Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:24, 2 July 2008

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.

Drafting

Just to keep parties and others up to date...

This started as a case that had a lot of claims that might be hard to evidence, as well as significant potential for "sprawl"/drama/confusion/heatedness, and it's therefore been given a fair bit of time for evidence to be heard and to 'bed in' (rather than assessing it too soon). In practice, the case has been somewhat smoother than it initially seemed it might, and in general, the Workshop pages have been used by participants and onlookers to produce some useful viewpoints and opinions too. (Thanks!)

Initial review of the case pages and evidence, while the rest of the case is posted up onto these pages, is likely to be taking place shortly by Arbitrators.

Just an FYI for all, to keep up to date.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:57 (UTC), 31 May 2008

Thanks! any hint on things the committee would like to either see more of/have questions on/like more opinion about? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the catharsis is nearly complete. Before disruptive elements move in and clutter the pages with endless arguments, perhaps now is an opportune moment to read them all and start drafting a decision. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. some of that has already started. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the collection of evidence and interpretation of it in the Workshop has had enough time, but I believe it'd be worthwhile to wait for this (see also here). dorftrottel (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses there cowboy! I have apologised for several of the things presented about me - and you can consider this an apology for any genuine (MONGO - telling you to pull the other leg is not uncivil) incivility on my part. I try to keep cool and most of the time I succeed but sometimes I act rashly in the heat of the moment. Apologies to those offended by my words or actions in said heat of moment. Viridae ^Talk 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try...surely such less than half measures now exempt you from your admin transgressions.--MONGO 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you summarised your acknowledgement of whatever parts of the evidence presented against your behaviour you think is valid and included related diffs or links, or repeated any apologies you think are appropriate here. I'm confident such a conciliable statement wouldn't go unnoticed by the ArbCom when they evaluate what to expect from each of the parties in the future. On the other hand, I'm also confident the ArbCom will take into account the de facto refusal of any party to acknowledge any part of the evidence presented against their behaviour as further evidence against that party. (Also, I never played the cowboy. I always was an Indian. You see, when we played as kids, the Indians always were the heroes, the cowboys were the villains; and since nobody wanted to be the cowboy, we mostly played happy community life instead of war. Weird Germans, hah?) dorftrottel (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor apologies. The delay isn't due to discussional matters - it's more due to end of school year and "that time of year" of all things. A number of arbitrators have had family matters (family vacations, events, kids needing more attention than usual), wikibreak, and the like. Plus, I've been working on some fairly intense review cases that haven't really brooked delay. Let's try this again shall we? :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the Arbcomites haven't even started looking into this case. 93.86.33.117 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, just as long as it is taken seriously. Unlike the statement in the section below, there are some serious, long-term abuses that need examining. Wikipedia is being raked over the coals time and again for allowing administrators to get away with these abuses, both by the public and the mainstream media. I urge you to take both the evidence and the workshop seriously, there are scores of very valid concerns that some people would rather see swept under the rug. From experience, I think we should know that sweeping things under the rug only causes worse problems down the line. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unrealistic expectations

I don't think I've ever seen an arbitration workshop in such a "hanging" mood before--and to my mind the evidence doesn't seem to speak of massive abuse (by any party). With experience of previous cases I can't help feeling that, no matter what the proposed decision, there is likely to be a great deal of disappointment and frustration expressed on this talk page in due course. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Mantanmoreland case had a similar 'hanging' mood about it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony makes an astute, if obvious, observation, no matter what happens in this case, someone will be disappointed. Oddly, I suspect that is the case in every case brought before the committee, although certainly more so for some than others. I'd opine that the reason the mood seems "hanging" is that the evidence seems strong, contrary to what Tony seems to think, that there are serious matters in need of addressing... and that we've been hanging around for a month now waiting to see what ArbCom was going to start doing (or not doing). I am hoping we aren't going to be kept hanging too much longer... ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 has just posted on the Proposed Decision Talk Page explaining that things have been a bit backed up for various reasons, apologizing for the delay, and saying he's hoping things are back on track. See [1] for more info. SirFozzie (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proposed decision talk page. --B (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This tread has been moved around. Viridae ^Talk 22:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd forgotten about the mood of the Mantanmoreland case. I think the evidence was also equivocal there, and (more to the point) there was apparently unrelated ill feeling which clouded perceptions and led to disappointment. I hope the Committee will grasp the opportunity to deal with that ill-feeling (which seems to involve many but not all of those involved here) and help to clarify what is best for Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and not repeat their mistakes from the Mantanmoreland case. Which was, to remind everyone, coming up with a wishy-washy statement that pleased nobody and saved them from making any sort of call, only to get egg on their collective face when the fellow ignored them and happened to be caught purely fortuitously a little later. And to call any ill feeling here "unrelated" requires remarkable ability to ignore diffs. --19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I live in hope. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the nice thing about the Mantanmoreland case that, if it turned out that he really was an incorrigible sock, we'd all be happy to see him go? And so it transpired. His recidivist socking was detected by checkuser in late April, blocked and then community banned without any dissent. None of this "he said lipstick on a pig and we think he went for a holiday in India because he edited after 8am GMT" nonsense. No need for all that kerfuffle over what turned out to be a very finely judged arbitration indeed. --Jenny 04:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the evidence presented at the arbcom hearing was pretty clear that he was an incorrigible hosiery abuser. It just took a couple of extra months to show his defenders. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a guy with a history of socking, but the fact is that at the time of arbitration none of the checkusers were able to make a definitive statement based on checkuser data. Moreover the arbitration committee (all of whom would, at least in principle, have been able to see such checkuser data as was available) wasn't able to reach a comfortable consensus that there was ongoing socking. That tells me there was a little more going on than mere "defenders". We had to wait for actual evidence of ongoing sock abuse, that's all.

