Sounds like another POV-pushing PhD holder who's annoyed that everyone doesn't just say "oh, you are an 'expert', do with the articles as you wish". (And anyone who's read any history articles by 172 can attest to the fact that they were highly propagandistic, generally turning into outright apologies, if not screeds, for left-wing dictatorships.)

Sounds like another POV-pushing PhD holder who's annoyed that everyone doesn't just say "oh, you are an 'expert', do with the articles as you wish". (And anyone who's read any history articles by 172 can attest to the fact that they were highly propagandistic, generally turning into outright apologies, if not screeds, for left-wing dictatorships.)

Sounds like another POV-pushing PhD holder who's annoyed that everyone doesn't just say "oh, you are an 'expert', do with the articles as you wish". (And anyone who's read any history articles by 172 can attest to the fact that they were highly propagandistic, generally turning into outright apologies, if not screeds, for left-wing dictatorships.) -Mark

As the person e-mailing me put it "It looks like the arbcom is going to put them both on POV parole, which is silly; they have this thing about equal treatment. It's like if I report someone to the police for a theft, the police first of all have to investigate whether I've committed theft too, because if they charge one, they have to charge both." Is this a valid concern?

It would be unfortunate if people became afraid to report real abuses because they did not want to be forced to defend themselves from unfair or untrue accusations by the abuser.

The difference between the system here and that in the real world is that here the person making the accusation is also automatically both the prosecuting attorney and the defendant in an inevitable counter-suit; this is a heavy burden, and a serious disincentive to "get involved".

JAY JG said: > The difference between the system here and that in the real world is > that here the person making the accusation is also automatically both > the prosecuting attorney and the defendant in an inevitable > counter-suit; this is a heavy burden, and a serious disincentive to > "get involved".

It would be unfortunate if people became afraid to report real abuses because they did not want to be forced to defend themselves from unfair or untrue accusations by the abuser.

From: Rick <giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:59:25 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? --- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: The last time (and it will be the last time) I brought a case before the arbcom, Fred Bauder thought it appropriate to bring in situations in which I had dealings with other people who were not even involved in the situation at hand. His refusal to recuse himself showed his lack of impartiality. RickK __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: AndyL <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:16:38 -0500 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? My feeling is that it is not the place of the Arbcomm to effectively file a countersuit. If the respondent to a complaint, or anyone else, has a grievance against the complainant than let them file their own Request for Arbitration. The "terms of reference" if you like should be set in the RFA, if the arbitrators don't like them then they shouldn't sign on to the arbitration and if not enough arbitrators agree with the terms the arbitration will not get off the ground. It is quite inappropriate, I think, for the arbitrators to unilaterally expand the terms of reference to include issues not brought up in the initial request. on 3/3/05 9:45 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)ctelco.net wrote: > The reason I didn't recuse myself is because I am not prejudiced for or > against you. I may have errored by examining issues that were outside the > scope of the arbitration. > > Fred

Well if the complainant is acting or has acted badly that should be taken by the ArbComm as a mitigating factor in favour of the respondant when considering the complainant's complaint but no more than that. While I could see an ArbComm suggesting to a respondent (or other participants) that he/she/they file their own arbitration request against the complainant for the ArbComm to take that step unilaterally is improper.

I think the ArbComm has rather unilaterally expanded its powers without seeking any sort of consent from the wikicommunity. Is there a space where we can debate and vote upon a resolution re the ArbComm's rules and authority?

From: sannse <sannse(a)tiscali.co.uk> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:18:52 +0000 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? There are the talk pages of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration]], but I'm a bit concerned that the discussion may get lost there. Perhaps we need a page specifically for discussing how the arbitration committee works? In particular, I'm interested in hearing more about the suggestion that we are /making/ policy - it's important to me that we don't do that, so I'd like to hear more about it is people think we are doing so (I don't keep up with this list fully - I'd prefer the discussion to be on Wikipedia) --sannse

