Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop

Disentangling

Is there a way to separate questions of CSN procedure from issues of Ferrylodge's behavior?

The entanglement of these two issues leads to a lot of muddiness. For example, Ali'i complains of being mispercieved as a Ferrylodge supporter. Is there a way to decrease confusion between these 2 separate issues? --Pleasantville 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest thing is to actually start treating them like two separate issues. So far the case has focused more on whether or not the CSN process was appropriate or not and if there truly was consensus for his banning. Based on the current definition of "community ban", the fact that three admins have said that they are willing to unblock Ferrylodge seems to indicate that the community ban is no longer applicable. Those that want a complete banning Ferrylodge needs to start developing evidence similar to Severa's[1] and use that evidence to develop principles, findings of fact, and remedies that would support a complete banning. Conversely, those that would like to see a preventative measure less than that (or no measure at all), should start developing evidence similar to Ali'i's[2] and coming up with principles, findings of fact, remedies that support those lesser measures.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblehead in part. Ferrylodge's request for review seemed to be primarily based on process, rather than that a ban was not appropriate based on the facts. Therefore a full evaluation of the ban would be necessary for the committee to conduct. Then, if the committee decides that the process was not good enough, the remaining things would be evaluated. my $02. --Rocksanddirt 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Two dollars? Wow... inflation really has been bad for the price of opinions. ;-) --Ali'i 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

well....I do get paid for my opinion....sometimes more than others....;) --Rocksanddirt 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

---

It looks like overnight the Workshop page devolved into a game of Clue. That having been said, I think I'm wrong that there are two main issues. There are four:

• The validity of the CSN (new sockpupputry allegations fall into this category)

• Ferrylodge's behaviors that provoked community reaction.

• Contributions that Ferrylodge made that improved Wikipedia (Come on guys! Someone needs to argue this in detail!)

• Ferrlylodge's apparent lack of remorse and his unresponsiveness to community complaints about his behavior.

This last is what REALLY got him banned: the Wikiworld does not turn on issues like whether WP uses the word womb or uterus or whether Ferrylodge is allowed to control Mother. Rather, though no one used the term, Ferrylodge was generally perceived to have a sociopathic pattern of behavior.

These are the things that need to be addressed. --Pleasantville 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be careful throwing around terms like sociopath/antisocial personality disorder in regards to a fellow editor. May be viewed as a personal attack. --Ali'i 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a checklist on the page I linked to, and most of the items on it were discussed in one way or another during the initial CSN. Though the terminology was not in use, the perception that Ferrylodge was remorseless, unresponsive to criticism, and was simply looking for a license to continue undaunted was in essence was why FL was banned. It needs to be addressed. Was that perception of Ferrylodge appropriate or not?

Ferrylodge seems incapable of presenting a coherent self-defense beyond saying he's apologized. His supporters (or at least those opposing his ban) seem incapable of addressing his pattern of behavior and his response to criticism.

I raise the issue because it needs to be addressed. --Pleasantville 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is there any point to "voting" on people's proposals here? Isn't that what the arbitration committee is supposed to do? I understand people discussing each idea, but what is with the Support or Oppose comments with little else to say? :-/ --Ali'i 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never been to one of these things before. It would be helpful if someone could point towards guidelines of how this is supposed to work. --Pleasantville 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The various support/discussion of the various proposals are more for the committee to get a feeling for what is behind the proposals. for example: several proposals have been made, some discussion of them and then an alternate version proposed. The idea being to make sure that the community has input to the process as well. The other unintentional consequence is that it gives disruptive users the chance to be disruptive in a way that doesn't harm the encyclopedia, but does give both the committee and other users a chance to see what all the fuss is about.

