Proabivouac's question, (split from "hi") Options

[Milton Roe]

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been. Why aren't you appalled about it?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:05pm

[Kelly Martin]

A unanimous voice echoing out of a Star Chamber means nothing except that power has been exerted.

[Carruthers]

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

Yes, but his voice is not heard on that page. That's a huge problem. Obviously, you don't see that.

You might have threatened him with the comfy chair, in which case he would have behaved himself, I'm sure.....

[FT2]

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been. Why aren't you appalled about it?

The aim of the initial RFAR ("Requests for arbitration") is for one purpose: to allow arbitrators to assess whether there is a good basis to believe that a matter needs looking into which the community has been unable to resolve.

If you can explain how lack of posting ability and posting the identical statement by email instead of on-wiki, in any way means any arbitrator has less of the information needed to form a view on that one question, then I'd be interested. For myself, I got everything he said, and everything everyone else said.

This post has been edited by FT2: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:27pm

[FT2]

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been.

Update - If you don't mean arbitration, but you're discussing blocks in general, then users get blocked because (usually) an administrator (or admin consensus) says they use their access to post disruptively. Such a user can appeal that in many ways, all of which are well established and respected. They can

1. post an unblock request,
2. email the unblock-l mailing list,
3. visit the unblock channel on IRC,
4. email the admin directly to discuss,
5. email anyone of thousands of users to ask for a statement to be posted on their behalf, or if banned,
6. email arbcom for review.

Thousands of users employ those methods and they are well established. A user being discussed has many ways to say if something isn't right in the discussion - for example even if they are very disruptive on-wiki, they won't get their talk page protected unless they abuse it, and won't lose access to wiki-based email unless they abuse that, and even if they do there are many people whose emails are public, including Arbcom's and they can still ask to a reasonable response that way. So no, I don't buy the premise.

It's also not as "easy" as you think to selectively allow posting to a page - that capability just doesn't exist (yet). (They may be unblocked "on trust" by an administrator for that reason, but that's down to "any admin" or admin consensus and in this case it didn't happen.)

This post has been edited by FT2: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:42pm

[Milton Roe]

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been. Why aren't you appalled about it?

The aim of the initial RFAR ("Requests for arbitration") is for one purpose: to allow arbitrators to assess whether there is a good basis to believe that a matter needs looking into which the community has been unable to resolve.

If you can explain how lack of posting ability and posting the identical statement by email instead of on-wiki, in any way means any arbitrator has less of the information needed to form a view on that one question, then I'd be interested. For myself, I got everything he said, and everything everyone else said.

Has it occured to you that many a newly blocked editor hasn't the first clue as to how to email Arbcom? The fact that this one managed it with you, says nothing.

Second, the question of whether or not the arbitration committee has a matter which is worthy of arbitration, is itself a matter which is worthy of public comment. More eyes means generally better ideas. You don't get more eyes if you get nothing but an in-camera discussion of an email, which only a few people get to read. Rather, that's an invitation for abuse. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. A Supreme Court justice said that.

[FT2]

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

Yes, but his voice is not heard on that page. That's a huge problem. Obviously, you don't see that.

It obviously was not a huge problem in any practical sense. Not one person stated that it was appropriate to allow access, and in fact consensus supported removal of access rather than restoration. Any of thousands of editors who felt strongly - or even himself - could have asked for it to be posted, but none did. So with the community actively deciding very strongly it wasn't a problem for them, and arbitrators having full sight of his statement and not needing it on-wiki themselves to assess fairly... who exactly in the discussion was it a "huge problem" for?

(In practical terms, not in philosophical terms I mean - the idea that a notional fly on the wall or every last editor couldn't read it is not an issue; out of him, arbitrators and "the community", it wasn't a practical problem for any.)

[FT2]

Has it occured to you that many a newly blocked editor hasn't the first clue as to how to email Arbcom? The fact that this one managed it with you, says nothing.

Of course it has. In fact you're talking to the admin who rewrote the blocked text that users see, and the "appealing a block" page, precisely for that reason, to explain what blocking is and how to appeal or email, in September 2007.