From: AndyL <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:13:21 -0500 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? on 3/6/05 6:18 AM, sannse at sannse(a)tiscali.co.uk wrote: You haven't expressed why it's flawed, simply that you do not want ArbComm be compared to a court because you don't want the comparison. I put to you that the ArbComm should attempt to emulate a court process even if it is "just a group of users trying to solve disputes" because that is indeed he most practical and especially the most fair way to do it. I don't see that it would be that difficult for the ArbComm to do what I am suggesting above, limit itself to terms of reference set out in the original complaint, not initiate its own countercomplaints ie be a complaints-driven. This is not only standard in courts but in quasi-judicial settings, at least in the Anglo-Saxon world, and ArbComm is nothing if it's not quasi-judicial. That's quite an insulting example actually and elevates the ArbComm to headmaster while denigrating the rest of us to the status of children. School is the closest most of us get to being in a dictatorship - I don't think that's really a great model to emulate. The difference between the quasi-judicial model and the "headmaster" model is that the former puts limits on the ArbComm. While I can see why the ArbComm would prefer to have no limits and be able to do what they wish, including initiate investigations, I don't think that would be healthy for Wikipedia. No, what ArbComm is doing is leading itself into oblivion because no one is going to want to initiate a complaint if it puts them at risk of punishment. "ArbComm chill" if you will. I know that there was a serious hesitation by a number of people to initiate a complaint against Herschelkrustofsky for that very reason. Let each complaint be seperate. You have not explained to me what is wrong with expecting the respondant or third parties who have issues with the complainant to initiate their own seperate complaint. I think once we have more than one complaint the issue of whether to deal with them jointly or separately can be dealt with but there's no reason why the ArbComm should initiate countercomplaints rather than have the impacted parties do it. Again, that should mitigate the ArbComm's decision in regard to the respondant but should not result in punishment of the complainant unless and until a separate complaint is filed. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: AndyL <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 21:17:51 -0500 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? on 3/6/05 9:50 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud(a)ctelco.net wrote: You are expressing your desire as a member of the ArbComm to be able to expand your authority but you do not explain why this is necessary or why this is good for wikipedia. Andy _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Countersuits are a normal part of the civil judicial process, but not of the criminal process. They provide for the limited right of the respondent to raise issues against his accuser. It does not operate to allow the court to initiate new complaints, nor does it allow for third party meddling. Ec

AndyL wrote: Let's get back to the point. You're so far not convincing me that your model works better to get an encyclopedia written than the current one. How does it better achieve that goal?

It wouldn't artificially discourage people from making legitimate complaints for fear that they too would be penalised or at a minimum tempbanned from editing an article until the hearing is complete.

From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> Theresa Knott said: I think it is more the case that people have gone to arbcom and not obtained quite the result they expected.

From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> JAY JG said: Make an evidence page.

Tony Sidaway wrote: Or rather, make it a Request For Comment.

and when it came to the inevitable RfAR months later (after which the person in question was banned for over a year), none of the evidence presented in the RfC was even considered.

From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > JAY JG wrote:

>> and when it came to the inevitable RfAR months later (after which the >> person in question was banned for over a year), none of the evidence >> presented in the RfC was even considered.

> Er, why not? It would likely have been an excellent start > to arbitration evidence. Which case do you mean?

As far as I know none of the evidence in my RfC re: Alberuni was used in the actual findings against him.

From: Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:10:32 +0000 To: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? I agree. I came to the AC after it was formed and it's way of working was set. But personally i hate the jargon and the quasilegalistic way of working. I would like to go to the people concerned and ask questions "Why did you remove that chunk of text" "Do you regret calling him a shithead and have you said or done anything by way of an aplogy" "If you had to to it again, would you have handled it differently?" that sort of thing. I'd like things to be far more informal than they are at the moment, but i don't know how the community feel about that, and i don't want to break a process, that basically works (even though it has its faults) Theresa

