Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop

New case workflow management

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As some may already know, the Arbitration Committee is undergoing some changes in the way cases are handled. Cases will be processed by two or three Arbitrators depending on the case while Proposed Decisions' voting will be done by the whole Committee — not including, of course, inactive and/or recused Arbitrators.

It has been proven many times in the past that Workshop pages produce more negative results than positive ones. In other times, ArbCom case pages were left unsolicited, for one reason or another, by Arbitrators until the time the Proposed Decision was processed. There is no doubt that all that have helped little and made some cases take more time than it should have taken or that the decisions were not well-taken and remedies not well-tailored.

General

My idea, as well as that of other Arbitrators and Community members, is to act proactively in managing case workflow. That is to have the Arbitrator(s) as the guiding and leading party of the whole process. Clerks will be empowered to make sure the case is run smoothly and disruption inexistent. There are many advantages to be sought by taking that approach. The Arbitrator(s) could assess the situation better and look for opportunities which can be taken Just-In-Time instead of missing them and leaving the case take its flow under no control until everything gets missed.

Some of the opportunities could have material effects; the Arbitrator(s) may find out that the case may not need any sanctioning remedies because parties may probably agree with the Arbitrator(s)' opinion that other ways of resolving the case could bring better results. Other opportunities could have intrinsic effects making the case serving as a learning stage for the parties. Another very important gain is leveraging users' conduct and establishing a clean atmosphere and a better environment for a smooth case with the least disruption possible. In most cases, the pressure and the lack of organization in case pages lead parties to behave and act nervously, impatiently and inappropriately resulting in more complications and consequences which are unneeded. Parties and/or non-parties get impatient and tired day after day while waiting for the final decision as well and that could easily influence their behavior on-site. That is not a good and fair thing for sure. We are all contributors and do not deserve that. We didn't commit crimes after all to deserve that. Let's not forget after all the time saved and gained —a time which should be invested in other productive things for the project.

Basically, what I am suggesting here is a new procedure of running the case efficiently. There is nothing set in stone and the Arbitrator(s) or the Clerks, under their own discretion, may change the procedures if needed and parties and non-parties alike must respect Arbitrators and Clerks directions. The workshop page will serve as what it is set for; just Workshoping (no forumshopping) and no unnecessary details and discussions will be held here. In fact, most has been already said and documented by the parties through statements and evidence presentation. I am suggesting to change radically the way discussions are produced in case pages (mainly workshops). As suggested here by user:Future Perfect at Sunrise, interviews may be a very good idea.

Party statements

Prior to any questions, I'd like to give an opportunity to every single party of the case to express themselves in a 500 words statement. And, no. I'd not ask for a statement with evidences since the evidence page is set for that. I'd not read and comment on statements full of accusations. I'd probably ask the Clerk to remove it if necessary. What I'll be asking for is a statement where parties lay out what they believe they are having a case and what is the outcome sought.

Use of Workshop talk pages

I will then proceed to noting (See example), review notes and non-detailed Proposed Decisions made by non-parties (see below for more details about non-parties PD) at the talk page and prepare the Proposed Decision if there are no significant objections to noting by the parties. Following that, a Proposed Decision will be posted at the Workshop page for review by parties and non-parties who would use the talk page where concerns and/or significant objections about Proposed Decision —if any— will be addressed. Where there are no significant objections to proposals, they will be posted on the Proposed Decision page ready for voting by the Committee.

Non-parties

Non-parties' participation in general have usually brought many positive things than negative ones. However, in many cases, that was proven totally wrong. In many cases, non-parties uncontrolled participation has brought more damage to the case than any good. For this reason non-parties participation will be guided and directed by the Arbitrator(s) and the Clerks. Proposed Decisions by non-parties are always welcome; however, and in order to have fast track cases with the minimum of time wasting, non-parties will be asked to produce general points at this talk page. Non-parties will be able to mention the general points without needing to follow any format or template. The simple the better. More details on this will be posted this week-end.

Questions

The idea of questions is not a novelty. In many cases, Arbitrators used to ask involved parties questions which are related to evidences or others for clarifications. In some other cases, and due to privacy concerns, questions are sent and replied via e-mail.

Questions should never be inquisitional. Questions, in general, are set to help Arbitrators analyze the situation better. What is new in this process is that questions will have a form and will be devided into two separate rounds. The first round will involve general questions that will be asked to the parties. The second round will consist of detailed questions depending on the course of the case and the answers of the other party.

Arbitrator(s) may take notes during or after reception of answers. The notes will be posted just under the answers sub-section. Once all answers are responded, the Arbitrator(s) will summarize all notes and post them at the bottom of the page. The Arbitrator(s) may use some indicators such as and to indicate to the parties that S/he is satisfied with the answer or not. In case more clarification is needed, the Arbitrator(s) may use the sign.

In practical terms, the Arbitrator(s) will look at the evidence and prepare a list (not very long actually but that depends on the case) of questions for parties to answer (less than 500 words per answer). The parties would also be able to ask the Arbitrator(s) to produce further pertinent questions to the other party if they believe the Arbitrator(s) missed any.

The number of questions may differ from one party to another. That should not be considered as an indication of anything apart from the simple explanation that the Arbitrator(s) may need more answers for their analysis. Parties are requested to answer the questions within 7 days.

