User:HJensen/ArbcomAppeal

Essay made in expectation of a 12-month editing restriction following the ArbCom ruling in the "date delinking case"

First draft, May 27, 2009.

Revised, June 4, 2009.

Revised, June 9, 2009.

Revised, June 14, 2009 as the restriction has been passed. So I am indeed restricted for 12 months.

Revised, August 8, 2009 (on the failure of my request for amendment)

Background

To me, everything started on a happy note. I had Frank Zappa up as featured article candidate during 2008, and succeeded in the second attempt in September. It ran on Wikipedia's main page on December 4, 2008. In the process, I learned a lot about formatting, and noted to my joy that it was no longer necessary to link dates. In fact, as the MOS described it, linking of dates was deprecated, or simply "Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so" (that is of August 31, 2008). I had honestly always felt it somewhat strange to link various dates and years thereby potentially directing readers towards peculiar pages. So I figured that one could safely, and in accordance with the MOS guideline, remove some links when one fell over them. (And I did so when I was asked to help out with the—successful—FAR on Bob Dylan.)

Since I started on Wikipedia in 2006, I have partly been involved with tennis articles, and most of these contain tables with statistics of players' appearances in finals. In these tables, dates and years were routinely linked. I felt for no particular reason. I therefore removed links in the articles on Mats Wilander and Guillermo Vilas, while at the same time making other changes. I found out that User:Tennis expert reverted these changes without any comment. I removed the links again a couple of times, each time noting that links were not needed according to the MOS, and encouraging an explanation for the reversals. The user in question rarely made edit summaries, but in the rare instances, it was along the lines of "this is against consensus". My brief endeavour ended up as evidence for edit warring against me here. I lost interest in the whole thing, as this user was known to me as always using this argument when somebody made changes he did not like (irrespective of n other editors approving, where n often was a large number). (It was particularly puzzling to me in this instance, as the user declared that he "couldn't care less about whether dates are linked". I never understood why one would defend a "consensus" one was against, since this, of course, would mean that consensus would never change.)

I gradually noticed that the delinking issue was a larger-scale issue, and I probably only delinked dates on a few other occasions in tennis bios (where some, I think was not reverted).

How I ended up at an ArbCom

When the ArbCom on date delinking began in January 2009, I followed the workshop with interest, and made a few comments here and there. At some point, User:Tennis expert was subject of a debate, and he indicated that he did not edit war on linking dates. I could not help myself but presenting a diff that showed some of his reversions (about 265 within a few days). Shortly thereafter (within few hours), I found myself formally accused of edit warring, and later tag-team edit warring, and lots of other stuff (everything filed by User:Tennis expert). I should say that I had always emphasized that I would not have anybody "punished" for anything, so I would therefore not file any formal complaints against anybody. See, e.g., here (where I oppose sanctions at Tennis expert) and here (where I explain this to Tennis expert after he has filed me for edit warring) I even struck the term edit warring after having presented the 260+ reverts to emphasize this. It is interesting in its own right that an editor who was not a party in the ArbCom case, could suddenly turn me into an accused, for what I, of course, considered limited and civil editing conflicts over a minor thing. Said editor later tried to draw back all his "evidence" when leaving Wikipedia, but without any luck. That may just be a minor detail, but to me it is a bit amusing, as my status as an accused was exclusively due to said editor's apparent disagreement with me.

As another small detail, I can't help feel being confirmed in what "I did" indeed was completely innocuous, as arbitrator User:Wizardman during the time of the voting process delinked dates on a much larger scale than I have ever done. And this took place the day before he voted for restricting me (!). Well, I will never understand the mysterious ways this Wikipedia works, when it moves beyond pure editing.

The mysterious process

The whole process on the workshop page grew more and more surreal, as people repeatedly dug up new "evidence" for this and that, and whenever User:Tennis expert came up with more against me, I tried to note my reservations and "defense", but it became increasingly futile, as there was no apparent deadline for the presentation of evidence.

Presentation of evidence: The Neverending Story

This weird process has of May 2009 continued into the phase where the ArbCom makes its draft proposal and starts voting. Various editors, including arbitrators, kept digging up evidence (see this, for example, where I am mentioned somewhere), and it is completely unclear where one can, if one is allowed, defend oneself. I find it particularly disturbing that new evidence is presented even after the voting has started, and that some arbitrators start soliciting comments from parties during the voting process (admirable in its own right, but a peculiar timing). In other words, was the workshop just for fun, and a place where people could gradually dig up "evidence" against each other? The general discussion, which did also occur at the workshop more or less without arbitrators commenting in their designated templates, is starting all over again at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision. Now more informal (if not chaotic), and with the participation of arbitrators. This appears very odd, and at a too late stage for arbitrators to start seriously joining in.