That said, you all are doing it just fine it seems to me. --Rocksanddirt 23:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The presentations and discussion in this case, as compared with many other cases, have been well-organized and civil, which will give you a sad picture of what many other cases have been like. Newyorkbrad 12:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on NYB's comment, the last arbitration I was involved with resulted in motions for injunctions to keep the behavior civil on the arbitration page. This is an extremely well behaved arbitration from what I understand. As for the actual "voting" on the proposals, it helps the committee view the community's support for things. The "proposed decision" page is not even editable by us. The arbitrators will put on there which findings, remedies etc. they choose; they don't even have to use ones that we come up with. They can make up their own there. However, it a) gives us something to do and lets people debate the topic. b) healthy debate stirs up new findings, such as "B"'s sockpuppet evidence against FeloniousMonk (which I am not sure the Arbitrators would have found, nor thought to use checkuser). c) gives them an idea of how the community feels about certain remedies and actions. In those respects what we do on workshop pages serves a very real purpose.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that they don't really need to know "the community's support for things" here. Discussion is fine (and helpful, as you point out), I was referring more to things like this (under the heading "Ferrylodge's ban is upheld"):

Support 1. and/or 1.1. Odd nature 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 Support either option. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What purpose does this serve? If the arbitration committee wanted to view a vote of non-arbcom members on things, I suppose they could re-open the community sanction noticeboard, though. :-) Discuss, don't vote. --Ali'i 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please actually defend Ferrylodge on the evidence page?

Ali'i has made a start at it, but no one seems to be actually making a coherent defense. What is attracting all the wordage is:

1) Attacks on the CSN process. 2) Attacks on editors who have objected to Ferrylodge's behavior. 3) Claims of ignorance of what he might have done wrong from Ferrylodge.

In light of past claims that Ferrylodge lacked the time to defend himself, it seems to me that it is about time for someone to defend him if he won't do it himself. Ali'i's work is a stub for what should be there. --Pleasantville 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I said at the evidence talk page that I intend to get to this over the weekend.[3][4] Some of us "sociopaths"[5] have other obligations that prevent us from spending unlimited time with you fine people here at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The accusations of B

In light of B choosing to 'retire' instead of actually addressing the giant chasms in his argument, I propose that all of his evidence and his proposals be stricken from this case. It is only fair. Why should FM and ON continue to try to uphold their good names while B gets to retire and wimp out? Baegis 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• That would be inappropriate, especially since there's nothing to stop him from coming back any time he feels like it (for example, tomorrow). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• The accusations have been made, they need to be resolved. I think it is appalling that B has been harassed so much for making these accusations that he's felt it necessary to retire. Whether he's right or wrong, he has a right to be listened to and have his concerns dealt with appropriately. People should be ashamed of themselves. --Tango 21:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• I fully disagree with Baegis. The evidence put up by B is at least as convincing as that put up by MONGO in a recently closed arbcom case. It should be evaluated by the committee. The harrassement of B by other users and admins is very unfortunate and should likely be evaluated by the community as well. --Rocksanddirt 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rocksanddirt and Tango. We don't desysop someone for gathering evidence and making an accusation, even if it does turn out to be wrong. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But it is ok to desysop someone (or even allow such baseless claims to be examined) based on the claims of someone who decided to leave the project rather than face the inevitable questions following his accusations? People should be severely reprimanded for bringing such false claims. Plus, if anyone would like to read through this [6] it is quite clear B has undertaken some questionable activities in which he has crossed paths with FM and ON. It seems pretty clear that he has a past with these two and these allegations are obviously meant to cause harm to their name, especially in light of his decision to pack his bags rather than fully explaining anything. I am not 100% sure of B's motives in leaving, but in doing so he has conveniently removed himself from any sort of punishment for his actions. This is a slippery slope if we allow users to do this because they have a personal problem with other users. This is neither the time nor place for such allegations. Plus, since when does a CU not clear someone? Baegis 18:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All checkuser can do is determine if IP addresses being used by two users are the same or similar. It is thus very good at proving guilt, but not so good at proving innocence. If, for example, I normally edit from an IP at my house, but deliberately go to the home of my friend across town's house to use my sockpuppet, the accounts might appear unrelated. I'm not saying this has happened here or anything else concerning the merits of this accusation, it's just possible and explains why Checkuser can't really exonerate someone. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We examine based and baseless claims of all manner of things all the time here (at wikipedia). Fringe theories of shocking complexity on subjects you can't even imagine are brought up all the time. A shocking proportion of items on the AN/I are frivolous reports from folks in a dispute about content. Ordinarily, the claims are evaluated and if it turns out to be crap, that is noted. See Ferrylodges Rfc on Bishonen, it turned mostly against him as a frivolous excersise. --Rocksanddirt 03:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is premature to be discussing taking action against someone for making accusations before those accusations have even been assessed. If ArbCom concludes that there is insufficient evidence to link FM and ON, then we can consider if anything needs to be done about B. It's a very simple question that needs to be answered: "Did B genuinely believe the accusations he made?" If so, then however wrong they may be (and that hasn't been determined yet), he still did the right thing by reporting his concerns. If not, then it's a bad faith action and needs to be dealt with, however I have yet to see any evidence of that. That AN/I report doesn't tell us much - B and FM are active admins, it's not surprising they've crossed paths, and it's also not surprising that they've both done things people consider questionable, it goes with the territory. --Tango 09:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether B genuinely believed the accusations is not important. We need to assume good faith. We have to assume that he DID genuinely believe the accusations. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AFG doesn't mean you ignore it when people do something bad. It means you give them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. It is possible that it will come to light that B was acting in bad faith (I've yet to see any evidence of this, though), in which case we would need to do something. Until that point, we assume good faith, of course. --Tango 10:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Banno's questions