Proposed Decisions by participants

Participants to the case use to post their Proposed Decisions at the Workshop main page. This method has had some advantages such as easy access and formality among others. However, Proposed Decisions by participants, especially when there are many, use to clutter the Workshop and making it hard to load —especially for people with slow connections. Other inconveniences include lengthy and unnecessary discussions which sometimes result in inappropriate behavior between participants. As we are trying to make the case work smoothly in a more organized manner, I'll ask participants who would propose desicions to start a Workshop subpage for that purpose with the WP:RFAR/Casename/Workshop/Username-PD format —making it easier for the Clerks to track them using Special:PrefixFinder. We will create sections in the Workshop main page where participants will link to their own Proposed Decisions.

Also, previously, many participants produced quasi-similar Proposed Decisions where the difference is minimal. I'd encourage similar Proposed Decisions to get merged into one. That is to say that two participants with quasi-similar PDs can merge their PDs into a single page (as the Committee does with the final Proposed Decision). I'd like then participants to add briefly in a few lines (not exceeding 10 lines) a summary of their PDs just below the link to it. Once the case is closed, Proposed Decisions by participants can be posted to the Workshop page for convenienece and formalities purposes so their subpages can be deleted.

'Analysis of evidence' will be transferred to the /Evidence talk page. Opinions and discussion of policies and principles should be steered away from the evidence pages to the workshop page.

Clerks role

The main role of the Clerks is to assist the Committee with procedural aspects of its work including enforcing Arbitrator(s) guidelines on statements and comments. This gives the Clerks and empowers them to mantain order in case pages. The parties and non-parties are expected to respect Clerks' decisions and action unless they believe there is some sort of abuse in which case, they should be noted at the talk page of the Arbitrator(s) handling the case. Workshops and other case pages should not be used to report or discuss Clerks' actions. Reporting Clerks's actions during case proceeding to ANI or other Wikipedia venues before contacting the Arbitrator(s) would be inappropriate. That should be observed at all times and repeated inappropriate actions by the parties or non-parties may result in a restriction to use the case pages where troubles are noted.

Deadline

This is a new approach we'll be taking. After a few days from starting the process formally, the Arbitrator(s) will ask the parties to estimate a deadline for the case closure. After a consensus is reached, the Clerks will make an announcement to the rest of the Committee and the Community via proper channels. The reason for this is to make everyone responsible for the process. It will also be taken as an incentive for the parties to work harder and avoid disruption which would delay the case process to no set date. Deadlines are not set in stone and can be updated depending on the course and the flow of the case. However, parties and non-parties are urged to do their best to respect them. I am working on the details and I am planning to announce them this week-end.

Workshop pages formatting

Because of the new introduced procedures and the points addressed above, the Workshop page and its related talk page will undergo some changes for that purpose. The clerks and Arbitrators are working on the new pages' layout which will be ready before April 14, 2009.

Users will be requested to move their Proposed Decisions to their mainspace as explained above before that date and wait for the Clerks instructions.

Conduct of all of us

I am placing this section here so that it'd make more sense

Everyone participating in the case pages is bound by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The purpose of these pages is to fix long-term issues. This is neither ANI nor any other place in the project since this deals with the last step of the dispute resolution process. This place should not be used to extend the dispute. Conduct between participants should follow the Wikipedia prescribed policies and guidelines. There will be no place for personal attacks and incivility; as an example, here 'b*l**h*t' is counted as a violation of the civility policy while 'x is stupid' is counted as a violation of no personal attacks policy (no - 'x is lazy' is not a personal attack). There's a reason for that; if participants keep attacking and being uncivil to eachother they would risk stricter remedies. So conduct is important to participants because bad behavior would affect the final decision since the Committee would consider that the problem of behaviour is still unresolved and constitues the main problem and therefore should be remedied with the adequate measures. After the first and last warning, any participant who violates the policy again will be blocked or restricted up to a period of 24h.

IPs are allowed to participate as long as they are bringing positive points. Disruption by IPs is not allowed and blocks may be issuedon the spot. In case of suspicion of sockpuppetry, I'll ask the Clerks to file a sockpuppet investigation.

I need to make clear that this not set to scare participants as much as it is set to protect participants against eachother and to help them avoid harsh or negative remedies.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinions and comments

Please let me know if you do agree to this approach ASAP because I have to set up a deadline to the case. If you have any other practical idea please let me know. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments by non-party Ncmvocalist