Rebuttals to evidence: The Untold Story

I find the whole process a joke as editors who are up for very severe sanctions can only make rebuttals to the evidence on various talk pages and "workshop" pages and if various arbitrators solicit some. I, for example, by mere accident, was invited to make a statement on User:Vassyana's talk page regarding my role. For what it is worth, this coincidence actually had the effect that this arbitrator was the first to oppose that I had edit warred (and therefor the editor opposed any sanctions). After drafting this essay, User:FayssalF and User:newyorkbrad have also voted against sanctions per Vassyana (the latter editor was the last to vote on June 8). This shows that the order in which arbitrators vote is not unimportant.

June 4 update

On June 4, another "accident" in my favor happened. As a result of a discussion about Wizardman's delinks (I believe), arbitrator User:jayvdb made this change of vote, based on his retrieval of this edit of mine. This edit I had forgotten, as it was a long time ago. This particular action of the arbitrator shows again that the whole process is flawed (while I of course appreciate the action per se): I get heavily "prosecuted" by one angry editor, and if I do not make a lot of effort defending myself, I am more or less proven guilty unless the opposite is established. I.e., until I take time to dig up evidence myself. I never did that systematically, as I found the accusations too far out to be serious; I just made some remarks on the workshop page. Only now, half a year later, when I see a verdict coming up, I start questioning the whole thing again, and then by accident a hard-working arbitrator (after the process has been suggested to be closed) finds evidence that he believes "mildens" my "crime". This is indeed admirable, but other arbitrators have already voted, and I would never have thought of that edit myself, as I found the whole thing a bit crazy in the first place (and could therefore not appreciate the importance of this edit). So the whole process seems to be one long sequence of loose and random events. In the future, such processes should therefore include: deadlines, deadlines and clear information about how one potentially can defend oneself against peculiar accusations.

The end result

28.1) HJensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for 12 months. He is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline

One thing is that I don't understand the whole process by which this end result will probably be reached (I am either stupid, or the process is somewhat flawed), another is that I have no idea what "28.1" actually means. I can only make reversions if they are prescribed in the applicable style guideline? Is that actually a restriction? This is what I have always done, and what I actually did according to the evidence presented against me. Excuse me for feeling caught between Catch-22 and Joseph K!

The lessons I can take away from this

• If anyone, for whatever reason, present any evidence against you at an ArbCom case, don't spend a single minute on it. Evidence will in any case change as editors move along, and when arbitrators step in you may be up against completely different evidence. And when voting starts, things may change all over again, so wait until all is over and see what happens to you.

• On Wikipedia, a place that foster openness and good faith, one may be in for a nasty surprise and find that things you did in good faith, and according to applicable guidelines, may suddenly place you in a situation you had thought only the worst vandals would find themselves in. All through mysterious proceedings in closed chambers that doesn't resemble most modern societies.

• I will continue to flunk university students that use Wikipedia as a source.

August 8 update following a failed request for amendment

On June 17, 2009, I filed a request for amendment of my “sentence.” In my opinion, the request was not seriously considered by the Arbitration Committee. Two Arbitrators signaled a support, two a vague oppose (one of these Arbitrators, by the way, was out of the committee in between, but came back; I haven't cared looking into the editor's status of today). Their opposition was not based on the request for amendment as such, but in part on the ground that the penalty was not "onerous". So the idea seems to be that one should not correct mistakes if they are not too big. Consider a judge in a real-life court ruling: "Sir, your appeal is rejected. Come on, you were only sentenced to one year in prison, so we don't need to spend more time on the guilt issue". The example is extreme, but illustrative, and it is in my view insulting and condescending to assert that it does not feel "onerous" to be sentenced to something that was essentially the result of one (as in “1”) editor's animosity towards me. On a different note: Thanks to those non-ArbCom editors who showed their support for my request! That is really appreciated!

Newly appointed Arbitrator User: Carcharoth then on July 17 noticed that s/he was soliciting comments from the other arbitrators to get my case going (along with similar stale cases). Two days later, on July 19, clerk User:Hersfold just archived my case without explanation. A rather peculiar timing: An arbitrator contacts the colleagues, and two days after a clerk effectively closes the case. The complete lack of deadlines, rules and transparency make the whole process (or, alleged process) a huge insulting joke.

I have now seen that User:John mentioned in Footnote 1 has gotten his request for amendment accepted. I congratulate him on that (and extend many heartfelt thanks to those who showed support for my request around the same time!). His success, compared to my failure, originates in my optic in the fact that he had something to trade with: He requested having his editing restricting (similar to mine) replaced by admonishment. Clearly, this was somewhat easy to accept for the arbitrators, as it involved keeping on a penalty and thus avoiding losing face. I, unfortunately (depending on the point of view), have nothing to trade with. Maybe I should have requested that my editing restriction was lifted and that I instead was prohibited from becoming an arbitrator for 14 years?

So, as I see it, this place has some downright farcical features—at the very top level—which make me stay out of here. At least until the restriction is over. I, for one, do find my restriction very "onerous."