Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter Damian (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 2 April 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Violation of WP:ARBPOL by ArbCom?

This relates to two recent cases, the indef ban of The Devil's Advocate and the indef block of Cla68. I am not discussing here the two cases directly: the appeals would have to be made by the respective users. However, in discussions on Wikipediocracy (I am not linking them explicitly, because I could be violating WP:BLP under some interpretation), it has come to light that ArbCom did not contact the parties before banning/blocking them. WP:ARBPOL clearly states that: In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made. There are also past cases which suggest that this non-contacting of parties before banning/blocking them is routine practice in private evidence cases. Could ArbCom explain how the letter of the policy is consistent with their practice? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that ArbCom is settling scores against perceived opponents without the decency of opening cases. No public charges. No opportunity to meet charges with contrary evidence or to offer exculpatory reasoning. Just secret charges, secret deliberations, and secretive bans. It is cowardly. This ArbCom has opened zero new cases yet it is banning people. The community deserves to know why. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I understand it is frustrating when you can't see the evidence yourself, and I realize the lack of publicly available evidence is a breeding ground for unfounded speculation. But that is no reason to engage in peddling irresponsible conspiracy theories. It is implausible, to say the least, that fifteen people from different areas of the encyclopedia, some of whom have never interacted before joining the Committee, all got together to lash out at "perceived opponents". It is difficult enough for the Committee to agree on anything, much less be able to assemble an enemies list of people we all agreed we hated.

• It is also frustrating for us being unable to release the clear evidence of wrongdoing that would exonerate us from casual slurs on our integrity from drama mongers. But that's the job we signed up to do. Victims, whether they are the targets of harassment of the subjects of articles, deserve to not have their names and personal information dragged across cases and noticeboards, and we have a duty to protect them and their privacy. The community can decide if that is cowardice or responsible stewardship. Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The job you signed up to do was to obey Arbpol. Since you refuse to do that, anything else you blather is meaningless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is that everyone who has looked hard enough (which doesn't require that much effort you can just glance at his contribs) knows why Cla68 was banned (correct me if wrong), and I can see absolutely no reason why mentioning why he was banned on site would violate BLP or any other policy, even if the material was oversighted. This seems like pointless secrecy. You even gave the reason in your response pretty much. So why the obsfucation and the like?Brustopher (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is also frustrating for us ... But that's the job we signed up to do. Given that Gamaliel signed up for it, why is Gamaliel whining here? Any horror / thriller movie fan knows that what people can imagine is inevitability worse than actuality -- that's why we don't seen the Alien until late in the film. In any event, complaints about the arbcom cabal go back at least ten years, so what's actually implausible is that Arbcom 2016 should expect to be treated than any better than of the previous cabals, or allow themselves to be frustrated be such treatment -- what did you think was going to happen?