1. I won't be impressed if it will be a mere matter of noting; noting is ok, but in the end, the community will still expect most proposals that go to PD to be posted at workshop first. And by posting at workshop first, I don't mean merely posting, receiving comment, then posting a different version at PD that satisfies a few concerns but raises new ones. There was a lot of discontent with that approach recently. I means that subject to very minor (albeit nearly insignificant details), most proposals posted at PD have already been considered in the same wording (and often with the same links) at workshop. Please feel free to reproduce this paragraph at a more general arbitration talk page, or elsewhere, if it requires further attention/input.
2. There are a couple of things you noted in clerks role which are not fair in my opinion, but they are more of academic differences and I don't think there will be too many issues in practice, if I read the spirit correctly. Rather than have a lengthy discussion on this, I'd rather abstain, but the discussion may be reopened at a later time, and perhaps at another venue, if it becomes necessary.
3. Re: deadline section, that goes back to whether arbitrators will agree to work with the understanding I've raised in para 1. However, as I feel this is a major recent issue, if arbitrators are not willing to fit this into their new approach, then I respectfully oppose the parts of the plan that I have raised here now. If the relevant content from para 1 is in the plan, this approach as a whole has my support. I hope that's made my position clear. Ncmvocalist(talk) 16:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree though I mentioned 'if there are no objections'. I have just added to it Following that, a Proposed Decision will be posted at the Workshop page for review by parties and non-parties in the talk page. I also added significant to objections. Do you have any detailed wording in mind?
2. Clerks are administrators before being Clerks. Administrators, and therefore Clerks, can act under their own discretion described in the Admin and Arbitration policy. In Case pages, the role of those Administrators/Clerks is different as noted above. When they are in doubt, they are advised to consult with the Arbitrator(s) beforehand. The new thing introduced above is that if someone believes a Clerk is abusing h/er power, the first thing to do is to talk to the Arbitrator. If they feel the response they get is unsatisfactory, then users can refer it to AN. Do you have any objection or you feel that more details and less vague principles are needed?
3. The deadline is set after an agreement between parties and Arbitrators. Deadlines are not set in stone and can be updated depending on the course and the flow of the case. Is that ok? If yes, then I can add that detail. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I did: "I will then proceed to noting. See example. Following that, a Proposed Decision will be posted at the Workshop page for review by parties and non-parties in the talk page. Will post responses and/or proposals to address significant objections at the workshop. Where there are no significant objections to proposals, they will be posted on the PD page." Is that okay?
2. No objection; like with the past 3 months, I won't be affected either way. Given that there is so much to do (particularly with cases that have been open for some time), and given that the editors participating in all current arbitrations are likely to be unaffected by this, I don't want anyone to spend time on revising wordings on this particular point now - but, in the future, I'd like to consider trying details over principles even on this.
3. Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Please check it now.
2. Yes. That and the important thing here is to have some safeguards to both parties, non-parties and Clerks.
3. Cool beans! -- FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®} 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed, indeed, and indeed. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   So let's eat the beans I prepared in the kitchen yesterday :) Do you have any other practical ideas that you think are missing? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Not at this point; I think this is a very solid plan to start with. Now it's just a matter of putting it into motion or practice; I'll definitely give feedback afterwards if more would be needed beyond what we have here. Ncmvocalist(talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I've invited Tiptoety and Hersfold to add further input and proposals at User:Ncmvocalist/Ryulong-PD - the 3 of us seem to have similar (and often identical) proposals so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I let Ryulong know. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from involved Hersfold

All seems ok to me. As for a deadline, maybe by the end of this month, or May 7th at the latest? We seem to be fairly well into proposals by now; at this rate we'll probably see remedy suggestions (if necessary, as stated above) within a week or two.Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to have an early deadline but that is based just on my initial assessment of the case. Yes, if the parties see it otherwise and agree with your date then so be it. The important thing is to involve people in the process in a positive way and agree on group decisions by consensus. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a earlier deadline would probably be fine. As of now the evidence page has not been touched in a while, and I am not sure there is much more to submit, and the workshop page is moving rather slowly too. That said, I would not object to May 7th.Tiptoety ^talk 19:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That should be fine. Synergy 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just waiting for the parties to agree on that date. I still believe we can make it better. We'll see. The workshop will be cleaned up and a new format will be available soon. It appears that it is moving slowly but let's forget about the old way of doing stuff. I'll add a new guideline in a few minutes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's just over 2 weeks until the deadline; is there a delay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still aiming for May 7th though ArbCom PD's voting of Arbitrators may take a few days more because of discussions and voting. The plan now is to assign less days to answering questions (it was seven days per round instead of a week half a week—the Clerks notified the parties of the request to submit their statement on April 17th). We can make it a week for both rounds and be ready for the ArbCom PD vote by May 4. Meanwhile, we'll review together the participants' PDs during this coming week (Apr. 27 and May 4). The ArbCom has just announced its current agenda (I'll be updating it after comments below). Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"...it was seven days per round instead of a week..." Um. Last time I looked at a calendar, seven days == one week...? Just making sure I'm not missing anything here. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. It seems like I was busy with the calculator and missed the calendar. Thanks Hersfold. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist/Ryulong-PD

Just a heads up that per the above thread, /workshop like discussions are continuing on the above page. Tiptoety ^talk23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just created Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop/Ncmvocalist-PD per the update above (see rationale above). You can delete the original one. Sorry, but as you know we are still working on ideas; so that makes sense.

P.S. Since I'll posting here and the project page more often, I've just changed the look of my signature (avoid cluttering the pages with the shiny 'golden' color). -- Fayssal-F - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone have to make future proposals there? I see proposals from multiple editors on that page. —Mythdon t/c 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe you have similar or quasi-similar proposals then you could still coordinate that with other users. However, it is better for the main parties of the case to make their own proposals. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're welcome to make your own proposals in your own userspace and link to it from here. Proposals by Tiptoety, Hersfold, as well as Synergy, were merged due to how similarly we looked at many issues in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

I've just changed the new Workshop page format here. Arbitrators may be posting the questions (Round I) during the week-end. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Per my edit, I have a couple of issues.