Banno, FeloniousMonk was not involved (aside from one warning) in the events that lead up to Ferrylodge's banning, so probably isn't the one to request links to dispute resolution from. He's a party in this case based on his decision to ban Ferrylodge and the timing of that ban. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, although as banning admin he may be aware of some attempts at dispute resolution that swayed his decision to ban. In any case, I've broadened my question to asking for any attempts, not just those of the involved parties. Banno 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A comment

The CSN that led up to this arbitration reminds me of another controversy. An independent observer wrote a comment which I still remember. I'm going to paraphrase it to remove identifying information. Actually I think it might be useful to rephrase it in terms of the CSN against Ferrylodge.

I have been watching this CSN progress, and I have tried to keep a completely open mind and to assume good faith regarding the parties, including pointing out what I believe to be inappropriate behavior on the part of some of the complainants. Many of the diffs given as evidence seem to be taken out of context or have been made out to be more than they are. However (as another editor pointed out), the parties involved refused to sit back and let the process take its course and instead used it as a vehicle to continue to snipe at one another.

Ferrylodge, your conduct on this CSN has done nothing but seemingly validate the concerns of those who initiated it. Though the CSN may have suffered some prima facie defects, your behavior on the CSN itself loses you any chance of exoneration by CSN or the respect of those not previously involved in disputes with you. No one can defend your actions elsewhere because of how you behaved here.

At the start, I noted that the CSN looked an awful lot like you might be victim of being railroaded... However, at this point I believe that you've validated the concerns of those driving the train. As a very wise editor once told me, being right is no excuse for poor behavior. I suggest being a little more open to community mores and norms and a little less likely to react from the gut. When things get tense, make yourself wait an hour or two before replying -- You might be surprised at how much differently things look when you're calm.

As for the others who have participated in the sniping contest... this CSN isn't about you, so I will keep my comment brief. I have no doubt that much of the efforts made were intended to bait Ferrylodge into questionable behavior to demonstrate your concerns to the community writ large -- given your past practice you guys certainly know which of his buttons to push to evoke such a reaction. In that goal you have succeeded. However, I believe that you guys pretty much brought yourselves down to his level. Just as Ferrylodge should have stepped back and let the CSN work, so should you. You certainly didn't make yourselves look any better than he now does.

No analogy is perfect and it is easy to poke holes in this paraphrase. But I do see similarities - evidence taken out of context or made more than it was, railroading, bad behavior by Ferrylodge, and bad behavior by the complainants, who might have tried to evoke such a reaction from Ferrylodge.

Consider the definition of railroading:
- press (someone) into doing something by rushing or coercing them
- cause (a measure) to be passed or approved quickly by applying pressure
- send (someone) to prison without a fair trial or by means of false evidence

That is what the CSN looked like to me (and, I think, to others). The pressure and lack of time caused Ferrylodge to react very badly. I saw incivility on both sides, which almost predictably brought more incivility by Ferrylodge. (And no, I am not going to provide details for this comment. I don't want this to degenerate into multiple attacks back and forth.)

I have elsewhere given Ferrylodge advice like the above quote: "When things get tense, make yourself wait an hour or two before replying -- You might be surprised at how much differently things look when you're calm."

I similarly ask others to be civil in this arbitration. Sadly, there have been some very uncivil comments.

