Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simetrical (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 1 June 2006 (Further outside statement by Simetrical, regarding injunctions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statements by uninvolved parties

Statement by ElC

Blu needs to take some responsibility for what he did, what he participated in, and what he allowed to happen, both in the old and new Misplaced Pages Review. In the old one, this involves allowing racist hate speech and the revealing of personal info. In the new one, aslo the revealing of personal info, and the Brandt harrassment. His apology explicitly conveys the exact opposite, only "regret." El_C 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

As recently as Tue 23rd May 2006, 8:39pm Blu Aardvark made comments on Misplaced Pages Review that encourage Andrew Morrow to taunt AnnH. “Wanna have some fun, Amorrow? Since AnnH (MusicalLinguist) is having so much fun tracking, reverting, and blocking your edits, throw a wrench in the works. Hit recentchanges for a bit and revert a little vandalism. See if your good friend Ann reverts you because you are banned, or has the common sense that some edits, even those of "banned" users, do have merit after all.” This statements alone shows that Blu has not changed enough to be considered for a mentoring program. --FloNight 02:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

In general, the behavior on Misplaced Pages review of Blu and others is problematic, given that at least one admin (Katefan0) has left Misplaced Pages after Brandt's antics there. I would ask that the ArbCom consider this case not only in the context of Blu's individual behavior but the people who he has associated himself with and condoned and has shown no intention of ceasing to work with. As long as Blu continues to conspire with Brandt and other WR denizens, there can be no place in this project for Blu. JoshuaZ 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Avillia

I was hoping this RfAr would be broad spectrum with this entire dispute, but alas it is very narrow, and I suppose my statement should be as well, though it will not be.

• WikipediaReview is not Misplaced Pages. It is not verifiable, it is not connected, and it should not be the reason for On-Wiki actions. The idea of using off-wiki incidents for on-wiki actions has been quashed numerous times, the most recent example being the failed change to WP:NPA.
• Misplaced Pages supports the concept of redemption; The Arbitration Committee has upheld this concept previously.
• Blu Aardvark has been banned for some time and has shown promise for reform as well as civility and respect in his dealings. He has additionally expressed remorse on his user page between the blocks and unblocks he has been subject to.
• Blu Aardvark would be subject to the mentorship agreement Linuxbeak has put forward and he would be liable to be blocked at any time. He would seek the advocacy and advice of his mentors prior to many actions.
• There has been a unacceptable level of incivility on WP:ANI in the handling of this situation.
• There is basis for the assumption that Jimbo has expressed his support for a trial unbanning of these users. I sincerly doubt a bureaucrat would lie about his opinion on this matter and risk his future on Misplaced Pages as a result.

My opinion is fairly clear here; Unblock. --Avillia 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kim van der Linde

I have avoided to enter the flurry of posts elsewhere. First of all, I think this is the proper place to make this kind of far reaching decisions. I would like to put forward that wikipedia exists because people can edit in peace here, and the rules and guidelines are just to do that, ensure sufficient safety for the good intended editors and admins who in the end have made wikipedia what it is today. As such, if sufficient saveguards are met, the unblock is consulted with those editors and admins directly harmed previously, and the banned editor has openly and unambigiously apologized (which I consider in this done), nothing should stand in the way of unblocking. It is up to the Arbcom, in interaction with the affected editors and mentors, to set the rules under which a banned user can return. -- Kim van der Linde 02:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jpgordon

This whole incident has been pretty shocking -- and another case put before ArbCom just four days ago shows a much more sensible and far less inflammatory way of dealing with a community ban -- talk to the community openly, rather than on an off-wiki chat system. I would like to see this request for arbitration expanded to include the entire subject of community bans and their circumvention after secret discussion outside of normal Misplaced Pages channels. It's especially peculiar that an ArbCom member (Raul) would participate in this act of contempt for the community rather than encourage the obvious -- an appeal of the community ban, where facts and evidence could be brought forward. There appears to be a big hole in policy here, and this is an opportunity to fix at least a bit of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ajn

(In concurring with Jpgordon above)

I agree with this. There needs to be some clarification of the acceptable procedure for imposing and lifting a community ban, with the emphasis on community involvement. --ajn (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow up to Jpgordon by ElC

If it's controversial, there's needs to be a discussion on-wiki. IRC, forums, private chats, etc., are insufficient. Kim disagrees with me that this can realistically be reflected in a policy/guideline. I think it can. But maybe it can more effectively and expediently be implemented as de facto policy in the form of an arbcom directive. I don't really care one way or the other, so long as it actually works. El_C 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions by TenOfAllTrades

With respect to Avillia's comments, I would ask the following questions.