At the time of this case (June 6-11) he was blocked, not banned. The version of the block message he would have been shown is here. Under "additional information" -> "Emailing us", it exactly how to contact the unblock list by email and ends "Click here to contact unblock-en-l". It could be more visible; I'll edit it shortly.

Separate case - a banned user will usually have a template on their user page linking to banning policy. I have reviewed that and the appeals section links to arbcom but doesn't give the email address. I've added it now.

Second, the question of whether or not the arbitration committee has a matter which is worthy of arbitration, is itself a matter which is worthy of public comment. More eyes means generally better ideas. You don't get more eyes if you get nothing but an in-camera discussion of an email, which only a few people get to read. Rather, that's an invitation for abuse. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. A Supreme Court justice said that.

Agree. (Crossref "more eyeballs".) It's one reason why some arbitration decisions can seem so strangely mild - exactly that factor, which we allow for and take into account.

This thread was only for arbitrators to assess if there was something the community was unable to resolve, or was grossly improper, so to speak. Had it gone further, any evidence leading to actual remedies would most likely have been posted publicly as you say. But the community had rather forcibly indicated it had no interest in seeing the user's posts, there were no dissenting voices in the community asking to see it, and the people making the accept/decline decison had the exact information they would have had anyway and gave their reasons publicly as usual. No net effect.

[Cla68]

If I may interject here for a moment, FT2, could you please go drop some votes, proposals, or comments on the proposed deicsion page of the C68/FM/SV case? I hope it's nearing closure.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 3rd September 2008, 12:14am

[Kelly Martin]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

[Milton Roe]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

Well, he's lecturing me on stuff he's done to make it easier for the blockee to contact somebody, which have been in place for a whole year. Out of seven. And certainly since I was temporarily blocked, and experienced this firsthand. So, I didn't know about it. And I guess it's nice, but I really think it should've been done sooner.

Plus, all this stuff done by email just lets you do a lot of nasty things to people under the table, since the community never sees what they say. Asking other editors to post stuff on your behalf requires them to understand the delicate nuances between a blocked user and a formally banned user. Whcih is not the right thing to require, because it takes quite a bit to even explain. (Example: An indef block which nobody is willing to undo, at some point becomes a community ban, but nobody can tell you just WHEN that point is, and thus when the line between indef blocked and banned is. Yet proxying for a blockee vs. a bannee is legal vs. illegal. What am I missing, there?)

Is it only proxying for an arbcom-banned user that is illegal?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Wed 3rd September 2008, 2:57am

[FT2]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

1/ Because "we" obviously don't, otherwise "we" wouldn't have asked these questions, Kelly.
2/ Because these were specific (ex?) user/s with specific cases, rather than a theoretical debate. I'm fine re-explaining if that helps them or clarifies it. It may, it may not.

[Moulton]

FT2, besides the long running RfAr that is nearing a conclusion, there is an overlapping RfC/ID filed on 10 June 2008 by PouponOnToast to consolidate dueling RfC's and RfAr's previously filed by competing factions.

This consolidated RfC has a curious feature — namely, I am the only respondent actually named in it.

And I am also the only would-be participant in the RfC who is blocked from participating in it by the adversarial editors of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.

Would it not be appropriate to unblock me for the express purpose of responding to issues raised in RfC/ID?

[FT2]

Well, he's lecturing me on stuff he's done to make it easier for the blockee to contact somebody, which have been in place for a whole year. Out of seven. And certainly since I was temporarily blocked, and experienced this firsthand. So, I didn't know about it. And I guess it's nice, but I really think it should've been done sooner.

Yeah, sorry it took so long.

Plus, all this stuff done by email just lets you do a lot of nasty things to people under the table, since the community never sees what they say.

