On 12/2/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: Fred, Since you are both a member of the arbitration committee and a lawyer - have you thought about implementing a kind of summary judgment (with rule 11 type sanctions for those that bring a case in bad faith even) ruling for this situation: i.e. just having a 10-0 or 9-1 quick ruling. I know that failure to hear a complaint is that type of situation, but it fails to provide the accused with any kind of way to feel like things are ok. A "we are tossing this for cause" type ruling would be much better. Jim _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them. Sarah

Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate, without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I should make it.

We are talking about some kind of summary procedure in this case. Any suggestions? Also, although FuelWagon has harassed me some. I haven't really followed what else he has been doing. Could there be some short summaries at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor (Make a statement).

Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators.

On 12/2/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I want to describe some of what FuelWagon has been doing so that people can see how hard it is to deal with this within the existing dispute-resolution structure. FuelWagon has been harassing Ed and myself, and a couple of others to a lesser extent, since July. It started because I blocked him for 3RR and then because I made a copy edit he didn't like of an article he had edited a lot. He responded with a stream of invective and talk-page disruptive, which Ed blocked him for, and that made Ed his victim too. I hate to think how many personal comments he has posted about Ed and me since then, but it amounts to thousands of words. He filed an RfC against me, which was deleted because he failed to show prior efforts at dispute resolution. He promptly copied and pasted it into his user subspace, so that he can still link to his various claims. He also created an "attack page" on me, where he makes a note of anything I do that he feels he can use against me. Carbonite opened an RfC against him, but he hijacked it and turned it into another attack page. He tried to intervene in the arbcom case against Ed, writing to Jimbo to have it re-opened when it had closed, then tried to have some kind of black mark put on Ed's mediation record. It has been very upsetting to be on the receiving end of it. I tried ignoring him, responding with reason, responding firmly. I stayed away from pages he edits, but he stalked me to pages I edit and began to revert me, so that I had to either let him have his own way, or get into a revert war with him and look as bad as he is. It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it. Several editors and admins have intervened and tried to persuade him to stop, including Ed Poor, Ann Heneghan, El C, Carbonite, Jayjg, Bishonen, Willmcw, Marskell, Aaron Brenneman, Mel Etitis, and Viriditas. FuelWagon's response was that he would leave me alone if I did 12 things that he listed on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=252… including that I make, in the "first-person narative [sic] form" an unqualified and unconditional apology in relation to the copy edit he didn't like, and he listed the various talk pages that the apology had to be posted on. He had a similar list of apologies that Ed had to make before he'd be satisfied. He also teamed up with other known trolls like Zephram Stark, Marsden, and Vizcarra, so that a gang of people began to pursue his various victims. I've resisted taking this to the arbcom because he will turn it into a circus, and also because I couldn't face going through all the diffs and having the whole thing repeated yet again. I've been on the verge a couple of times of writing to Jimbo for help, but didn't because that puts him on the spot. I've also been on the verge of leaving, but I don't want to let someone like that drive me away. Now, because Ed Poor recently blocked FuelWagon for three hours over a personal attack on me, FuelWagon has seized his chance and has taken Ed to the arbcom, where he will hold court for several weeks, perhaps several months, and all the allegations will have to be responded to. The only way I can defend Ed now is to present the case that I've not been able to face putting together. It's probably going to take me a week or more to put all the diffs together in a way that gets the full force of his behavior across without being unreadable for the arbitrators. There has to be a better way to deal with users like this. For example, we could set up a small committee of experienced editors, a subcommittee of the arbcom and subject to the arbcom's jurisdiction, whose job it is to identify when a user is trolling, stalking, or harassing, and we give that committee the power to deal with it there and then, using blocks of increasing length for each instance of it. I know this has drawbacks (accusations of cabalism), but I feel the benefits would greatly outweigh them. Sarah

It changed the whole way I interact with people on Wikipedia. I found myself becoming sharper with people than I had previously been, because I was on edge all the time. I felt embarassed at having someone pursue me with accusations, because most people looking at it will think there's no smoke without fire. And yet when I tried to correct some of what he was saying, I ended up looking as silly as him, so mostly I had to let him get away with it.

Or because they fear being accused of being part of a cabal, "meatpuppets", etc.

I feel there is a general direction for failing to support the "victim" during the conflict, either by lack of time, or by lassitude (because we have seen that happening so many times) or by fear, to support her only at the last point (when she is threatening to leave). Sadly, most editors actually support the person inside themselves, but do not say so either because they believe the "victim" is strong enough, or because they fear becoming targets themselves.

One suggestion. Unless I am wrong, the only page on which some one can rather easily remove comments from another without backfiring (being called a censor for example)... is one of his subpages, in particular talk page. On a community page, it is far too easy for a harasser to get support and get a voice, and turn the support page in yet another harassing page. On one of your subpage, you may protect yourself better and remove the crap with far less troubles.

I'm sick of the high turnover of good contributors too. We need to fix that if we want to encourage a productive work environment. This bullshit has got to stop so we can concentrate on creating the world's best encyclopedia. Openness is a means to an end. Nothing more. Crackpots, POV pushers, and trolls are not welcome.