Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 26 November 2007

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Finding 2 and remedy 2

In my opinion the major risk of fallout from this case lies in the discussion of the block, which got out of hand in numerous instances. In the circumstances, I would venture that if they were to pass in their current form we might at a future date look back with regret for the vague wording of finding 2 and remedy 2.

In particular, a finding is only as good as the evidence upon which it is based. I suggest that finding 2 should be refined so as to give specific examples, so that those at whom the remedy is aimed will better understand what constitutes "unseemly and provocative behavior". There seems to be some confusion about this on the workshop. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I think my (3, I think?) comments on AN/I about this issue were in good faith and productive. Now I'm being admonished? I think the majority of people who commented were in step with AN/I standards and did not show "unseemly and provocative behavior" but we're all being lumped together. --W.marsh 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We can tweak the wording a bit but I'm not in favor of us explicitly noting individual users since we are not going to give out individual remedies. We are asking for self-reflection from individuals about the way they participated in the discussion. Suggestions? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you give out specific examples without naming names? The people who kept posting information that had to get oversighted, for example, seem in a different league than the participants who asked questions or tried to calm the situation down. Yet we're all being lumped together, or at least that's the impression I get. A call for self reflection is fine... but that's not what I get out of the word "admonishment"... am I off base here? --W.marsh 16:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, a call for self-reflection isn't a bad thing. I can see why we might not want to name names in the circumstances. The way the block was discussed didn't reflect well on the community.

On the other hand, I do feel that the Committee could be a little more specific. Unnamed individuals are accused of engaging in "unseemly and provocative behavior", and by implication from proposed principle 4, "Decorum", this might have encompassed "personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system." Some of these are far serious charges than others. Surely a way can be found of focussing the finding, in particular, so as to make it more acceptable to the community as a whole. I think W.marsh makes a valid general point (without my considering the nature of his own contributions to the debate). Some contributions were far more provocative, and far more likely to give the wrong impression of what Misplaced Pages is about, then others. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Drama

"Avoid excessive drama" sounds a bit euphemistic. Could this be worded in a clearer way? Catchpole (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's a well known Misplaced Pages formulation of the general injunction known as "Do not feed the trolls". --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It goes a bit further than that. Some people, whilst being generally well-intentioned, at times enter into discussions with pre-concieved notions, which does not help to shine light on the situation (or, at best, colours the light subsequently shone). This is not useful to the project, and certainly not to the community.

James F. (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Too swift

I understand the desire to resolve this quickly, yet it's been less than 24 hours since this case opened. There simply hasn't been time to assemble my evidence; no one can work this fast. I'll be standing for reconfirmation when this closes: the community has asked questions and deserves answers. Durova 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Poetic. 68.40.34.93 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs ... Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. Sufficient time needs to be allowed for her to present her evidence. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Private correspondence

The proposed wording at present is:

Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the committee directly.

I would suggest that this is sending the wrong message. The originator of the correspondence is of course involved but it should go without saying that he may remove his own correspondence when inappropriately posted, whether he's an administrator or not.

So there are two points here:

• you don't need to be an administrator to make an edit;
• involved or not, anyone may remove such an item.

It would also be as well to require that permission to post such material on Misplaced Pages should be explicit. Posting private correspondence on a public forum should be regarded as exceptional and permission to do so should not be assumed by default. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Except it was somehow public domain or GFDL? What about posting summaries of it or excerpts? Does fair use apply? • Lawrence Cohen 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything released under the GFDL, or in the public domain, would seem by definition to not be "private correspondence." Fair use does not apply here, c.f. Mike Godwin's statement on Bastique (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was curious about that. Thanks. Summaries are OK however? Would even quoting lone passages be forbidden? i.e. 1-3 sentences out of an entire email, as User:!! did in his evidence? • Lawrence Cohen 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd advise anyone wishing to do so to consult the Foundation counsel on this prior to posting. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I await the opinion of the Foundation's learned counsel - please feel free to refer this to him.

FWIF, the diffs in my summary are mostly my contributions, licenced under the GFDL (you could try to claim that in the arrangement of the diffs as a collection for a particular purpose, I suppose, but it seems a bit of a stretch). I am not convinced that a serious claim to copyright could be made in respect of terms such as "ripened sock" "far too early" "insulate" "banhammer" "obscene trolling" "nasty side" "problem editor" or "gloating". I dare say someone could try to claim copyright in respect of the phrases "a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters" "padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work" and "free range sarcasm and troublemaking": I think the quoted excerpts are fair use. If anyone is concerned on my behalf, I am happy for the whole thing to be quoted. -- !! ?? 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Mike Godwin is everyone's attorney. :rolleyes: Kelly Martin 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The proposed edict is ill-founded in any of a number of different ways. It's overly broad, it will be viewed as antitransparent, and it will tend to create drama. It also privileges both administrators (as noted above) and the ArbCom without any reason for doing so. Hard cases make bad law; please step back and think about what you're doing before you do it. Frankly, I think there's no need for the ArbCom to legislate on this matter; the community can, and should be allowed to, develop a policy on this matter without the ArbCom's interference. Kelly Martin 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really just a formulation of Foundation policy (which is binding on the community). The most important part of the principle is that "Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." This alternative being available, there is no reason to post private correspondence except to feed drama. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• A post to a mailing list published to the internet under by GNU Free Documentation License is firmly without copyright. Secondly, people would be better advised never to commit anything to paper or print which they would be ashamed for others to see. Especially unfounded libels. Giano (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I don't think it's clear that the list itself contains GFDL content. There is a GNU logo on the list administration page, but that's because the list uses the GNU Mailman software. JavaTenor (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(general comment/question) Is there an exception to posting an email communication when it's done to make a threat(s) while avoiding scrutiny of the community? If there isn't an exception in this type of case there should be for the sake of transparency. I remember this happening once, so it's not entirely hypothetical. R. Baley (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking : This is also a hidden list, which means that the list of members is available only to the list administrator. There can be no expectation of privacy when you're shouting something to an undefined group of people. 166.165.134.86 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is going no-where. The post in question was not a private letter beginning "Dear Mom, I have something to tell' you...." It was a nasty vicious libelous post circulated by its author to many with no thought for the consequences. Is anybody disputing that? Giano (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a gesture of goodwill, you might perhaps want to consider withdrawing the word "libellous" per WP:NLT? David Mestel 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Care"

Proposed remedy one says: "Durova is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing blocks."

This seems a bit vague - what kind of care? -- !! ?? 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• It would be my hope that she (and other administrators) take the enumerated principles--which discuss responsiveness, good faith, and transparency--to heart. In her case the question at this point is perhaps academic. Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So I see. I was not aware of that development at the time. I still think "care" is a bit vague and could be linked more explicitly to the principles. This case is not so important for this particular block, as for its ramifications for the gathering of secret evidence and blocking of alleged "abusive sockpuppets". -- !! ?? 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)