Is the ruling ad-Jimbo that trials where the accused lacks to right to reply the sole corrected, or is there something else? I am concerned that there is a lack of trust in FT2's future prouncements - in the case that he makes a pronoucement from arbcom, I would seek confirmation. If a clerk posts an announcement, I'd seek confirmation. This is problematic. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While he hasn't made a pronouncement about it (and none of the AC members have, so I assume they are trying not to make too many public comments) I imagine that FT2 has learned the danger of assuming assent in various ways other than a clear vote. The committee in general has learned that full cases, decided off-wiki, do not have the approval of Jimbo or a significant segment of the community (almost unanimous, among those who have commented). I think the scope of the case statement in this case is what separates it from the many actions the committee takes based on discussion on arb-l (banning pedophiles, considering appeals, taking action based on information covered by the privacy policy, etc.), and the extent that the community will allow private action is far more clear today than it was this time last week. That all falls into "lessons learned."
As far as mistakes corrected - the decision has been withdrawn in favor of a standard case, the remedies issued are not in effect, an RfC is in progress to discuss various issues about ArbCom, a number of proposals have been made to distribute decision making in various ways (see WP:Devolution in addition to the June 2008 announcements page). So, things are proceeding apace to make sure the underlying problems (which, to my mind, are mostly down to poor communication in the committee that is partly explained by having only 7 active members) are resolved. My larger point is that the continuing expressions of shock and outrage, and the demands for the resignation or dismissal of FT2 or the whole committee, are overboard, unnecessary and don't contribute to any actual solutions.
Folks need to keep in mind that the Arbitration Committee has a difficult task that they generally do very well. The folks on the committee are dedicated and highly intelligent, and they are also volunteers whose role subjects them to unending criticism and (in some cases) harassment from all quarters. We should cut them some slack, not ask for their heads when they make a mistake. Avruch 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, you you assume a major portion of my concerns away ("I imagine that FT2 has learned the danger of assuming assent in various ways other than a clear vote.") We don't even know if that's what happened! PouponOnToast (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not rude, and to an extent you're right. I assume that FT2 isn't stupid, and with good reason (in my experience). I believe he thought he had their approval in a general sense, and that in actual fact he did have general approval from most of the committee members but not (1) from all of them and (2) not for the particular process he used. Since the normal process wasn't followed, Kirill for one was both confused and upset at the nem con case. His post expressing his personal disavowal was probably a mistake, and the fact that no other arbitrator followed suit is instructive. FT2's actions constituted an error, not evidence of idiocy, and only idiocy would explain the failure to learn the lesson I described above. Avruch 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, perhaps. On the other hand, it's unusual for someone to learn from a mistake until they admit that they've actually made a mistake. Kirill and Jpgordon have already suggested that they've learned from the situation, but my take on FT2's response (thus far) is that it has been defensive in nature. If he said something like, "I should have clarified the consensus situation which I thought existed, and even more fundamentally, I realize it was totally inappropriate to think that ArbCom could officially judge an editor without any contact of any sort with them," then that would go a long way. I haven't heard anything like that. I don't want to push him, because as you say he's smart and he'll figure it out, plus he is apparently dealing with a significant off-wiki issue, but I'd need to hear something along those lines to be convinced that a learning process has taken place. MastCellTalk 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes and AE threads
I know Giano's reaction wasn't really warranted, but do you think that in future if you make jokes like "It was written by members of the ArbCom Conspiracy Cabal. Membership requires approval by the Grand Master and Council of Elders", that you consider de-escalating things if people respond badly, rather than opening an AE thread? Also, some of the links you provided at the AE thread were clearly not incivil. When someone provides a list of links like that, it seems like they are trying to prove a point. Linking to just one example makes it much easier to come to a conclusion, as opposed to having lots of links to look through. To be specific, what were the problems with [1], [2] (that was a joke, though not everyone would have seen that), and [3]? The others I don't dispute (or can't be bothered to dispute). Anyway, the de-escalation thing was what I mainly wanted to raise. It is quite difficult to do (and I wish certain other people could do it as well), but de-escalation is quite rewarding when it works. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding de-escalation... Depends on the situation. I took the action I thought most warranted in this particular situation, having seen Giano make similar comments towards others just in the last day or two. As for the diffs - I think I included one by mistake, and the Thatcher one was debatable. From past experience I've seen that the bar for enforcement in the IRC case is quite high, so I didn't want it to seem as though this was a singular instance. That is why I included the other diffs (although, you'll note that one post to Alison's page wasn't incivil so much as it pointed to why there is an incivility problem to begin with). So, in a way, I was trying to prove a point - that he was on a roll of posting insulting and disparaging remarks. Avruch 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth beat me to it. I was musing on this today and going to pop in an unsolicited word of advice - given the feedback you received at your RfA, these sort of comments would be best avoided. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shavuot celebrates Moses receiving the Ten Commandments.