We didn't discuss the prospect of restricting who edits the workshop page. Arguably when there's merges happening between PDs, issues with the summaries or where non-parties wish to display their own summary, then it's inefficient and rather tiring (especially for users who make sporadic contributions) to wait on a clerk or arbitrator to change it accordingly for the sake of bureaucracy. I think the PD by non-parties section should be left free to be edited by the very people making those proposals: non-parties - I assumed that was what we agreed upon. In effect, there's a dispute with the current instructions at the top of the page which restrict edits to parties, clerks and arbs.

The other issue is about whether uninvolved users should be allowed to pose optional questions to parties at the main workshop page...or not? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe you are missing the purpose of all this process. The guideline introduction and the 'General' section explain it all.

• Who edits the Workshop page: There's nothing to edit there apart answering questions if you are the main party of the case and putting a link to the participants' PDs and their summaries. As for asking questions to the parties, please do it here in an organized manner. Please note that the parties are not obliged to answer the questions asked by participants --they are free not to answer them here. We just do not want to repeat the questions asked many times before at user talk pages, ANI, RfCs, etc... If you believe the Arbitrators missed questions and want them to be answered by the parties, please suggest them here instead and wait for the Arbitrato(s) and Clerks opinion and directions.

• Summary of PD's: The summary of PDs would include section titles of the Principles, FoF and Remedies. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I am missing it; I'm just keeping an open mind on how this approach may work in other cases. I favour a "details approach" to avoid this sort of misunderstanding.

I'd like this to be spelled out to avoid issues with edits of that nature; I've made a bold edit to this effect just now [1]. As for questions, yes, that's why I called them optional. Summary = okay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I was thinking of having an addendum as I was expecting some new ideas and details by participants. We can still start and update the process as we go. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I'm looking forward to seeing the kind of questions that will be posed by arbs soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ahem! (It's a new week; the weekend is gone). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes I know :) I was waiting for the parties' statements but well, we can proceed with the questions now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Other people

Just so I think everyone is clear, only Arbs, Clerks and the Parties should really ever add or remove any content from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop in this system? rootology (C)(T) 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Non-parties will need to add their link to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop#Proposed_Decision_by_non-Parties, but yes, other than that you are correct. MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Recusing Newyorkbrad?

I am not sure where to put this but I am putting this out for discussion.

This is something I should have done almost a month ago before this case opened. I am asking that Newyorkbrad recuse him/herself from this case for reasons below:

• Evidence shown by Ryulong indicates that Newyorkbrad would be considered involved, not uninvolved.
• Ryulong participated in the user/arbitrator's RfA 2 years ago.

I know that the Arbitration Committee most likely knows the policy, but would like to remind everyone that the arbitration policy states that:

"All Arbitrators will hear all cases, barring any personal leaves or recusals. If an Arbitrator believes they have a conflict of interest in a case, they shall recuse themselves immediately from participation in the case. Users who believe an Arbitrator has a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response. Arbitrators will not be required to recuse themselves for trivial reasons – merely reverting an edit of a user involved in a case undergoing Arbitration, for example, will likely not be seen as a serious enough conflict of interest to require recusal."