If the committee chooses to respond at all, an affirmative denial of the specific charge -- that two editors were sanctioned without any attempt to contact them -- would be the best option. It's hardly a violation of victims rights to say We emailed Editor but never got a reply or something like that. Unless ... ya'll didn't. But ya did, right? NE Ent 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The community can decide if that is cowardice or responsible stewardship. Gamaliel (talk) -- I'm going with gutless cowards for $200 Alex.Which Hazel? (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No knowledge regarding contact around Cla's block, but in the discussion after TDA's ban ARBCOM admitted that they did not contact TDA. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• These two situations are not related other than that both were handled by the 2016 committee. Cla68 is not banned, he is indefinitely oversight-blocked due to posting suppressible material. Oversight blocks usually do work that way, with appeals obviously conducted in private following the block, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do otherwise considering the importance of preventing further exposure of suppressible content. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Thanks for the response. Firstly, if it was an oversight block, why is it labeled an ArbCom block? The oversight team and ArbCom are not the same set. The difference is not trivial, because it potentially allows a wider arena of appeal. Secondly, as was made clear in the Wikipediocracy thread (and is clear in the logs) the information which was suppressed on 3 March 2016 was in the article for about 7 years, (either in the page, or in the history), including in the version which passed the Featured Article Review. What was the rush to block someone indefinitely without even hearing what their argument is? Thirdly, this is an abuse of the WP:BLP policy, which states that the only material which should be removed immediately, without waiting for consensus, is contentious material which is poorly sourced or unsourced. The material was neither poorly sourced, nor unsourced, nor is it even contentious. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) doesn't look like an oversight block -- an admin only requires "consent of an oversighter" to undo an oversight block, but the blocking statement says arbcom permission is required to undo. This legalistic "he's blocked not banned" -- see "defacto banned" -- is simply lame. No reasonable person expects ya'll to disclose private evidence, but the failure of any committee member to make simple declarative statement: The committee has been in contact with the editor is really bad PR. NE Ent 21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• What's mind blowingly ridiculous, aside from the fact that the info had been in the article forever, is that the person in question whose identity is being suppressed has been vocal in the press and in no way worried about their own privacy. There are no shortage of good sources. Capeo (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As was said earlier in the thread, when asked about this before Arbcom member's don't appear to give two shits that they acted outside of policy. It's gonna take an admin or 10 to undo these kind of mistakes. Those admins of course better be ready to feel the heat. Arkon (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a WP:Crickets, cause there should be. Arkon (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that once again a good, long-term editor has been struck down by one of the ArbCom's mysterious bolts from the blue. As usual, policy is ignored, no explanation is given, and the editor who is about to be blown to smithereens is not given an opportunity to defend himself prior to obliteration. The ArbCom simply does as it pleases, ignores the existing rules and makes up new ones as it goes along. Who will be the next editor to be randomly struck down in this fashion? Everyking (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• If someone thinks things are bad enough to turn this into a blue link RFC on ARBCOM use of secret proceedings to ban editors without notice then pull the trigger and do it. Complaining about it will change nothing, either the community is OK with this type of proceeding or it is not - the same voices saying the same things over and over will solve nothing. Jbh 13:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Typically we feel free to register our views as members of the community. The ArbCom is acting contrary to policy and treating the community with contempt, and needless to say, people are upset about it. Should they not express that, in the absence of an RfC? If people said nothing—"Oh, there's no RfC, guess I have to keep quiet"—then it would create the impression that the community is OK with this abusive nonsense, and the ArbCom would feel free to act even more abusively. Everyking (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is true and I have spoken out about this issue the last time it came up. The point of my comment is that ArbCom dis not think they did anything wrong when this was brought up re TDA. Now they have done it again. Talking about it will accomplish nothing, either enough editors think this is wrong and we use the processes we have to force the issue or we accept this as the new normal. Of course the most proper thing would be for ArbCom to start the discussion themselves by changing ARBPOL and solicit community input, there is a pretty good chance the community would agree with the change. Until one of those things is do e ArbCom continues to squander their moral authority and that can only damage the long term stability of the project. No one respects people who do not follow their own rules and who do not respect the community enough to go to them when they think those rules need to change. Jbh 12:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• • I've been reading through this and the previous debates on the subject in the archive, and It seems a case where TDA almost certainly deserved to be banned. However, rules are rules, and Arbcom does genuinely seem to be acting against their own policies. From a very uninvolved editor such as myself, it does taste a lot like hypocrisy to me if the highest authority on rule breaking is allowed to break its own rules. The clearest solution seems to be to restart the case against TDA from the beginning, and do it properly this time. Others have pointed out that if ArbCom doesn't want to tell TDA the information that they are required to (by their own policies), then they have two relatively simple solutions: Ask for a change to the rules (unlikely to happen due to the potential for abuse) or take it to the WMF (who can ban people without giving a reason).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • That's very sensible. Myself and others suggested that the last time around, during the original TDA discussion, but obviously the ArbCom isn't interested in playing by the rules. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good solution. Jbh 12:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Is there some kind of reverse-edit-filter applying to this page? What else could explain so many misguided comments? Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Because ends do not justify means. If these blocks/bans were done properly I would have no problem with the outcomes. The TDA ban looked sketchy becuase of lock of notice to the user. Even if they thought it was for good cause it was a violation of the rules. Also the timing, hours after the new ArbCom was seated, shows manipulation of the process. It looks like the case, which did not have enough votes in with 2015 was puropsly held over until enough votes were available in 2016. No matter the intent, it looks bad. Now, we have an Oversight block - being called, for some ill defined reason an ArbCom block but ArbCom again did not contact the editor - over what looks like a BLP contentent dispute. Jbh 12:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how slowly some business happens with the Committee. There was no strategic holdover. Not enough people had voted from the 2015 Committee, period. If people had voted no, that would have shut the issue down before the new Committee took office. Because they hadn't voted at all, that meant it was open business for the 2016 Committee. New members had already seen the evidence and discussion, since we had been added to the mailing list before our terms started, so enough new members and incumbents were familiar with the matter that we could wrap it up fairly quickly. If there had been no changeover, votes would have taken just as long to trickle in, but there would be no coincidence of timing to attempt to use as evidence of "manipulation". Gamaliel (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: From what I've seen I'm totally willing to accept that the holdover was due to bad timing and assume good faith in that case. In fact, I'd like to point out that I personally don't hold the view that anything the ArbCom did in any of these cases was malicious in any way (i think i share that with most everyone here). However, even if not notifying the users may have been done with good intentions, it was still done against policy, and the way it was done does seem like it has the potential to set a rather alarming precedent for future arbitration cases. Even if unwilling to change or redress the rulings that were made, in order to avoid this being a precedent setting decision, I feel like it is pretty important that ArbCom admit that they kind of bungled this one, and promise that it won't happen again in the future (in that way it can't be used as justification in future similar cases). Perhaps allowing appeals by the affected users if they so wish to would be a good olive branch. There are too many people that want to string up the ArbCom members whenever they mess up or don't do everything perfectly, and thats not fair, they are doing the best they can. But when ArbCom does screw the pooch, they should at least be able to admit it, even if it is just "Woops, that was a fuck up, lets not do that again."  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, both of these are appealable. The Devil's Advocate's ban allows appeal after six months; Cla68's oversight block may be appealed at any time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify my statement, I was referring to removing the timing restrictions on appealing on these cases (so that they would be allowed to appeal immediately if they wanted).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Cla68 can appeal immediately, TDA's ban would have to be modified. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be necessary to appeal, as the bans were both against policy and illegitimate. You know it was wrong, so just acknowledge it and declare the measures null and void. Everyking (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There are threee inappropriately interlocked memes here:

