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
|