Could somebody notify Newyorkbrad of this proposal to maintain neutrality? —Mythdon t/c 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified NYB, noting that it is up to the individual arbitrator to decide whether or not to recuse. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Firstly, lots of people participate in lots of RfAs. A simple support !vote (and I say simple as it was not accompanied by a long explanation) means little. And, a once off posting on a talk page is equally minute. I have to seriously question why this is being brought up at all, let alone apparently a month after Mythdon first realized it. JPG-GR (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am making this proposal in order to keep the case judged in a fair way. I quote a comment by Newyorkbrad that was made here "Ryulong is a dedicated administrator with some well-known sharp edges. I remember writing one of my long posts about Ryulong and his critics, urging him to work on various aspects of his tone and use of tools, a year and a half ago. I am glad to see a commitment to some changes in light of the recent RfC, but regret that some of that hadn't happened awhile back. Ordinarily, I would say that an administrator's promise to improve based on recent RfC feedback would buy a "decline" from me at least for a few weeks to see how things went, but I understand that some of the concerns here are of longer standing, and so perhaps it is time to examine them, as six of my colleagues (so far) believe. Being conflicted on the matter, I abstain from voting on acceptance, and will await the evidence phase in this soon-to-open case.". Such a comment could indicate future bias and he could make up his mind before all the evidence is presented even though he intends to indeed "await the evidence phase". He may not realize it, but I think he might make up his mind in a biased, unfair and/or non-neutral manner. I think such recusal is necessary. —Mythdon t/c 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for NYB, but -I- am insulted. If NYB wants to recuse himself based on what you have cited, I can understand and respect that. However, the implication that NYB would act "in a biased, unfair and/or non-neutral manner" is the polar opposite of an assumption of good faith and a statement that I feel is over the line. JPG-GR (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I say he could act in a "biased, unfair and/or non-neutral manner" because due to his (so far) partial involvement, he wouldn't be able to remain neutral. For example, if I preside on a legal court case in which I am an involved party, where's the fairness? There is none. The arbitrators, although not referred to as such, more or less act as judges on Wikipedia, given they should be fair, make the finale decision, listen to all parties, as if they are legal court judges, but different in that they judge on a website and multiple people act as the judges, not just one person. —Mythdon t/c 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What "involvement"? I see no examples of him being "involved" in the issues the arbitration case covers. Your continued attacks on the character of NYB not withstanding... you have a very interesting view of the world, my young friend. JPG-GR (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking Newyorkbrad, but am pointing out possibilities. A personal attack would be "[so-and-son ]is an selfish idiot!". I am assuming good faith, but I'm not going to take any risks by letting him act on this case. Ryulong lists this in his evidence, if you re-read the evidence page, you'll be reminded that it is, if you even bothered to look. —Mythdon t/c 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did "bother to look" and immediately dismissed it as nothing to blink an eye at. And, what do you mean when you said that you are "not going to take any risks by letting him act on this case"? This whole situation is starting to look more and more vengeful. JPG-GR (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Not going to take any risks by letting him act on this case" means that if I take any chances by letting him/her act, potential bias could be present. I understand that the evidence so far does not indicate a chance of personal benefit, but he/her may not be able to make a fair judgment with the vote he/she will cast later in the case. I feel that even at this amount of involvement in even the slightest concerns here could potentially water down the neutrality and water up the bias. It does not matter whether or not the arbitrator is acting in good faith or bad faith, he/she would be unable to act on this case as far as I'm concerned. I'm not assuming bad faith like you think I am, but I am assuming a potential bias is present. I think that even if an arbitrator is suspected of a bias, they shall think about whether or not to recuse. This is not vengeful by any means like you suspect. If this recusal hurts my case, fine, but for the best of me along with Ryulong, Hersfold and Synergy as far as fairness goes, they just as much as I deserve a fair arbitration no matter what. If he/she does not recuse, I advise that he/she take extreme cautions when acting on this case, and not to develop any bias, and focus on the neutral. —Mythdon t/c 05:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) For what it's worth, I think you're taking things wayyy too far again. One comment on a talk page does not a bias make. Same for commenting on someone's RfA. If that was the case, ArbCom would be totally unable to function, since hardly anyone coming to ArbCom has not had some involvement with at least one of the Arbs or Clerks at some point in their history. Indeed, if your point here is considered valid, then we have no Arbs or Clerks remaining for this case at all. Please be realistic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your willingness to voice your opinion, I disagree with it. It's not that I am saying one single totally unrelated involvement applies here, but Ryulong supporting the user's RfA, in my suspicion could trigger a bias based on Newyorkbrad's appreciation of support, if there is any appreciation. If you appreciate something, you are likely to do things for that person back as a sign of that appreciation, but it's not likely that Newyorkbrad will intentionally do such a thing, but feelings could get in the way of fairness. About the talk page thing, yes that does make bias based on the evidence. It is presented thus producing more bias. He is partially involved as I can see. I hope that you will listen to me clearly here. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 05:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you appear to be accusing NYB of having a rather severe character flaw. Ryulong's vote in his RfA was hardly the deciding vote, so there is no reason for NYB to "return the favor." JPG-GR (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. If NYB felt he needed to recuse, he would likely have done so when the case was requested. Let's also recall that the RfA in question took place over two years ago...? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing Newyorkbrad of any flawed character. I would like you to understand that, but you have yet to do so. If you want me stop doing what you're saying I'm doing, why are you assuming bad faith yourself? You cannot tell someone not to do something, and then turn around and do it yourself. Again, I am not assuming bad faith. What you continue to assert I am doing is not what I am doing. If I were accusing him/her of "flawed character", I would say it directly, explicitly and clearly. Now, it serves you right to consider everything that I just said to you and figure out exactly what I mean before replying. I will proudly answer all questions you have about my comment. —Mythdon t/c 06:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no assumption of bad faith on my end. You have said "I feel that even at this amount of involvement in even the slightest concerns here could potentially water down the neutrality and water up the bias." Based on all (and I use the term loosely) the evidence you have presented, that is a HUMONGOUS leap. The implication that anyone who has ever interacted with anyone else is instantly potentially guilty of bias is absolutely laughable. How can you have any faith in the RFAr process with that thinking? Why do you even participate if the cabal has already come to its conclusions? JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What cabal, and what participations? —Mythdon t/c 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this request for Newyorkbrad's recusal is unfounded and misguided, largely for the same reasons presented by Hersfold and Rootology and strongly suggest that Newyorkbrad not recuse. Mythdon: regardless of how you mean it, your comments come off like you think NYB is likely to be biased, and that's a rather serious thing to say. Furthermore, it seems to me that no one really agrees with your request for him to recuse, so barring any further support for it, you might want to consider dropping it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"There's no assumption of bad faith on my end. " - Quote: "This whole situation is starting to look more and more vengeful"''. That comment is an assumption of bad faith. Saying that this appears "vengeful" is a direct assumption of bad faith, given that the word means the same thing as "vengeance" accompanied by the situation. "Once again, you appear to be accusing NYB of having a rather severe character flaw" is a comment you said telling me not to assume bad faith. I have told you that I am not assuming any bad faith, but you continue to accuse me of assuming bad faith. Now, it is time that you cease accusing me of assuming bad faith. And believe it or not, you did too tell me not to do something then did it yourself. —Mythdon t/c 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion for my recusal is noted. Any other party or editor wishing to comment should do so within 72 hours. I will respond here after that. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a question about the RFA "involvement". Based on that, could no sitting Arb participate in any RFAR where someone voted them up or down in that Arb's RFA? What about that Arb's AC election? Or their 'crat election? Or their future Checkuser/Oversight election, if one of them become Arbs? What if I voted to give a user Rollback today, and he became an Arb in 4 years? What if I left that user a welcome template message? rootology (C)(T) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• After a quick review of this, I do not feel that nyb has an 'interest' in the people involved in this case that would indicate recusal to be a good option. His involvement has been fairly minor and part of the normal participation of folks in our decision making. Based on nyb's other statements about admins up for committee review, his comment in the acceptance about Ryulong should be seen as very very serious concern. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• "I can't speak for NYB, but -I- am insulted." I think comments like the one quoted are highly inappropriate. If such concerns are directed to another person, there is no need to involve yourself personally, let alone to put forth an emotional involvement. Not only is that directly stating that you are not objective, but it is not civil to state something like that. JPG-GR, your comments and actions are inflammatory, rude, and disruptive. As Newyorkbrad has shown, he can handle himself and deal with things in an objective and appropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• I see no reason for Newyorkbrad to recuse over these issues. Regarding the first diff, it looks like nothing more than an explanation of talkpage guideline and etiquette. Regarding the second diff, a support on an RFA is routine. If Newyorkbrad had to recuse himself from all cases involving someone who supported his RFA, there would be little left for him to arbitrate on. Arbitrators are rarely influenced by such RFA supports years later. (For one example, SlimVirgin was the nominator of FloNight for adminship, and FloNight was later one of the arbitrators voting for a temporary desysop of SlimVirgin.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• A literal one-off does not count. I have nothing further to add on this, other than: per Sjakkalle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• I also supported Ryulong during their last RfA. What do you think Mythdon? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Convincing. Mythdon (Talk) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Determination regarding recusal

