From sannse at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 19 19:40:01 2005
From: sannse at tiscali.co.uk (sannse)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:40:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
Message-ID: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>

I think RSpeer has a point here, so agreed to pass it on. I think the
intention of the remedies is something like "for refusing to accept (or
comply with?) the decisions of the committee and continuing to cause
disruption...". But as it stands, it looks far too much as though
/criticism/ of the committee is, in itself, a reason for censure. I
think that is a very dangerous route to go down.

I hope you will have another look at this.

--sannse

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:31:26 -0500
From: Rob Speer <rspeer at mit.edu>
To: sannse at tiscali.co.uk

sannse told me on IRC to relay this message through him.

I am concerned by the reasons given for the proposed ArbCom remedies
against HerschelKrustofsky and Sam Spade
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision).

I'm not concerned about the actual outcome of the case - I've had no
interaction with these users. The precedent set by the wording of the
decision is what concerns me.

The justification begins, "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by
(HK|Sam) with the decisions reached in this case..." Expressing
dissatisfaction for ArbCom should not be a reason for sanction, not even
when it's one reason of two. The other reason given is their "lack of
insight" into their part in the conflict, which is vague and indirect.

Various users agree that these users need ArbCom remedies. But they
should be sanctioned for something they _did_, not for their opinion of
ArbCom. I think it would be better for Wikipedia and for people's trust
in ArbCom if you changed that text.

Thanks,
-- RSpeer
----------
From fredbaud at ctelco.net Mon Dec 19 19:57:28 2005
From: fredbaud at ctelco.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:57:28 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
In-Reply-To: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
References: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>

I suggest the remedy is sometimes appropriate with users who have
engaged in a sustained pattern of behavior which they feel is quite
justified despite it having been sanctioned by us.

Fred

On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:40 PM, sannse wrote:

> I think RSpeer has a point here, so agreed to pass it on. I think
> the intention of the remedies is something like "for refusing to
----------
From sannse at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 20 18:07:51 2005
From: sannse at tiscali.co.uk (sannse)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:07:51 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Wikipedia: forward to ArbCom]
In-Reply-To: <5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>
References: <43A70C91.8070601@tiscali.co.uk>
<5BA57726-F4B8-4EDE-9F15-20CA90783F3C@ctelco.net>
Message-ID: <43A84877.2020008@tiscali.co.uk>

Again, that's not what comes across with the current wording. It
doesn't say "have continued with behaviour despite admonishment", it
says "in view of the dissatisfaction expressed". Expressing
dissatisfaction should not be a reason for penalties.

--sannse

Fred Bauder wrote:
> I suggest the remedy is sometimes appropriate with users who have