Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 3 May 2007

Non-party statements before the case was accepted=

Comment by ArbCom Litigant

I would be wary of setting dangerous yet unenforceable precedents here. --ArbCom Litigant 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Note: this was ArbCom Litigant's first edit.

Comment by uninvolved Konstable

1. Disclosing private email conversations is a serious breach of privacy, email etiquitte, and in some cases in some countries it could even be a crime.
2. Emails from most mail hosts are very easily forged, I'm not about to give you the technique but anyone could do it - the receipient of a forged email would not know that the email address is forged unless they compare IP addresses. Of course the receipient himself could, even more easily, forge emails. There is no such thing as "Email evidence"
3. "Off-wiki" is somewhere the Misplaced Pages ArbCom has no place in, these are not official IRC channels that we're talking about. Or are we going to pass wiki-laws enforcing every single person that has ever edited Misplaced Pages to abide to Misplaced Pages policies in their daily lives?

This is a ridiculous request which if granted would probably lead to further breaches of privacy, even if this so-called "evidence" is just shown to the ArbCom members. Unless there is some on-wiki evidence I cannot see how the ArbCom can even consider accepting this.--Konstable 11:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: Just as a final word I hope that if this Arbitration does get accepted it focuses on the behaviour of "my friend" (as Rama refers to me) Rama's Arrow's very blatant abuses of privacy in posting private emails on Misplaced Pages, as well as blatant sysop abuse in blocking people without evidence and basely solely on off-wiki discussions. In either case - the ArbCom most definitely should not be reading other people's emails - if there is evidence on-wiki focus on that, if there is no abuse on-wiki then what the hell are you here for?--Konstable 04:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Johntex

• In response to the statement above by Konstable: E-mail has actually been used in courts of law, including in criminal cases where the burden of proof is very high and the evidence is vetted very carefully. Johntex\ 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by apparently uninvolved Hornplease

I would like to join Aksi above in urging ArbCom to look carefully at these issues. I have no opinion that I wish to share at this point on the behaviour of Nick, the particular admin under scrutiny, though I have been puzzled by some of his actions in the past, and have attempted to tell him so (and been ignored); but I would like ArbCom to examine this issue in the hope that the action taken by Rama's Arrow can be conclusively demonstrated to be within policy.

I certainly think that the emails presented on AN/I are interesting in one respect: the advice apparently proferred by Bakasuprman to what is presumed to be the banned user HKelkar in an attempt to aid him to evade the ArbCom block and return to WP ("become indispensable...befriend editors...." etc.) are particularly useful in analysing the methods that Bakasuprman himself, a similarly disruptive editor, has used in order to ensure that at the first sign that his record is being examined some otherwise uninvolved editors will turn up and mention that they have never had trouble with him. It is past time for the ArbCom to gird its loins and finish the job begun at the Kelkar arbitration: ArbCom's decision to avoid scrutiny of any editors other than BhaiSaab and Kelkar merely emboldened Bakasuprman and company.

Incidentally, some people seem to think that this is some kind of 'war' between DBachmann and Baka&co. I think that it is instructive to note that before Baka and Kelkar emerged, dab kept to himself on the ancient Indo-European page. When Rudrasharman came here, he intended to edit on the natural history of South Asia or something; I spent years happily pottering around the Roman Republic articles and what not. I dont suppose any of us want to waste our time trying to keep these people from damaging and belittling the project with pseudoscience and fringe historians and journalists.

ArbCom needs to take this up and settle the matter permanently. Hornplease 10:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-party statements after the case was accepted

Statement by uninvolved user Arvind

I would suggest that the problem here isn't really cabalism (inherently unpoliceable) or communicating with a banned user off-wiki (only a problem if the user in question is acting as a mere amanuensis, and anyone who's had any dealing with Bakasuprman knows just how absurd that suggestion is). The real issue is a more fundamental principle: 'Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. In this case - as in "India vs Pakistan" case, as well as a whole bunch of other disputes not all of which have come before ArbCom - the real issue is with editors viewing the Misplaced Pages process as a war against a particular POV which they happen to disagree with, and proceeding to edit - and strategise - as if they were at war.

This isn't an easy problem to deal with. It's hard to fault individual acts by these editors. They use "cite" tags and "NPOV" tags and tags you've probably never heard of strictly in accordance with Misplaced Pages regulations, but in a manner that makes normal editing next to impossible (for instance, a cite tag after nearly every sentence). They dig up dozens of references and insist on their inclusion - even though the scholarship they represent has long since been superseded or has been seriously questioned - and one then has to waste endless hours trying to demonstrate why those sources aren't credible. After a while of dealing with this, one just gets burned out, gives up on those articles, or walks away from Misplaced Pages altogether.

Even more problematic is that in many cases, the editors in question sincerely believe that their actions are helping the encyclopedia. They genuinely believe that the articles in question are riddled with POV, and actually see themselves as doing little but helping to rid the article of POV (as in the case of Unre4L et al), or they see themselves as standing up for a position that has equal claim to validity but is marginalised by mainstream academic discourse (as in the case of HKelkar). Yet the effect of their actions is a very big problem, not because they're driving away good editors, but because they're leading articles to be less encyclopaedic and scholarly. They simply don't see that their actions are deeply coloured by a POV - POV is something the "others" have - so the article will only be neutral in their eyes when it reflects their POV, which is simply not how an encyclopaedic article should look.

Administrators, unfortunately, don't quite seem to be acting in this area. Sure, we all talk about WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND but when a user wilfully turns Misplaced Pages into a battleground, the standard response on WP:ANI is to take it to dispute resolution. But as is demonstrated by the rash of cases before ArbCom - and even more starkly, the cases which don't get here because people give up and leave - this process doesn't work. Rama's Arrow cited the wrong reasons for his action, but it's obvious that what he was really concerned about was what he saw as repeated and flagrant violations of WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. I would urge arbitration committee to, in reviewing his actions, focus on the problem of users who see editing on wikipedia as being a war against other POVs, and to offer its opinion on whether administrators can take action, as RA sought to do, and if so, at what stage they may take such action (i.e., how bad does the problem have to get).

I would, accordingly, suggest the following principles which I ask Arb Com to consider in relation to this case. Drafting isn't my strong point, and it's the underlying principle I'm putting forward, not the wording: 1. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and editors should not treat the Misplaced Pages process as a fight between different POVs. 2. Administrators may and should take action against editors who breach this rule, regardless of whether they are acting in good faith, including by banning them from individual articles, groups of articles, or where appropriate through blocks. 3. Bans or blocks may be appealed through normal avenues.

-- Arvind 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)