some thoughts I had on the subject in reponse to a post some time back on Jimbo's page:"The problem is that not everyone gets the joke; perhaps because English is not their primary language, perhaps because they were not expecting a joke, perhaps because they don't have the same sort of sense of humor that you and I perhaps share, for better or worse. Perhaps they do get the joke but still don't like it, doesn't really matter which. But the big thing is that it probably is not advisable to put something on wikipedia that could be in any way offensive and expect others to turn your statement to just the right angle to get your joke. This is what I am learning today. Better that you fully explain how you want your statement to be taken but that kinda spoils the fun of a joke doesn't it? So perhaps the best thing is to just state what you want to state .."--Justanother 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)