PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



Michaeldsuarez Permanent IP Banned on Wikipedia for trolling.pdf


Preview of PDF document michaeldsuarez-permanent-ip-banned-on-wikipedia-for-trolling.pdf

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

Text preview


all second-guess if they got it exactly right for each Mr. Hyde,
but that's beside the point. Reasonable people will disagree that's why those situations got to Arbcom. But it's telling that
most of the criticism is "...but Mr. Hyde was provoked", or
"someone else was worse", or "but Mr. Hyde is most of the
time sweet and sunny Dr. Jekyll". That misses the point.
Now I do think Arbcom should get better about *explaining*
their rationale holistically. It starts that way, but when
Committee members can't quite agree and cases drag on,
one senses frustration and a desire to move on as soon as
some hodgepodge is cobbled together that every committee
member can live with or no longer cares to argue about.
Some Arbcom members vote to close cases before it's even
quite clear, with all the conditionals and alternatives, what is
the final decision they are voting to close on! Given by this
time cases will have dragged on for weeks anyway, I would
urge arbitrators to take the couple extra days to tie up the
decision in a bow, and in particular polish up the "story" (i.e.,
combined message of the principles, findings, and remedies)
they have voted to adopt, which parts of the community will
then be reading assiduously to reach closure on the whole
unpleasant chapter and/or draw conclusions for appropriate
behaviour in comparable situations. Otherwise, we're left
intuiting this from incomplete information or from the ebb and
flow of the discussion on the proposed decision and talk
pages - and those aren't pretty (any more than the
underlying conflict). Martinp (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As you say "Some Arbcom members vote to close cases
before it's even quite clear, with all the conditionals and
alternatives, what is the final decision they are voting to
close on!" and this is typical of the slapdash manner in
which the cases can be handled. Jclemens even boasts
on his talk page of not being "deliberative", where he also
appeared to offer a "retrial" as an alternative to him
making an apology for accusing an editor of something
they hadn't done. With this kind of unprofessional
approach, it is no wonder that ArbCom consistently come
up with bad decisions, almost to the point where one can
simply reverse the ArbCom decision to come up with the
right one! My historical respect for ArbCom was based on
the amount of work needed to take evidence into
consideration, I am however assured by a sitting Arbitrator
that they do not read the workshop pages, thus rendering
the whole process a waste of time. Moreover, and more
importantly the committee's grasp of policy and good
governance seems sadly lacking, and their understanding
of the human issues nonexistent. Rich Farmbrough, 08:01,
26 July 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I am going to disengage here. I thought this
might be an arena for people to exchange views on
the disposition of a couple of cases that could
materially affect the tone for what is acceptable
interaction on en:wp. But instead we have our own
private echo chamber: my opening salvo was clearly
tl;dr for people, and you seem to be unhappy with
Arbcom in general and seeking venues to broadcast it.
I think you're being unnecessarily strident; I would not
be surprised that you think I have rose-coloured
glasses or worse. Peace. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 26 July
converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com