• Has there been any indication – besides Avillia's hypothetical suggestion – that the comments on Misplaced Pages Review were not made by the same person as our Blu Aardvark?
• Is there any suggestion that the comments made on WR have been altered in any way, such that they no longer represent Blu Aardvark's words?

Unless there is a serious case to be made that Blu Aardvark's WR contributions were tampered with, I don't see why they are not verifiable.

I don't think it is inappropriate for the ArbCom to consider the behaviour of editors off-wiki where that behaviour is meant to have on-wiki consequences. Encouraging a banned user to harrass an admin would, I think, fall into that category. Given that this was done just last week, I am skeptical of the 'promise for reform...civility and respect'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

• I concur that behavior off-wiki that is meant to have on-wiki consequences should be taken into consideration whereas other off-wiki behavior might not be. I also agree with Lethe's request for clarification on whether holding discussions and taking decisions on IRC is an appropriate way to obtain a consensus of the wikipedia "community." Thatcher131 12:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Simetrical

I doubt that anyone on the ArbCom has missed it, but for any passersby, there's a massive discussion/admin flamewar going on at WP:ANI#Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking. Based on what I've seen of the disagreement, I think that a) negotiation is impossible due to how fundamental the disagreement is (should off-wiki behavior be held against someone? association with/administration of an anti-Misplaced Pages site?), and b) mediation is impossible because of the number of parties involved. An RFC has not, however, been opened yet. I'm thinking of rectifying that, but I won't bother if ArbCom accepts the case. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Lethe

In addition to the matter of whether Blu should be taken back into the fold, I would like to see the ArbCom comment on the culture of IRC policy-making to the exclusion of Misplaced Pages opinion. Both Linuxbeak and Raul have done unblocks which were clearly controversial without making their case on Misplaced Pages, and both explicitly cite conversations on IRC as the basis; the results seem to have been quite hurtful. -lethe 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Request by User:Kim Bruning

I merely request that - as per usual- the arbitration committee simply applies the rule that activities outside wikipedia by any of the parties do not apply on the wiki itself. This rule happens to protect Blue Aardvark, but it also protects Raul654 and Linuxbeak, and many other key wikipedians going about their daily business.

Kim Bruning 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by freakofnurture

A number of long-time contributors have either already quit the project or threatened to do so, not necessarily due to conflicts with this user in particular, but due to an increasingly disturbing trend of extending a greater assumption of good faith to banned trolls than to our own (supposedly trusted) administrators. I suppose this is a prelude to the ultimate test: whether the project can recover from an internal, calculated experiment in self-destruction? — May. 31, '06 <freak|talk>

Statement by an outside but interested party

I'm just going to note the laughability of all "remedies" shown herein: - Suggestion that he file an "appeal" of community ban (which will be instantly reverted and ignored, since he's "banned"). - Suggestion that he somehow will be able to participate in an RFAR while blocked, when we know full well the arbcom will simply filter his email address into their trash and make a decision with no input

The fact that this comes to arbcom is no surprise, it's just the next step in the crusade by certain wikiadmins to attempt to destroy any and all reasonable dissent on wikipedia.

