Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kelly Martin (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 26 November 2007 (→Private correspondence: bad proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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)

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)