As requested by Mythdon, I have considered whether I should recuse myself from this case. As indicated above, I requested comments from parties to the case and other editors on this request, and have considered all of the input received. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion. Because the question of when arbitrators should recuse is a recurring one, I will take this opportunity to discuss the standards that I believe should govern recusal in general, before applying them to the facts of this case. (I acknowledge with a smile the irony that I am about to type a lengthy post on this talkpage, despite the discussion on the workshop talkpage in the Abd and JzG case about the need for brevity in talk posts. Accordingly, advance "tl;dr" dispensation is granted to anyone requesting it, and those uninterested in my philosophy of recusal or the details of this case may skip to the last paragraph, far lower on this page.)

At the outset, I will emphasize that I am sure no personal slight at me was intended, and certainly none is taken, at the suggestion that my arbitrating in this case could create an appearance of partiality or impropriety. I am fully familiar with recusal practices both on the Arbitration Committee as well as in real-world judicial systems where I have studied this issue (as it happens, I am the major contributor to recusal in mainspace, which ought to be globalized and brought up to FA standards) and have at least once litigated them in an appellate court.

The policy that governs my, and I believe the other arbitrators', decisions regarding recusal from cases is that I will recuse when either circumstances outside my role as an arbitrator create a conflict of interest should I participate, or where it is my view that because of such circumstances, my impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Applying these criteria, I have recused myself as an arbitrator in cases as varied as the Zeraeph case (because I had once called on ANI for a sanction against the main party) and the September 11 conspiracy theories line of cases (because I live and work 4 miles from the World Trade Center sight and may be unable to evaluate edits addressing the absurd and loathsome "controlled demolition hypothesis" without emotion), among others.

It is my view that in cases of genuine doubt, an arbitrator may properly err, if at all, on the side of recusing. Unlike prior periods where only 4 or 5 active arbitrators were shouldering the workload, at present we have 16 active arbs, all of whom are fully engaged. So long as this is the case, a decision by one or two to sit out a case is not likely to unfairly delay a decision or burden the other members of the committee. At the same time, though, and as I wrote in a proposed redraft of the arbitration policy, recusal should be neither sought nor granted for slight or trivial causes. We do not have or want a situation in which the parties are allowed to select from among the arbitrators who hear their cases, which would allow for "gaming the system" and create the problems akin to those categorized in the real world as "judge-shopping." (I do not in any way suggest that this is what Mythdon has sought to do here.)

With this as background, I have considered whether I should participate in this case. I do not believe that the two items cited by Mythdon in his initial request, without more, would be sufficient to warrant recusal. First, the fact that Ryulong cast a supportive !vote in my RfA more than two years ago strikes me as irrelevant. I do not believe that a reasonable and impartial observer of the arbitration process would consider that a party's favorable (or unfavorable) vote in an arbitrator's RfA, or for that matter in the ArbCom elections themselves, would raise questions about the arbitrator's impartiality in a subsequent case involving that editor. The fact is that despite the vast size of Wikipedia, we have a core community of probably a few hundred people who participate in things like RfAs and elections. We also, as I said, now have 16 arbitrators. Although I have not done any analysis, I suspect that in virtually every case we have, one or more of the parties have cast RfA votes for one or more of the arbitrators. Myself, I am sure I have helped decide cases involving several of the people who voted for my adminship or my arbship, and the fact of their having done so has never weighed in any of my thinking on the cases. So I put this first issue to one side.

