Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop

__NOINDEX__

Taken from project page re Jossi asking for an example of when following procedure did not scale
...
 * I can do that;check Talk:Sarah Palin edit history from 30 August 2008 to when I sprotected it for the first time, and compare to 72.91.214.42 contrib history as an example - then look at the blocklog; at which point I would refer you to my talkpage edit history (best to view at 250/500 edits per page, I am currently getting over 50 edits to that page every day...) from 16:02 until 16:34 31 August 2008 when I sprotected the page to enable the very many editors reverting the vandalism to have a rest. If you review the contrib and block histories of the first few ips you will note that I blocked the first few ip's; but a view of the contributions of 69.228.44.174 contrib history, for example, gives an indication of what happened when the editor switched ip, they immediately hit the admin who blocked the previous addy, plus any other reverter they could get to, plus my page again until blocked. This is what those editors on Talk:Sarah Palin were facing, and I sprotected against (which was reverted by another admin on the basis of "the talkpage must remain open" when they had no clue what was going on - hence my interest in this matter, though I note I did not wheelwar). My talkpage, which isn't nearly as heavily trafficked as a lot of article space, was quickly swamped by ip's angered by being blocked and being disruptive - and there was a lot of collateral casualties as well. One result of the attack on my talkpage was that I was unable to assist at Talk:Sarah Palin while I was tracking, reverting and blocking the various ip's. Only by sprotecting my talkpage could that happen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

