New move against SlimVirgin, the noose tightens? Options

[Heat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...case:_C68-FM-SV

Statement by Alecmconroy
Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.

In as brief as possible:

In September, SV (as a party in this case) was strongly admonished in what I interpreted as a "final warning" to alter her behavior.
Since that time, Arbcom has been privately considering the allegations SV made against Lar and Mackenson. In that case, SV has continually refused to "provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint" regarding her allegations against Lar and Mackenson, despite numerous requests to do so from the committee. At the same time, she did not offer any retraction of her earlier public allegations.
By 20 Oct, in the SV-LAR proposed decision, seven arbs had endorsed another warning to SV in the form of finding which said:
"SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties."
Despite the numerous warnings to conduct the case in private, on 20 Oct, SV again made a public statement in which she re-iterated her allegations against Lar and Mackenson. diff redacted for privacy
In response, NYB again warned against further public discussion. An arbcom clerk archived the discussion, and another clerk then blanked SV's statement from the archive. The committee stated that
"Parties are instructed to make no further posts to this page pending further input from arbitrators. Other editors are urged to do the same."
In response to these warnings, On 21 Oct, SV again violated Arbcom's request-- posting on the talk page despite instruction not to do so.[8].
A clerk removed the comment and again warned SV that Arbcom had instructed parties not to post on the page.
Again on 21 Oct, SV immediately re-inserted it, again directly violating the request not to post on the page.
In short, SV was warned about her behavior in the C68-FM-SV decision. She was again warned by the proposed decision which had been endorsed by seven arbs. She was yet again warned by NYB and the arbcom statement not to post. She was still yet again warned by a clerk. Despite these multitude of warnings, SV yet again persisted in the violating the warnings and editing disruptively.

In the remedy "Further Review and Sanctions", the Committee promised that they would "impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations"

When the C68-FM-SV sanctions were being discussed, I defended letting SV off with a warning, and I argued she would likely change her behavior after so strongly-worded a warning. The span of 34 days has, regrettably, shown her behavior to be unchanged. If anything, the behavior appears to have worsened.

This cannot be allowed to persist. In addition to the direct harm caused by bad behavior, there is an inherently corrosive effect in allowing one individual to completely ignore so many repeated warnings without consequence. For these reasons, I humbly request Arbcom consider some further sanction against SV. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer: I was very uncertain of the proper venue for this. Could be a new case, could be at SV-LAR, could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, or could be a clarification. I didn't put it at SV-LAR because that case's central focus is on events that happened in private in March, whereas my concerns are with events that happened in public in October. But please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. -Alecmconroy (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Response to Bainer: Just want to clarify-- I'm not concerned about SV's behavior last March/July. We can't expect her behavior in March to have been affected by a warning she received in September. My concern is about SV's behavior during the past week.
As it happens, most of that behavior took place on a Arbcom page-- but that's more or less irrelevant. The location of her behavior isn't important. What's important is that this week Arbcom gave SV some very, very clear "lines in the sand" and warned her repeatedly not to cross them-- and she crossed every single one of them anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More than anything-- all the debate about the original dispute is irrelevant. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST THIS" and she posted this. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST _ANYTHING_" and she posted something. A clerk told her "DO NOT ADD THIS COMMENT" and she added it back.

And still, not a single block has been applied, not a single sysop bit has been flipped. I bet you, right now, if I were to go and edit that page that no one is supposed to edit, I would be given NO warnings, no second chances, no do-overs. I bet if I edit warred against an arbcom clerk, the time it took to block me could be measured with a stopwatch. And I for one, am quite sick of there being two sets of rules around here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

[LaraLove]

Damn that's nice. But get used to the double standards. They're going nowhere fast.

[Heat]

If the community can ban editors and impose other sanctions why can't they desysop administrators? The complainant should go to ANI and attempt a "community desysop" and see what happens.

[The Joy]

If the community can ban editors and impose other sanctions why can't they desysop administrators? The complainant should go to ANI and attempt a "community desysop" and see what happens.

It was done to User:Husnock. The ArbCom cannot interfere in Community decisions where there is clear consensus. The ArbCom's job is to interpret WP policy and Community decisions trump ArbCom decisions.

But the definition of "clear consensus" keeps changing depending upon the actors on the AN/I stage!

[Son of a Yeti]

But the definition of "clear consensus" keeps changing depending upon the actors on the AN/I stage!

Oh yes. I do remember a RfC where an admin argued that comments of users with who disagreed with him should not be counted towards a consensus. Not in those words but to that effect.

I need not need to add that his opinion seemed to be a minority one. But who am I to discern a consensus?

[Heat]

Anyone want to wager whether or not SV will actually respond to this latest complaint?

I say she won't.

[Cla68]

Anyone want to wager whether or not SV will actually respond to this latest complaint?

I say she won't.

If anyone responds against it it will likely be Jossi, Willbeback, Slrubenstein, MONGO, Jayjg, or Tom Harrison. That's how it works.

[Milton Roe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...case:_C68-FM-SV

Statement by Alecmconroy
Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.

Yet another guy who seems to have missed WP:SVISIMMUNE.

No, the link doesn't work for my browser on en.wp. I think it's in the non-negociable policies somewhere. You know, those ones that aren't subject to community approval or consensus, because Jimbo once decreed them?

Or, it might be one of those decrees that aren't actually written down, but simply understood. You have to divine them by observation. That's part of what we Wiki-shamans are paid for-- to tell you what the spirits want, over there. Yes, many--- even most--- editors would be blocked in stopwatch time for stuff other people get away with, as in this case. But how are you going to know that, without a lot of experience? Thus, the need for our shamanistic advice.

[Cla68]

Anyone want to wager whether or not SV will actually respond to this latest complaint?

I say she won't.

If anyone responds against it it will likely be Jossi, Willbeback, Slrubenstein, MONGO, Jayjg, or Tom Harrison. That's how it works.

Well...

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 29th October 2008, 1:39am

[Piperdown]

Anyone want to wager whether or not SV will actually respond to this latest complaint?

I say she won't.

If anyone responds against it it will likely be Jossi, Willbeback, Slrubenstein, MONGO, Jayjg, or Tom Harrison. That's how it works.

Well...

you're psychic!

Mongo - the first idiot besides weiss that i encountered on WP.


Mongo, what exactly is it that you do here on the WP these days? (gratuitous quoting of the Two Bobs from Office Space)

[Son of a Yeti]

Well...

Mongo wrote:

I think the arbitration committee needs to cease considering any cases brought forth from what can arguably be easily seen as editors who are here for little other than harassment and creating drama

This seems almost as him wanting to ban most admins and virtually all bureaucrats from starting arbitration.

But I do not think he notices the irony.

[EricBarbour]

Well...

Anyone care to take bets on how much time will elapse before
Alecmconroy finds himself suddenly, mysteriously banned?

From the RFA:

If Lar is not found to have abused his position, then further accusations in public forums should be prohibited. Avruch T 01:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 29th October 2008, 9:02am