Mythdon's second diff, in which I commented on Ryulong's talkpage concerning an earlier aspect of the current dispute, raises a closer question. At least to some extent, it could be said that I expressed a view on part of the issue now being arbitrated. To be sure, it was hardly a controversial or emphatic view, but more of an attempt to defuse tension at a moment in which two editors were involved in what struck me at the time as a needlessly emotional and bitter dispute. The statement and my fleeting "involvement" in this dispute would not color my view of this case. Until Mythdon reminded me of it, I had forgotten having said it. Moreover, making comments like these is part of what I do around Wikipedia. Sometimes, though not as often as I would like and apparently not in this instance, it actually helps. It used to be that I would spend a few minutes of my wikitime each day scanning down AN and ANI, trying to make helpful comments and suggestions for resolving or toning down disputes. I do a little bit less of that now, in large part because I have learned that any comment made by an arbitrator in a community discussion is subject either to being given disproportionate attention, or to later becoming the basis of a potential recusal issue if the dispute comes to arbitration. (I refer to this, at least in my own mind, as the "Miltopia effect", after the former user who once predicted in a Wikipedia Review thread about my election that exactly this would happen. But I digress.)

I do not, however, endorse the idea that an arbitrator's having made a passing comment on a dispute automatically warrants recusal. Arbitrators are drawn from the administrator corps, and in particular typically from that segment of the administrator corps that tries hardest to resolve disputes and work with problematic situations and unhappy editors. To take 16 of the most active admins away from commenting on day-to-day issues of administration would be damaging. Moreover, just as it is often (justifably but exaggeratedly) suggested that many administrators become detached from day-to-day editing, so too I am concerned with any policy that would cause the arbitrators to become needlessly detached from day-to-day administrating. So it is a closer question, but I do not believe that either the reality or appearance of a conflict of interest or a lack of impartiality is created by Mythdon's second diff, either.

I therefore conclude that these two issues by themselves would not warrant recusal. I am also comforted in that conclusion by the fact that it is also the view of most of those who have commented above.

Nonetheless, apart from the concerns Mythdon initially raised (which honestly had not struck my mind at all), I had been considering recusing myself from this case for a separate reason, alluded to in his second post above. This is that I previously commented at great (and according to some, undue) length about Ryulong's conduct as an administrator, which is what I was referring to in my comment at the case-acceptance stage. The comment in question is archived in Ryulong's talk archives here for those who may wish to review it.

I am not certain whether this comment either could give anyone grounds for questioning my impartiality in this case. It would not even be clear to me whether it would work to bias me favorably toward Ryulong (because I opposed a call for his desysopping once before), or unfavorably toward Ryulong (because I would be disappointed that he has allegedly not corrected all the concerns I raised with him a year and a half ago). Nonetheless, I cannot reasonably categorize it as a fleeting or passing comment; it was a substantial examination of his work as an administrator, which, brought up to date, is pretty much the same issue before the committee in this case. Reviewing this colloquy has also brought back to my mind a couple of conversations I had in the past with Ryulong on IRC concerning certain issues; these, too, would not warrant my recusal in and of themselves, but they must be considered in the overall mix.

When I combine the prior commentary on my part with Mythdon's presumedly good-faith concerns about whether I should sit in this case, I reach the conclusion, by a narrow margin, that in view of the cumulative weight of circumstances that I should not. Accordingly, the request for my recusal is granted, albeit primarily for different reasons than those initially suggested by Mythdon, and I shall mark the ACA template accordingly. I would again like to thank those who have commented in this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad. Mythdon, please comment and clarify your position. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Being a stringent reviewer of many sorts, particularly when it comes to whether an arbitrator need to recuse or not, I would have (up until now) insisted that it was inappropriate for Nyb to use this (or merely these circumstances) as a justification to recuse, unless there are private communications we are unaware of. This is having read all of his comment. Still, given that it would not be fair or in the interests of this project if arbitrators did not use this approach consistently in deciding whether to recuse, and given that we need to move forward, I guess this is the system that we are using, in which case, I have to simply concede I am obviously not stringent enough in this regard. Thank you Nyb. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Decision time?

It doesn't seem as though any more proposals have come up lately, and discussion is stalling on most of them. With two weeks left before the deadline, maybe it's time to start moving some things over to start the voting phase? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The questions will be ready by tomorrow. I was waiting for the statements of the parties but no one has yet made any statement. We'll review together both PD's during the coming week. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to make statements in preparation for the questions? Mythdon (Talk) 23:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you could make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop#Statements_by_Parties it would be appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Schedule

It seems that we are a bit behind schedule but I hope we can try to catch up.

• Statements. It was supposed for us to be into the second round of questions by now. We can proceed without them if not possible to have them today.

• Questions round I - April 25. Questions round II - April 29.