The guy clearly couldn't help himself, which is a known pattern with repeated sock abusers. --Jenny 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WP:RPA Committee;

Do you ever intend to actually do anything with this case? The appearance is that you (collectively) may be drahma-addicted, and now that you're bored with this you've moved on to the next Gianno-related bloodletting. - brenneman 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and Irpen [2] should form a club, it seems like you'd find a lot of new members right now. Just curious, though, is it possible for anyone to address the Committee these days without insulting them? --InkSplotch (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, and I am trying to drag myself away from the keyboard before I invent any new insults. When dealing with the individual members I am (I think) always polite, but the collective group is operating so sub-optimally right now that it becomes difficult to contain my frustration. Particularly since we're given so little information about the committee's brain, I'm reduced to kicking and screaming.

My experiance with committees is that in camera decisions tend to protect the least competent, and I'm tipping here that there are (at most) three members who are screwing the pooch for all the others. If we start to see the committee as individuals with actual rational thought processes, we could probably move forward more effectivly. Open up ArbCom discussions and let us see how the sausages are being made, perhaps my "input" could take on a less adversarial tone.

brenneman 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a somewhat more obvious (to my mind, at least) reason for the slow speed with which this case is proceeding. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arena football playoffs? --B (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could write it myself in ten seconds: all parties to write a 5,000 word essay discussing the phrase "Wikipedia is not a battleground" with examples of how they themselves have failed to live up to it. --Jenny 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At last... a reason I can understand and support for your wanting to be a party to this case, Tony! More seriously... Kirill, I would like to hear the reason/issue, and also know if the committee is in need of anything from the community on this, such as additional evidence, more workshop work, or anything else? Or is it all internal? ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 15:7, John 8:2-11. --Jenny 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ::: Wasn't the nice thing about the Mantanmoreland case that, if it turned out that he really ''was'' an incorrigible sock, we'd all be happy to see him go?  And so it transpired.  His recidivist socking was detected by checkuser in late April, blocked and then community banned without any dissent.  None of this "he said ''lipstick on a pig'' and we think he went for a holiday in India because he edited after 8am GMT" nonsense.  No need for all that kerfuffle over what turned out to be a very finely judged arbitration indeed.  --[[User talk:RegenerateThis|Jenny]] 04:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 ::::Well, I think the evidence presented at the arbcom hearing was pretty clear that he was an incorrigible hosiery abuser.  It just took a couple of extra months to show his defenders.  --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
+::::: This was a guy with a history of socking, but the fact is that at the time of arbitration none of the checkusers were able to make a definitive statement based on checkuser data.  Moreover the arbitration committee (all of whom would, at least in principle, have been able to see such checkuser data as was available) wasn't able to reach a comfortable consensus that there was ongoing socking.  That tells me there was a little more going on than mere "defenders".  We had to wait for actual evidence of ongoing sock abuse, that's all.
+::::: The guy clearly couldn't help himself, which is a known pattern with repeated sock abusers. --[[User talk:RegenerateThis|Jenny]] 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 == Dear [[WP:RPA]] Committee; ==