Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyde (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 29 November 2008 (→Everyone adviced to calm down). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comment on motion 1

It's amazing how much you can miss when without much internet access for only a few days, I am not yet entirely up to speed with this latest matter. However, I do think a remark needs to be made in relation to motion 1. ArbCom has by this motion given special authority to block users where their block is to enforce ArbCom sanctions. Whereas I would suggest there is usually a requirement to gain a consensus for a block where it is likely to be contentious (and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard has been used in the past to get such consensus) it seems that AE blocks can now be done on the judgment of a lone admin and will remain in effect until there is a consensus to lift it. Were the motion still under discussion, I would have advised all arbitrators to think carefully about whether they still support all sanctions editors are currently under. Now that it has passed, I think it urgently necessary that arbitrators reconsider the sanctions that may result in such blocks. Many of you have said several times that you think civility paroles are problematic and should be lifted yet not action has been taken on this. A majority of arbitrators supported lifting the sanctions which Everyking is currently subject, yet he remains under those sanctions due to a different motion passing instead. Are arbitrators happy for sanctions that have little community support (and are felt unnecessary by a significant proportion of the Committee) being enforced in the manner provided for by motion 1? WJBscribe (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see how you read it that way, but I don't think that was there intent. Agree a clarifying statement could be good here. Many actions at AE are done by lone admins as not many admins work that page, but generally they know to gain consensus before doing a potentially controversial one. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole context of the motion is a situation where an admin (FT2) blocked someone (Giano) without first getting consensus (and he surely knew that it would be "potentially" controversial - come on). How could you possibly read it as not being intended to apply to the very circumstances they were considering? 217.28.13.175 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The remedy () FT2 based the block on states that "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked..." All it required was the judgment of "an administrator", not consensus. Kcowolf (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's a common feature of these cases. The Everyking decision used as an example by WJBscribe above referred to "any admin" rather than "an admin" but I can't see that that's critical. Can I take it that you're agreeing with me that the motion clearly is intended to apply to a lone admin's "potentially controversial" block made under such a decision? Unless I've badly misunderstood Rlevse's comment, he doesn't think it is. 217.28.13.175 (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice motion 4 that essentially cancels the civility parole on Giano. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion 4 means Giano doesnt need to worry about the problem that concerns WJBscribe, but what about all the other poor shmucks that are on a civility parole? WJBscribe is indicating that this change to arbitration enforcement policy makes everyone else more susceptible to blocks that stick; an admin can block without consensus if the matter is "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy" (it doesnt even need to be listed on WP:AE), whereas it was customary that any slightly complicated enforcement was taken to WP:AE, the parties are given a bit of time to explain, and admins discuss it a little and dole out the enforcement. If blocks are more likely to stick, the blocking admin is less likely to hesitate. If I understand correctly, this means that all arbitration enforcement now has as much teeth as WP:BLPSE. --John Vandenberg 11:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other civility paroles? If not, then we can save our time.

It also depends on why the paroles were created. If the alternative is a long-term ban, then potentially mistaken short-term blocks is the lesser evil. Paroles should should not be given out lightly, and I hope they are not.

Third, a problem with building consensus for arbitration enforcement is that for controversial cases the opinions expressed seems to be based more on popularity and allegiances than the case at hand. If enforcement of a civility parole needs the same consensus as normal blocking per WP:CIVIL, then civility paroles are meaningless. Perhaps that is the conclusion here: civility paroles don't work. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is ever settled till it is settled right. (Kipling?)

The SlimVirgin case has been closed by a clerk, but I hope that all the arbs will still give careful consideration to the questions I raised here.

I did write to the committee at the time that the Lar case was closing, requesting that since they had not addressed the issue of Lar having made untruthful statements, someone might take the trouble to explain to me just which sentences from the emails submitted in private evidence had made them think that despite my vehement protests that I don't even know Lar's wife and that we have never sent each other any messages, in fact, I had apparently (unknown to myself) been making statements to her and Lar together and had been counselled by her. I also hoped that an arb would take the trouble to tell me which sentence from the emails submitted in evidence had made the committee believe that I had admitted to Lar that the CU was justified, despite my sincere belief that my email to him on 14 March (which they've all seen) said exactly the opposite, and that no other email from me prior to his making this statement mentioned my views on the (in)appropriateness of the check at all. I received a message from James Forrester on 4 November, saying that the committee was still discussing my email and I would hopefully get a reply within a day or two. I'm still waiting.

The committee has desysopped Slim partly because of previous cases. But the most recent previous case finding against her was one of making unwarranted accusations. And the committee has been using my privacy as the main pretext for not explaining publicly why they find Slim's accusations against Lar unwarranted. Yet they have been unable to explain to me even in private the rationale behind their disregarding of so much crucial evidence.

Since private requests are conveniently ignored, I am now requesting public clarification, and I call on the entire community to support this request.