This arbitration is much better structured than the CSN (or an ANI) and there is much more time for parties to respond. My first impression of the CSN (reading the archive one month after it happened) was that Ferrylodge was his own worst enemy. My first impression of this arbitration is that Ferrylodge is behaving much better. He appears to be taking the time to respond logically rather than emotionally, to defend himself rather than attack others. I think this is a good indication that he can improve his behavior in the future. Other editors have also behaved badly showing uncivil behavior and engaging in personal attacks. They have pushed Ferrylodge's buttons and evoked bad behavior from him. I would like to hope (with not much confidence) that they, too, will behave better toward Ferrylodge. If they behave badly I hope (with some confidence) that Ferrylodge will react better.

Wikipedia needs constructive editors. It is a loss for Wikipedia whenever a constructive editor leaves or is kicked out. I have seen it happen and I don't like it. I once felt the need to take a long Wikibreak but I hope we can reduce the circumstances that make editors feel that way. It should be possible for us to debate content without engaging in incivility or personal attacks.

In real life, there are people with very different political views who are the best of friends. Obviously, they are able to argue politics without resorting to incivility or personal attacks. When we have content disputes, if we act civilly, we can still have respect for each other. I might disagree with an editor but still be disappointed if he or she leaves Wikipedia - it is bad for the project.

Some people are gleeful at the departure (actual or prospective) of an editor. They should be sad because it is a loss to Wikipedia. Perhaps they want all editors to agree with them on content. But Wikipedia's articles would be much worse if everyone had the same point of view. Some, perhaps, want to use Wikipedia to proselytize a particular point of view, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a PR agent.

In the case at hand, some editors apparently believe that blocking Ferrylodge would improve civility but that would be the loss of an editor who has made a great many constructive edits. All humans are imperfect; there is both good and bad. Before exiling anybody, we should try to get more of the good and less of the bad. I'm willing to work with Ferrylodge (or any other editor) and to monitor his edits to improve his civility - and the civility of those who interact with him.

If anyone cares to respond to these comments, I respectfully ask that you reply after not within my comments. Sbowers3 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SBowers3, I appreciate your involvement in this controversy, and your interest in what happens next. However, this proceeding is supposed to be evidence-based, and yet you explicitly decline to "provide details for this comment." Your comment includes some kind words about me, but it also includes stuff like this: "your behavior on the CSN itself loses you any chance of exoneration," and "No one can defend your actions elsewhere because of how you behaved" at the CSN, and "you've validated the concerns of those driving the train." I would never make such a statement without at least quoting something as an example.Ferrylodge 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, no analogy is perfect. The "quotations" about you were a paraphrase by someone else about the subject of a different controversy. While your behavior was not as bad as the quotations about the other subject, I do think that you would have been better served by defending yourself more and attacking others less. As to declining to provide evidence about other parties' incivility, I think that is not relevant to this arbitration. Yes, I could show that other people were uncivil but attacking your attackers would not help defend your own occasional incivility.

I do think that you were very rushed in the CSN and did not have the time to deliberate over your remarks. This arbitration is giving you much more time and the tone of your remarks is much better. Sbowers3 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.  :)Ferrylodge 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Sbowers3: What is your perception of Ferrylodge's willingness to deal with half-way measures such as subject area bans? --Pleasantville 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a subject area ban would be appropriate here. Having said so, I imagine that the perception of Sbowers 3 would be that I don't believe a subject area ban would be appropriate here.Ferrylodge 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was my perception that although a subject area ban was seen by some as an acceptable half-way measure, that such compromises were not acceptable to Ferrylodge. --Pleasantville 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pleasantville, I would have answered your question by saying that I had absolutely no perception about FL's willingness to accept a subject area ban or any other kind of half-way measures. Having read FL's comment above, that part of the question is now clear. I don't know about his willingness to accept other measures but I don't know that it matters either. If ArbCom ruled for a 1RR or mentoring - what are some other half-way measures? - then FL would either accept the ruling or leave.