Oh, don't worry. I won't be back. I'm going to go have some popcorn, sit back, and watch the fun as you do your level best to show that wikipedia is completely and totally without fairness as you pillory a good administrator for Being Bold and trying to fix a problem, rather than taking advantage of someone being blocked to throw tons of personal attacks at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.141.60 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel

I haven't examined Blu Aardvark's history extensively, but based on what I do know I'm not sure that there's anything there so egregious that he can't be unblocked. However, his involvement with WR must be taken to account. I understand why some users want to judge BA only by his conduct on WP. The idea that you can come here and not be judged by whoever you are or whatever you've done in real life is a noble principle, but to pretend that off-site actions have no bearing on WR is incredibly naive. Things that have happened on WR have had a direct bearing on the operation of Misplaced Pages and even the off-site lives of contributors and thus his activities on WR must be considered here. To operate a forum where blackmailers and stalkers are not only allowed to participate but are praised and encouraged is to participate in the victimization of other Wikipedians. To allow him to return without at the very least preventing the use of his forum in this manner is to endorse the vicitimization of other Wikipedians. Gamaliel 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

I echo Lethe's request that the ArbCom also review the role of IRC in administrative actions. It is impossible to review comments made there, users may use any nickname, and only a fraction of editors and admins watch it at any given time. According to comments made by Linuxbeak, he apparently discussed his unblocking action on IRC and viewed that as sufficient. I also ask that the ArbCom review the actions of the admins involved in the unblocking. -Will Beback 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Further outside statement by Simetrical, regarding injunctions

I would like to comment on arbitrator Dmcdevit's note that his first action will be to propose "an injunction to ensure that Blu Aardvark stays banned until the case is concluded and we decide otherwise". I would like to respectfully disagree that such an injunction is appropriate, and in fact suggest that an opposite injunction would be a better idea.

In real-life common law, one condition for granting of a preliminary injunction is the likelihood of irreparable harm to the requesting party. Why? Because if one party will be subject to irreparable harm by the lack of injunction, and the other will not be subject to irreparable harm by the granting of the injunction, then the reparable harm is preferable to the irreperable. If the reparable harm turned out to be unjustified, that can be repaired once the full trial concludes that fact; if the opposite turns out to be true, no repair is possible.

I'm not suggesting that the ArbCom should as a matter of course follow common-law standards, only bringing this up to illustrate the merits of the injunction itself. Specifically: to my knowledge, the ArbCom has very rarely if ever permanently banned anyone from contributing to Misplaced Pages. For a severe first case, one year is a typical ban length. So consider. If the ArbCom concludes, one or two months from now, that Blu Aardvark didn't deserve to be banned after all, and he was kept banned by preliminary injunction, he will have lost those one or two months of Misplaced Pages editing forever, and we will have lost them as well (since if the ArbCom decides to unban him, his edits presumably were constructive).

But on the other hand, what about the opposite case? If Blu Aardvark were unbanned by injunction (obviously putting him under temporary probation of some sort, perhaps mentorship, so that if he acts up he isn't immune to blocks but on the other hand also can't be blocked for disproportionate periods by admins based mainly on past or off-site actions), and at the end of the case the ArbCom decided that he did need to be banned for a year after all, what would happen? Why, he would be banned for a year. The one or two months he spent editing (harmfully, one presumes, if the case turned out that way) would not harm Misplaced Pages overall, since they would just be transferred to an earlier period. Or to put it another way, the harm caused by his extra one or two months here would be reparable by blocking him for an additional one or two months.

Furthermore, if Blu Aardvark is present on Misplaced Pages during the case, he will be able to first of all defend himself (which is always a desirable thing), and second of all any claims of reform could be judged over the course of the case. This means, in my view, that minimal harm could come from Blu Aardvark's being unbanned for the duration of the case, compared to the opposite. This is all provided one accepts that any users' decisions to leave Misplaced Pages are their own, and doesn't consider them as consequences of such tenuously-related decisions as unbanning another user entirely; of course, this is an important proviso, but I do firmly believe that any contrary one invites exploitation and misconduct, whether fully intentional or less-than-conscious.

And to address one final point: if the ArbCom decides to pass such an injunction, it should be stressed that this is not an endorsement of Linuxbeak's actions, and is a purely provisional measure crafted a) to permit Blu Aardvark a fair chance to participate in a formal case against him and b) with the understanding that he may be rebanned after a period of time based solely on past actions even if he acts as a model Wikipedian in the interim. As such, it is an entirely different proposition from Linuxbeak's unilateral unblocking, which had different goals, and this injunction would not be inconsistent with a final decision censuring Linuxbeak for his actions.

Respectfully, Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)