ElinorD (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A word from the chorus: Dear Committee, the best way to deal with concerns is to provide a full explanation. Can you please try to do as ElinorD says. In so much as matters are not confidential to anyone besides ElinorD, just explain them. Give us the facts. It is wearisome to hear the same accusations, over and over again without being able to inspect the evidence. Either the evidence needs to be made public or else people need to be told why that is not possible, and that they must stop making accusations sans evidence. Jehochman 20:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC) and 00:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In you own time of course, which can be so speedy when you wish. Giano (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ElinorD: How is it helpful to rehash the SlimVirgin-Lar case? I never did find out what "Slim's accusations against Lar" actually ever were. No one shared them with me. No one shared anything that SlimVirgin presented to the case with me at all, in fact. I've explained multiple times that I acted in ways that I felt were reasonable, based on the information available to me at the time, and reasonable assumptions about things. The committee found that my actions were within the acceptable bounds of CU policy. What more did you want? Isn't this really just an attempt to re-try this old and closed case, yet again, in the court of public opinion? Why would that be a good thing? ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lar, since Slim started off by trying private email discussion with you, and ended up on the mailing list, I'm sure you do know what her accusations are - that you checked Wikitumnus when the evidence was flimsy (since when has reverting trolling/vandalism been grounds for checking an established user with no history of socking?), when there would have been no policy violation and no action for you to take if Wikitumnus had been Crum, that you did not abandon the check after discovering that I was Wikitumnus, but proceeded to check Crum 38 minutes later, as the suspected sockmaster of Wikitumnus, that you violated the privacy policy, and that you made numerous untrue statements when asked to explain your actions.

Regarding me, what more did I want? I wanted an explanation of the astonishing statements that you made. I want you to explain to me why you told the private CU mailing list that I had admitted the check was justified, when in fact I had said that although I knew the revert of trolling had been a mistake, as it would attract the attention of stalkers, I could not see how the check could have been justified. I also want you to explain other highly inaccurate statements, but that one and the "counselling" one are the two that really bother me. Just tell me where I said that I found the check justified. When I ask in private I'm ignored, and when I ask in public I'm criticised for asking you questions that you "can't answer without violating my privacy". If you worry that my privacy would be compromised by your telling me which sentence of which paragraph of which email said that the CU was justified, then you do have the option of responding in private. I said I hoped for your explanations when I was cc'ing you in the evidence I submitted. I didn't get them. When the case had closed, I privately asked the ArbCom to identify the relevant extract(s?) from the emails submitted in evidence which had made them satisfied that you were telling the truth on the CU list (since they chose not to address the issue of your inaccurate statements in the final decision). They haven't done so. Can you? ElinorD (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ElinorD's are direct questions that should not be ignored. We've all heard people pretend to answer an unwelcome question by repeating a talking point. ElinorD deserves direct answers -- not evasion, or redirecting, or spin, or disingenuous claims to have already answered, or demands that the questions should be asked elsewhere, or in another format, or of someone else, or by someone else. I've probably failed to list a trick, but please don't show me which one. Just answer directly. Tom Harrison 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic.

for so many reasons, on so many levels. Privatemusings (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of this case

An ArbCom member makes an arbitration enforcement block based on an obviously counterproductive civility parole that still hasn't been lifted after more than 9 months. This block is considered a bad idea by at least half the community. The blocked user is unblocked by another admin. The same ArbCom member, seeing a big tide against himself at WP:AE, goes openly forum shopping to ArbCom instead of pursuing the normal avenues. The next best thing after a secret ArbCom case (which for some reason doesn't seem appropriate – I hope it wasn't necessary to tell him that) is a "motion" related to some other case, to ensure that there is no fair hearing or full inquiry into the details of the case. Since what the ArbCom member really has in mind is a kangaroo trial, he writes the "motion" as an open-ended accusation. Some ArbCom colleagues are not bothered by this and "pass" this motion anyway. After some pressure, the prosecutor declares himself recused. At a time when the prosecutor is under attack for alleged election fraud, the kangaroo court makes three decisions: 1) To legislate more power for themselves by putting arbitration enforcement outside the normal community norms. In the process they give every admin the power to make hard-to-reverse administrative actions, provided they can plausibly represent them as arbitration enforcement. Protests that the conditions for reversal are tailored to the present, high-profile, case and almost impossible to satisfy in difficult low-profile cases are ignored. 3A) Reverting a bad block which is done by an ArbCom member who was inspired by a bad ArbCom remedy is punishable by temporary desysopping without a proper hearing. 4) The counterproductive civility parole is defused.

Apart from Newyorkbrad's votes there is one sign of intelligence here. I have put it in italics. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's not often I agree with Kurt, but his use of the phrase "Arbitrary Committee" is starting to look more and more accurate with every case that the Committee votes on. This time, the desysopping of SV (something that should've been dealt with at C68-FM-SV, when it wouldn't have been controversial) is "put right" in a case that is guaranteed to make even SV's most virulent critics go "Huh???". I didn't think it was possible for ArbCom's credibility to drop much further, but they've just managed it. I'd be interested in the views of prospective candidates concerning this latest farce. Black Kite 00:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

see above for one candidate's one word take on it, Kite - I'm thinking of writing up some more thoughts on this specifically (whilst noting that any of my 5 big ideas could have helped resolve this in a far better way, in my book)... it's a great shame. Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone adviced to calm down

This essay has a surprisingly sober take on it:

On Slim virgins and arbcom dragons

--Apoc2400 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I may not agree with the desysopping, but I agree with Scott MacDonald's remedy. And here's why: every angle of this case appears to be covered. Except maybe for FT2, which is already in an ongoing investigation, from what I've seen. I think the community as a whole needs to take a look at this case as a whole, and not just sanction SlimVirgin alone. We also need to look at where ArbComm is going, and actually make a stand for once on what we want from them. We have teeth, and we need to not be afraid to speak out and use those teeth. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Slapping down people overturning ArbCom decisions is a good first step. Slapping down people being blatantly uncivil should be the next step. When people with longstanding civility issues — and with active ArbCom sanctions on them, no less — keep getting away with it, it sends a clear signal to everyone else that civility enforcement on Misplaced Pages is all teeth, no bite. All it will take is a few people getting slapped down for some uncivil comments that previously would've passed before everyone starts getting a lot nicer. --Cyde Weys 01:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)