Frankly, after going through this process and being blocked for more than a month already, I suspect that he could be unblocked today and he would try hard to be civil and to avoid personal attacks, and to stay far away from 3RR. What rational person would want to go through this process again and risk an indef block? If mentoring is the outcome I am willing to monitor all of FL's contributions and to advise him. It might be a bit peculiar because he is a more experienced editor but I do have experience in acting civilly, counseling other people about civility, and trying to avoid disputes. Sbowers3 02:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While a rational person (and I assume ferrylodge is rational) might try to be a civil, good helper of the encylopedia in the aftermath of something like this, there are numerous arbitration reviews, enforcements, and second cases of editors who could not. There was a return to the behavior that prompted bans, and editing restrictions with in days of the end of a hearing or sanction (see User:Pigsonthewing, he's been banned for a year at least twice). --Rocksanddirt 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mountains out of molehills

Both sides in this case have made multiple mountains out of molehills. It should never have reached this point. They should shake hands, make up, and get back to contributing positively to the encyclopedia.

Here are the major elements that appear in the evidence:

• Ferrylodge (FL) is blocked 24 hours for harassment
• FL posts at ANI objecting to the label "harassment"
• FL files at RFC objecting to the label "harassment"
• FL is blocked 48 hours for 3RR
• KillerChihuahua (KC) files at CSN

The one-day block for harassment was a molehill; FL turned it into two mountains: the ANI, then the RFC. The charge of harassment might have been inappropriate, but was not unreasonable. The block was for just one day and most people probably would have let it go. FL objected (and still objects) not to the block itself, but to the label "harassment." He appealed to ANI and then RFC (and even now in this ArbCom) with the stated objective of removing the label - just the label, not the fact of the block. In so doing, he turned what would have been an insignificant bump into a huge mountain which threatens to obscure his otherwise very productive record.

Having said that, many people are very protective of their reputation. It is a very reasonable and human thing to do. FL should not be punished for pursuing legal avenues to correct the (perceived) wrong to his reputation. The community and specifically this ArbCom should consider FL's record as if the ANI and RFC had never happened.

FL's filings in ANI and RFC were not improper

FL's filings in ANI and RFC were stupid and ineffective but were not improper. His stated objective was to remove the label "harassment" from his record. The ANI and RFC were the only paths available for him to do that. They were not a form of harassment. They did not hurt Bishonen; they only hurt himself. They were ill advised and he should have realized that they were doomed to failure, but they were not improper. When evaluating FL's record, they should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbowers3 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FL's record, absent the ANI and RFC, shows that he has been a very productive editor. He has made thousands of mainspace edits in more than a hundred articles. Only a very, very few of his edits have been rejected. He has displayed a willingness and ability to find wording that satisfies both sides of a debate. Even in contentious articles, the majority of his edits were accepted and are still in articles today.

Putting aside the ANI and RFC, FL's record shows two molehills: a 1-day block for harassment, months later a 2-day block for 3RR. (I ignore an earlier 3RR as ancient history.) The evidence shows no user talk page warnings, much less blocks, for tendentious editing, or incivility, or personal attacks. KC has taken these two molehills and turned them into two mountains: the CSN and (as a result) this arbitration. Were it not for FL's ANI and RFC, it is inconceivable that anyone (including KC herself) would have leveled charges leading to an indefinite block.

The trigger (at least in terms of timing) for KC's CSN was FL's 3RR violation. FL has apologized for this violation and explained that he did not realize that his second two edits qualified as reverts. If his four edits had gone through normal AN/3RR channels, he might have been merely warned rather than blocked. Firstly, because there was no 3RR warning on his talk page, and secondly, because the content of the edits was sufficiently different that a reasonable person might conclude that FL was making a good faith effort to modify the wording to satisfy both sides.

Far too much time and energy has been wasted on the ANI, the RFC, the CSN, and now this arbitration. All parties should be advised to not make mountains out of molehills. In the time that FL has been blocked, Wikipedia has lost perhaps a thousand mainspace edits. I, myself, have spent tens of hours that could have been spent fighting vandalism or helping other editors. Other editors have similarly wasted their time - i.e. have not made constructive edits that would have improved the encyclopedia.

FL should be unblocked and all of us should get back to making constructive edits (or in my case fighting unconstructive edits). Sbowers3 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't even begin to address nearly half the evidence available here. It completely ignores the RFC and his harassment of Bishonen. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted above an explanation of why the ANI and RFC were stupid but were not improper. They were not harassment. They were an ill-advised attempt to clear his record and were the avenues available for him to try to achieve a proper objective. Sbowers3 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)