• Review of participants PDs and preparation for the ArbCom draft (April 27 - May 3)

• ArbCom Proposed Decision's draft (May 4)

• Case closing (between May 10 and 17; depending on the ArbCom discussions and voting)

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the timing is fair. Mythdon (Talk) 01:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

Due to the appearence of new evidence, the case closure is postponed for 3 additional days to let participants respond to the additional questions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. —Mythdon t/c 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Has the Proposed Decision's draft been delayed? I don't see the proposals posted on that page yet. —Mythdon t/c 01:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The PD draft will be presented for ArbCom voting on May 7th (3 days added as mentioned just above). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to write a whole new schedule in your update? —Mythdon t/c 06:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To write a 'whole' new schedule... no. We should not be taking this as if we were dealing with a UN document and we are already discussing this under the sub-section 'Update'. Was I unclear with my notification? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To some respect, yes, but on the basic area, no. —Mythdon t/c 06:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The case closure has been postponed for 3 additional days —starting my signature time stamp on May 4— means that May 4 became May 7. The same applies to the following dates; you just add 3 days and you come up with the updated dates. I believe I am writing the 'whole' new schedule already ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't need to tell me that the case closure has been postponed 3 additional days. I was simply wanting to know about the other dates (i.e. the dates mentioned in the "Schedule" section), but thanks anyway. —Mythdon t/c 06:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

General questions posted

This is to inform all participants that I've just posted the general questions at the Workshop page. As discussed before, participants may suggest additional questions here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This case seems to be about rules lawyering

I'm uninvolved, but from analyzing the evidence, a common theme here seems to be rules layering. On one hand you have Ryulong thinking himself unable to do anything about Mythdon annoying him all the time, because Mythdon isn't technically breaking any rules, and on the other hand you have Ryulong threatening good faith newbies with bans for violating the rules.

What I've also noticed, is Ryulong seeing rule violations when they're not there. For instance punishing that user due to violating the talk page guideline of not signing their posts, or rolling back "vandalism" when the edit is actually in good faith.

So whether or not the arbitration committee finds him to have violated any rules concerning administrator conduct, and whether or not they believe he'll not violate those rules in the future, I think that Ryulong should be de-admined. Ryulong seems to be more concerned with enforcing the rules than with fostering an environment that is conductive to writing an encyclopedia. Simply put, people like Ryulong having access to admin tools is bad for wikipedia's editing environment, especially the fifth pillar.

Look at things this way. If he retains his adminship, there will be all sorts of paper work, requests for comment, heated discussion concerning the legitimacy of AOR, filed complaints and general drama. If he loses his adminship, then the worst thing that can happen is that he'll ragequit, and the best thing that can happen is that he'll have more time available to actually edit articles, instead of meta-meta-meta type stuff.

--ScWizard (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This, in my opinion, is a really odd summarization of items here. If anything, the only "rules lawyering" I have been doing is concerning WP:IAR. I've always been aware that rollback is for edits that are vandalism or blatantly unconstructive. I always thought that warning (even if it was threatening) a block is more benign than blocking the user outright (which was a problem that has been brought up every so often and I've not performed any such blocks since). Mythdon is the only user who is rules lawyering or at least only taking a strict interpretation of the guidelines and policies on Wikipedia. I would like to see where exactly you see that I've been ruleslawyering.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not rules lawyering. Just taking a strict interpretation of policies and guidelines, something that I have to confirm. Can I ask you something? In your views, in order to comply to WP:V fully, shall we remove anything that is unsourced until it is sourced or leave it on the article making the excuse of "you haven't looked for sources, so how can you remove this information?"? I understand WP:IAR, but I am not a big fan of it, and I don't see how it applies nearly as much as many users think it does. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:ROLLBACK, WP:BLOCK, WP:ADMIN and WP:WHEEL are a examples of what I feel shall not be ignored unless you can prove you have a serious reason to. I too agree that the above user is making an odd summary of the case. Mythdon t/c 06:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel the need that I should answer your particular questions here, Mythdon, as you are taking this into a tangent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"I've always been aware" which is the reason why this case is here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Specific questions posted

This is to inform all participants that I've just posted the specific questions at the Workshop page. As discussed before, participants may suggest additional questions here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New evidence

I have received some new private evidence that I'll be adding to the evidence page later today. Consequently, some new questions may be added to let the parties respond to the evidence(s). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't added that evidence yet. What is slowing you down? I'd like to know. —Mythdon t/c 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy, User:Ryulong had to be aware of the information before being submitted. That had also required an approval from the people who brought it. I also had to ask a few questions about the details. The evidences are now added.

Consequently, the case will be delayed for a couple of days to give enough time for user:Ryulong, you and probably others to answer a couple of questions. You'll be informed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, FayssalF. —Mythdon t/c 00:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and after looking at your evidence. If you could, could you please get permission to post the IRC logs? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are only two IRC logs and it may probably better for you to ask Ryulong, MBisanz and Risker for their approval. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please do it instead? But please note this, if there is any IP address speculation about me, I don't what it posted anywhere on Wikipedia for privacy/safety reasons. —Mythdon t/c 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to avoid any kind of violating the privacy of anyone I suggest to leave it here. And since everyone is going to respond to the new questions, the publication of logs would become moot anyway . -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I wanted the IRC logs for proof that this stuff is in fact going on. —Mythdon t/c 01:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you obtain those users' approval then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF is asking them for their approval on the Workshop page right now and has received approval by MBisanz and Risker. Now it's just Ryulong that has yet to give approval or disapproval. —Mythdon t/c 06:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom PD notification

ArbCom PD is posted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Any reason it has not yet been posted to the PD? If I am correct, it should have been done yesterday. Tiptoety ^talk 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the clerk's fault. I am new and am not completely sure of the processes yet. I also haven't heard anything from FayssalF so I didn't do anything. KnightLago (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)