From: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:45:33 -0500 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? The Arbitrators should become "moderators". When a moderator becomes aware of an issue, he should try to resolve it by communicating with the party or parties concerned. If he cannot, he should simply go to the other moderators and say (in effect): "The facts are such and such. Here is what I have tried to resolve it; but it hasn't worked. I propose that we impose such-and-such sanction. The other moderators should then just vote over the course of a few days, and the decision should be implemented. There is no need for the deliberation to be formal, long, or even public. Decisions should just be announced on the Administrator noticeboard, which is also where people might go to get the Moderators attention for problems. There would probably need to be some system so that several Moderators didn't work the same problems and get in each other's way. The process should be very fast with a minimum of nonsense. The AC replaces Jimmy and I am sure that Jimmy didn't go through all of this laughable legaiistic claptrap when he was making his decisions. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:36:26 -0500 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? I am sure Jimbo did not just shoot from the hip, and anybody trying to sort out what is happening would still need "to go through the edits". But what isn't needed is the whole quasi-legalistic infrastructure that the arbcom has evolved with "cases", "petitioners", "respondents", "recusals", "votes to accept or deny cases", "injunctions", "evidence", etc, etc, It is silly. I have no idea of the AC history, but somewhere back when the arbcom was getting rolling it took a wrong turn and now we have this tremendously heavy process. The basic need is simply to be able to get an experienced and level-headed Wikipedian who is respected and trusted by the community involved in various situations who can (1) warn people that they are out of line and try to nudge them towards correcting their behaviour; and/or (2) impose a sanction if the misbehaviour continues, with the easily-obtained backing of a committee that represents the community consensus, On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:14:08 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now that no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom. Jay.

Actually, you are incorrect; there are obvious ArbCom cases right now that no-one is willing to bring before ArbCom. Jay.

From: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> Theresa Knott said: . I was reluctant to bring the case against the LaRouche editor Herschelkrustofsky because of uncertainty about arbcom attitudes. Herschel was operating a couple of sockpuppets and for months the three user accounts engaged in absurd POV editing and original research, as well as trying to goad editors into making personal attacks. I couldn't prove they were sockpuppets, and twice asked a developer for help but got no response, so I couldn't bring a case. They started attacking me in November, and I managed to last several weeks of daily snide remarks and POV editing, when I finally broke down and called one of them a "toxic troll" twice within half an hour, the only time I had said anything that could be called a personal attack. The context was that, after days of negotiation with Herschel to have an NPOV tag taken down, we finally reached an agreement, took down the tag, and then one of his sockpuppets put it straight back up again. Hence my troll comment. Herschel was pleased as punch that I'd finally weakened and he went straight to the arbcom page and asked for a penalty against me. Fred Bauder responded by saying that if I ever showed up at the arbcom, I'd be banned for a day or two at least. This, without having seen any evidence or asking for my side of the story. That definitely made me reluctant to bring a case, though I did in the end. In January, I asked David Gerard for help regarding my sockpuppet suspicion. He was able to get a developer to check the accounts, and it was confirmed that they appeared to be sockpuppets, so I took the case to the new, recently elected arbcom. In the course of it, Herschel complained about my toxic-troll comment on an arbcom talk page. He submitted no evidence on the evidence page, and provided no diffs, but the arbcom took his comment as evidence and found the diffs for him. I didn't know they would do this, and hadn't prepared a defense. I wasn't penalized but I was formally warned. When the proposed decision against Herschel was being written up, Fred also made a couple of remarks about the need to deal with "the POV warriors on the other side," and named one editor, but he said warriors plural, so I assume he also meant me and/or one of the other editors. This meant we had to spend more time submitting defenses for ourselves. Fred provided no evidence of POV-pushing on our part, no examples, diffs, nothing, so we didn't even know what we were defending ourselves against. These were minor things, but they were annoying, because several editors had spent a lot of time dealing with Herschel for eight months, and we were doing it for Wikipedia, not for our own benefit. None of us had personal POVs that we were pushing, except a desire for accuracy. Keeping him and the two other accounts at bay was hard work, as was putting up with his constant snide remarks, and then putting the arbcom case together; yet it felt as though we were on trial too. If we'd had an editorial review committee, editors could have gone there about his original-research and NPOV violations when he first turned up in May, without having to wait for sockpuppet checks or for him to violate other conduct-related policies. I should add to this, however, that I'm grateful to the arbcom for the decisions they reached in the end, as they managed to stop his activities here completely. Sarah

I should add to this, however, that I'm grateful to the arbcom for the decisions they reached in the end, as they managed to stop his activities here completely.

From: Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com> complaints from Is there any evidence that this has actually happened in the past?

Certainly requests for arbitration appear to come thick and fast. I am not aware of a legit complaint not having been made out of fear.