What's This? Shalom aleichem sports fans, and welcome to the first of what I hope will be a monthly newsletter with the need-to-know information about our fair WikiProject. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to recommend a story for the newsletter, click here to leave a message on the Newsletter Coordinator's talk page. In the News
WikiProject Good Articles is doing sweeps over all our current good articles to ensure they still meet criteria. For more information and how you can help, check out WikiProject Good Articles Sweeps.
GA status for the article Jew has been put on hold pending a few minor revisions. A list of things that need to be done to return this top importance article to its proper status can be found here.
Jerusalem is a Featured Article Candidate! Go forth, my people, and !vote!
To Do
One new Judaism-related article was created this month, the long requested Hebrew Punctuation. Thanks to Epson291 for creating it. Remember, folks, there are over forty standing requests for Judaism articles, so whenever you get the opportunity make sure to go create a few.
In the right column you will see a listing of our most popular articles. All of these articles got 170,000+ page hits in the past month, and they should be on everyone's watchlist so we can keep them vandalism-free.
Spread the word! No, not the Word... (well, you can do that too) I'm talking about inviting knowledgeable users to join the project. You can proclaim your undying love of WikiProject Judaism in methods mild to wild, check the project template page and member list for examples. We also now have a flashy advertisement, to use it add {{Wikipedia ads|ad=148}} to your userpage.
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I commented in the section below it, I think, so archive away. You know how to set up an archive bot? Could be useful. Avruch 14:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's useless in this case, unless you wanted to set it up to archive conversations after 3 days of inactivity. SDY (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph
Seeing as it doesn't appear anyone else bothered to let you know, or that as a non-party to the case you'd even have it watchlist, but a member of the arbcom has listed a possible remedy on you for consideration by other arbitrators at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Avruch_admonished. I don't know the rules of RFAR well enough, but I think you can comment on it at the propose decision talk page. Better to ask a clerk what it actually means. MBisanztalk 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One hopes the ArbCom has enough collective intellegence to laugh such a proposal to an early grave. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please help with Shituf
I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [4].
You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [5].
The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judge or Prosecutor? Can't be both!
I just cannot see for the life in me how a "chief prosecutor" can also be "judge and jury"! 93.107.140.24 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that arbitrators are none of the above. We don't have a court system on Wikipedia - the rights and interests of the parties aren't at issue, because the chief concern of the committee is the encyclopedia. No adversarial system, no conflict of interest in arbitrators compiling and considering evidence not presented by the parties, etc. Damnant quodnon intelligunt.Avruch 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avruch, I just wanted to pop in and say that I think I could have done a better job of responding to you yesterday on Mackensen's page, and for that I am sorry. I'd had a very difficult weekend in real life (broken down air conditioning, car break-in, and a computer crash just minutes before that wiped out 4 hours of work), but that is a good reason to not respond, rather than a proper excuse for the personalization of my response.
As to the privacy issues, they really are serious, and I was genuinely surprised to see those particular diffs being used in this case, although that may be because I am perhaps more aware of the context than Kirill may have been at the time he was writing. In honesty, I would be surprised if the information is released by the arbitrators, and I feel ethically bound not to provide further information. Best, Risker (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...you use better judgement before you attack someone. You knew nothing about the issue I had on the MacFarlane page, obviously didn't read the full context of what I was saying, and in general made a pretty bad fool of yourself. If you insist on interdicting for your wiki pals in the future, please get the facts straight first.
My remarks about the amateurish nature of the article prior to my involvement was not personal, but professional. I didn't mean to hurt any teenie feelings, but you should know that is not a consideration when the integrity of a project is being undermined by incompetent prose.
The issue with the Miranda user was that she seemed to take personal ownership over the article, evidenced by her feeling it would be appropriate to extend "appreciation" for my work, and the immense offense she took at my impersonal remarks about the lousy writing of the article as I encountered it. It's like some people think that, like, they're just the chosen people of god, or something, and they can just stomp around and attack people who never meant them any harm, and then keep making demands so a perpetual state of unease exists behind which they carry out their takeover of the international banks of knowledge or something. Y'know? Don't you hate people like that?
I'm just suggesting that you demobilise. Your sudden appearance was not coincidental, and was as inappropriate as Jordan rushing to Syria's side during a sudden attack on the Golan Heights or something. Y'know? Don't you hate it when people just join their friends in these sorts of unwarranted attacks in their attempt to takeover the entertainment industry articles on Wikipedia? Y'know?