1) that the committee held discussions in private and/or community members don't like the results that came out of such discussions -- such opinions are based on inference from a combination of on-wiki inference and off-wiki statements. This isn't really an issue; it's clearly in accordance with policy, and it's an unfortunate part of the job the committee will get WP:IDONTLIKEIT responses to that.

2) that committee is holding discussions in private without soliciting input from the affected parties; this is an issue as it is explicitly contrary to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Private_hearings. It really would be nice if a representative from the committee could address this.

3) there's a disconnect in oversight blocking policy which should be resolved. ARCA request NE Ent 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

For those interested, Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:ARBPOL.2C_Harassment.2C_and_Private_hearings. Evangeliman (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like pretty much everyone agrees—the ArbCom's actions are outrageous and wrong. Does the ArbCom care what the community thinks? Will it acknowledge its mistakes and fix them? Will it refrain from any further skullduggery of this sort? Everyking (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Faking credentials

See current ANI discussion. A long-standing editor, who represents the Foundation in Nigeria, has (apparently falsely) claimed to be a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University, and a biochemist by occupation.

Now I think it is a big deal, and that fabricating an online identity is quite different from fabricating credentials. Has Arbcom ever come to a view on this? If not, is this the kind of case that it could take on? The repercussions in this case could be considerable, as the editor in question had written at least two substantial articles which turned out to be full of made up references, and errors. Peter Damian (talk)