I have stated once already that someone I know who was working on a complaint against Herschelkrustofsky had second thoughts upon seeing tempbans implemented (or pondered) in other cases against complainants (specifically my complaint against ArmchairVexillologistDon in which the ArbComm was initially considering tempbanning *both of us* from all articles related to Canada until the arbitration was concluded - this was being proposed before any evidence had even been heard

AndyL wrote: Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the peace. I'll also note that this one did not in fact pass, or even close. Are you saying the idea should not have even been *considered*? - d.

AndyL said:

>Considering Don's behaviour and considering that the conflict was >occurring only on two or three pages related to the very narrow topic >of red ensign flags the proposal to temp ban both of us from *all* >articles pertaining to Canada (ie thousands of pages) was excessive and >had I not noticed it (ie because I was busy with something else for a >few days) it would have passed. So no, it should never have been >considered. In fact, I believe it was on the verge of being approved >(or technically even had the needed number of endorsers) until I >intervened so this isn't a case of one arbitrator making a wild >proposal and no one else picking it up but of the ArbComm panel >agreeing to a proposal until the affected party noticed what was going >on and said, in essence, "are you guys nuts?"

Suppose it had been passed, what harm would have been done to Wikipedia?

From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:50:10 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: David, one arbitrator has strongly implied that the policy of tempbanning has been adopted in order to discourage editors from seeking arbitration, and not simply to keep the peace. S/he has written of tempbanning: "I strongly encourage you to complain about that practice widely and to discourage others from seeking arbitration. If you can build a consensus against us, we will either change or be replaced," and "[P]lease remember that arbitration is not something that people should want or feel good about doing. It is a serious step that can result in a Wikipedia Death Sentence; if these temporary injunctions make disputants decide to try a little harder to avoid bringing their squabbles before the ArbComm, so much the better." It's a good thing to discourage squabbles from being brought to the arbcom; but not all disputes are simply squabbles, and you may be discouraging genuine disputants too, in cases where the dispute resolution would be for the benefit of Wikipedia.

From: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:27:42 -0700 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'? On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:16:18 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway That doesn't make sense to me. I do understand the argument that tempbans Tony, you'd be right if tempbanning were the only problem, but there is a perception (as is clearly shown by this thread) that there is a philosophy of seeking to punish both sides regardless of the issues, in an effort to bend over backwards to be fair - which I argue is actually leading to unfairness in some cases. It is this philosophy that is worrying, and the issue of tempbanning everyone is simply one example of it. Also, in Andy's case, the proposed tempban covered areas not affected by the dispute, and was therefore perceived to be a pre-judgment punishment, not just a peace-keeping measure. In matters of justice, perceptions matter as much as reality. Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

That's not how i feel about temp bans. If I thought that a temp ban was being proposed as a punishment for bring a a case to the AC then I would vote against it. If a case was not worthy of my time, i wouldn't need to punish people for bringing it to my attention, I'd just reject the request and be done with it. Do remember that when an arbitrator speaks on a talk page or in an email they are doing so as an individual, they do not represent the whole of the AC.

This thread has given me the idea that there are at least a few Wikipedians who feel that they have the Divine Right of Long-Standing Editors, and as such are permanently beyond reproach in all things. That the ArbComm might dare to question their actions is not merely an insult -- it is cause to disband the ArbComm and permanently hard ban the individual traitors who did not kowtow to their exalted status.

AndyL wrote: It also denigrates children, who rarely behave as badly as adults. (e.g. sports parents shouting obscenities from the stands) A comparison to a bar fight might have been closer to reality.

JAY JG said: I don't think so. Arbitration is part of dispute resolution. The arbitrators must examine the behavior of all parties to the dispute in order to arrive at factual findings and remedies that will stick.

No, calling other Wikipedia users "morons" will get you in trouble, especially if you try to excuse yourself with the explanation that you thought the other user "really was a moron". The two users were not treated the same. There was no question that Xed had a problem. But carefully reading the edits revealed the problems that Slrubenstein was having also. It is just a case of going through the edits one by one and watching what happened step by step.

Charles wrote: Looking at this one, my reactions are: - WP has lived with some proportion of difficult users, since its inception; - 'getting rid' of troublemakers is not the only approach; - if it is really being said that honest hard-working editors are being held to high standards of behaviour, then I think that is as it should be. Perhaps there is a click of the ratchet, here. I hope it is towards a more civil place, for everyone.