> Brief responses may be on the project page, but longer ones can go here < LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin tools use & involved admins
Where is the specific policy on this? rootology ( C )( T ) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UNINVOLVED sounds like what you're looking for. Anthøny   ✉  16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anthony. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In the news...
It's not just Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews have apparently already been de-sysopped by MSNBC for their actions with regard to this subject. MastCell Talk 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition of wheel warring
This case needs a specific definition of wheel warring. In fact, the community needs one. Anyone willing to suggest it? Stifle (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it will be an aspect that the Arbs will consider, the wording and interpretation of WP:WHEEL, as part of their findings of fact. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is to editing as wheel warring is to adminning (not quite a word, but you get the idea). --bainer (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is knowingly using admin tools to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Again, the grammar could be improved, but I think readers of this page will get my idea. Physchim62 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the admin action was righteous, then wheel warring is to reverse it. If the admin action was incorrect, then wheel warring is to redo it after it has been righteously reversed. Hope that helps. Mike R (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who decides what is a "righteous" action though? IMHO, while obviously correct in your assessment, it is too overly simplified. I think the key factor in determining "wheel warring" is communication.  Did the reversing admin discuss with the acting admin?  Did the re-doing admin discuss with the reversing admin?  To assume that an action is a "bad action", and reversing it, is to assume that there was a "bad action" in the first place, in other words, assuming bad faith.  Every article and every user has a talkpage for a reason, and it isn't to discuss opinions of the article subject or catch up with old friends, respectively.  Keeper    76  15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of reversals of admin actions do not result in wheel wars. Physchim62 (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that shoots right to the heart of the question of the definition of wheel warring. Is the first reversal considered "wheel warring"?  The overwhelming majority of reversals of admin actions, in my experience anyway, had communication first.  If I see a block that I disagree with, I talk to the blocking admin first.  If I simply go and unblock someone with a log summary that basically says "bad block", am I wheel warring?  I'm not assuming that it is or isn't, but I believe there is a fundamental difference in how admins feel about being reversed.  Some have statements right on their page that says "reverse me without discussion if you wish", some don't.  Keeper    76  16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which does bring into question, in my mind anyway, whether my reversal of jossi's unprotection followed by consulting on jossi's talkpage constitutes wheel-warring? Does communication matter in these circumstances or not?  Fritzpoll (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience as an admin, the communication usually came as a courtesy after the event. And I (or the other admin if it were I performing the action) usually agreed. I think it is important that we keep in mind that most admin actions are completely non-controversial, that admins sometimes make mistakes and that they are usually willing to admit that they make a wrong call from time to time and to correct it themselves or to have it corrected for them. Physchim62 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, to insist on prior consultation would seem to me to be a flagrant breach of WP:OWN, at least insofar as the actions relate to articles (more difficult to decide on this one on blocks, but I'm not sure that's the real crux of the matter here). Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you at all Physchim. I don't have answers.  I am noticing that anybody seems to be able to say though, myself included, is "in my experience".  We're all out in our own little worlds, trying to better an online resource, and sometimes getting in each other's way towards that end.  "Wheel warring", I suppose, is just that.  Two (or more) editors, specifically admin editors, that are trying to better the place, and going about it the wrong way.  Where "reversal" stops and "warring" begins, is of course, exactly what is up for debate.  I don't have the answer.  I told Jossi previously that had he come to my talkpage to inquire about my admin action, or the duration of it, (I was the first to apply full protection to Sarah Palin for a duration of 5 days), I submit that we wouldn't be here.  Was Jossi wheelwarring by undoing my action?  Was Fritzpoll by undoing Jossi's? MZMcBride's?  MBisanz?  Where did reversal stop and wheel war start?  There are profoundly more opinions on that than there are answers.  Until clearer, I don't believe there should be any desysoppings in this specific case.  Keeper    76  16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw your second part here Physchim (edit conflict). I don't feel I "OWN" my admin actions.  I stand by them though, if I didn't feel they were appropriate, I wouldn't have done them.  For me to assume that some other admin's actions were so incredibly wrong as to undo them without consultation is, in my opinion, a larger breach of trust than any possibility of "OWN"-ing anything.   Keeper    76  16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I always went by the definition that says A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions. Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion., which is also in the wheel warring policy as A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting a page., but maybe that is unclear.  MBisanz  talk 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But where does it start? Was Jossi's reversal of my admin action wheel warring?   Keeper    76  17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, that part I'm not sure of yet, still pondering.  MBisanz  talk 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Were Jossi's action's in beach of WP:POINT? In my eyes, yes. Whether they fit into some definition of "wheel-warring" or another is rather less important to me. They were disruptive, and Jossi knew (or should have known) that they would be; they went against consensus, as any non-involved reader of the discussion can see. Physchim62 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On a more absolutist line, let me expand on my invocation of WP:OWN. If an admin protects or deletes a page, that is obviously an admin action. If we require that any other admin consults the first before altering that action, we are giving the first admin "ownership" over important properties of a page, including its very existence. This is one reason why I am very wary about sledgehammer solutions like "overturning an admin action should only be done after consulting with the admin who performed the first action". That is bureaucracy, and useless bureaucracy at that. It would hinder honest correction of honest mistakes, while doing nothing (IMHO) to stop the sort of trench warfare which occasionally occurs. Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to imply that anything has an "absolute" here, or that communication should be "required". I'm simply stating that it can go a long way towards nipping a potential dispute before if ever has a chance to materialize.  I don't own my admin actions, or my editorial actions, for that matter.  However, if someone "undoes" one of them that I felt was correct (admin or editor-wise), I feel an explanation, nay, a discussion, prior goes a long way towards more sane collaboration.  It's why we have edit-warring rules, its why we have "wheel warring" rules.  If my admin action was so blatantly wrong, or even if it was an "honest mistake", as to warrant unprotection without discussion (on my talk, on ANI, wherever), not once, but repeatedly, than I have a fundamental disagreement here with you.  I don't OWN anything, I don't "require" anything.  It's common sense.   Keeper    76  17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My take has always been that the root problem can best be phrased as something like, 'taking an admin action, which you know (or should know) will be contested by other admins, without consensus'. Imagine a scenario where a discussion takes place on AN/I and a dozen admins are roughly split on whether a block should be made, with some strongly for and some strongly against... but then one of the participants goes ahead and blocks despite the disagreement. That's the essential 'wrong' which our 'wheel warring' policy seeks to prevent. The disruptive non-consensus use of admin tools. It really shouldn't matter who acts first or how many times except in that it becomes alot harder to claim you didn't know an action would be controversial after it has been flipped back and forth a half dozen times. If I see full protection on a formerly high use template which is now in much more limited use there is no reason I should need to talk to the original admin before reversing it... I can explain my reasons in the log entry. If there turns out to be some other reason the template should be protected they shouldn't need to talk to me before putting it back. Conversely, if after much warring back and forth, twenty people in a twelve hour discussion hold one position and only three disagree then nobody should be 'in trouble' for implementing the apparent consensus.
 * It's really the same as edit warring... once you get to the point that you know one or more others will disagree with what you want to do you should take no action and discuss until someone has consensus. Up until then you should be able to do what seems right to you with no discussion beyond edit/log summaries of your reasons. --CBD 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Scheduling
I hope to place a draft decision on the workshop within the next couple of days (subject to real-world scheduling issues). If anyone has not completed presenting his or her evidence or workshop proposals, please do so as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FloNight's draft
Many of the proposed principles by users and Newyorkbard are excellent. I used some of them and adapted others. I'll add the Fof and Remedies soon. My draft will put more emphasis on administrator conduct related to use of tools and consensus building rather than determining the proper way to address the Sarah Palin article as I feel that is a Community decision. My thought is that the process first broke down by outside events that overwhelmed the Community. In these instances everyone, but especially administrators, need to use better communication skills and go the extra mile to build consensus. Unfortunately good consensus building practices were not used and the Community was worse for it. I know we can do better. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to add the rest of my draft in the next 24 hours. I need to review the contributions of the involved parties from over the weekend before I finalize my remedies. If there are any additional "evidence" that supports any remedies, please add it as soon as possible. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added Fof and remedies. Newyorkbrad and I plan to review the comments and then craft a proposal for voting by the Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Timing for move to Proposed Decision page
Loads of good discussion on this case's workshop pages. Thanks for the high quality of most remarks and the lack of snarky comments are appreciated as well. I plan to do some rewriting for the workshop page later today. And I anticipate that a draft of a ruling will be placed on the Proposed Decision page in approximatively 48-72 hours by an arbitrator. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update:I'm circulating a few ideas to the full committee today about the case ruling. Barring strong objections about the ideas from other arbitrators, in the next few days I anticipate that a ruling will be placed for voting on PD. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * COUGH!!!*** LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear ya. Soon, I promise. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LHvU beat me to the punch. :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Em, Flo is "circulating a few ideas to the full committee" and will post them "barring strong objections". Surely that's what the proposed decision page is for. You put your proposals there and other arbs support or oppose, or propose others. Why is arbcom again (and seemingly needlessly) insisting on having its discussions behind closed doors? Should we rename the "proposed decision" page "arbcom announces"?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I agree. Actually, my intent is to propose a range of remedies for voting by the Committee, instead of one level of sanction. I did not want to do it if there was strong objection or no support for it because having many proposals makes it harder to close cases. (The delay has nothing to do with descent or objection. Rather, it was from real life events that have caused me distraction.) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read Arbitration policy you will see it says "Deliberations are often held privately, but the Committee will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public". So it is very normal and okay that they are talking about this in private, and as long as what they decide includes detailed rational then that is just fine Scott. Chillum  13:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Normal is not the same as okay. The policy only tells you what does happen, not what should happen.Wily D  13:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just by way of update, I'll be posting a /proposed decision tonight or tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)