Arbitrators are fairly carefully chosen. Anyone can self-nominate who has a fairly low level of editing, sufferage is also wide (anyone with a low level of edits), and the process is open. The appointees for the last 3 elections (with minor adjustment for 2 existing arbs standing for re-election in Jan 06) were endorsed by Jimbo without varying the community's views at all. So in effect you pretty much have a committee that the community chose without any distortion, from candidates that include pretty much any editor who wanted to. They get voted specifically to handle privacy issues, about 5 a year. They aren't answerable to WMF's office; they don't get directions what to do from Jimbo. If you're asking them to "do nasty things under the table" in response to an arb-l email, then you're asking about 15 users elected at different times by different people, chosen specifically by open election for experience and trust, who all see the same source information, to all then conspire to "do nasty things" by hiding it. And every last ex-arb (all 15 of them) to go along with it. It just doesn't work that way.

Emails handled by well known groups - unblock-l, arb-l, oversight-l, etc, get a lot of scrutiny. Private emails between users are more likely a risk. But most of arbcom's work isn't done by private email.

(Example: An indef block which nobody is willing to undo, at some point becomes a community ban, but nobody can tell you just WHEN that point is, and thus when the line between indef blocked and banned is. Yet proxying for a blockee vs. a bannee is legal vs. illegal. What am I missing, there?

Is it only proxying for an arbcom-banned user that is illegal?

Way ahead of you - I tried (twice) to get that problem fixed too. I'm still hoping someone will pick up the baton and run with it. You're not missing a thing.

And point of information, it's proxying on any ban, not just arbcom bans. The point is, a blocked user - even an indef block - is part of the community (temp suspended so to speak). Banned users are not, the aim of a ban is removal. Indef blocks are really just "until resolved" - but if they never resolve then effectively (as you say) there's that grey line. It would be nice to eliminate it in favor of an explicit decision.

[Docknell]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

1/ Because "we" obviously don't, otherwise "we" wouldn't have asked these questions, Kelly.
2/ Because these were specific (ex?) user/s with specific cases, rather than a theoretical debate. I'm fine re-explaining if that helps them or clarifies it. It may, it may not.

FT2, actually what you explained was:

You having charges of harrassment is no big deal for me

Blather, blather, bunk, NLP a bit, blather

Hope this helps



Q: Is there perhaps any way you could actually answer a question one day? Perhaps on the diffs that show you generally pushing fringe, cruft, pseudoscience, and trying (here also) to sweep stuff under the carpet?

As it is you seem to have dug yourself deeper into the slime you created for yourself a few years ago when promoting bestiality as a lifestyle, and continue even now to create phantoms and bogeymen in order to keep up the defense of your "crufty" articles. This is my view, and it is certainly shared by others.

Q: Can you please address the actual issues at hand, and especially the material diffs that you created?


If you don't, people will maybe perhaps one day start thinking you either can't or just really really don't want to.


Doc

[Peter Damian]

* The unblocking admin himself, who also started by believing the view you support, actually changed his mind when he saw the actual edit and issue.
* He cited to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt
* He himself gave Proabivouac a further warning not to repeat.

I also just noticed the diff below, by the 'unblocking admin'. This was made after he had 'seen the issue', and suggests he not in fact 'changed his mind'. FT2 is certainly the master of the selective quote.
(link)

This is an example of why I said, you don't check facts as carefully as you need to.

The link you quote was at 18:05, and stated that Slrubenstein had concerns and started off believing the view you support (as I said). The two links I cited are after, not before, at 18:12 and 19:25, where he states "I just left a stern warning on the user's page" and cites to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt. He did not repost on any page, his original view, after that.

This would tend to support the summary I gave, and not a view that I was "selective".

1. I had already checked those diffs, please don't accuse me of not checking facts. If you look at the whole series of edits it is clear that SLR has not changed his mind. He is trying to balance both sides of the issue.

2. On not checking facts, you still haven't discussed the misattributed quotation from Lakoff. See the other thread.

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:42am

[Carruthers]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

1/ Because "we" obviously don't, otherwise "we" wouldn't have asked these questions, Kelly.
2/ Because these were specific (ex?) user/s with specific cases, rather than a theoretical debate. I'm fine re-explaining if that helps them or clarifies it. It may, it may not.

I believe that you have all of this backwards, FT2:

1. "We" (read, "those who regularly discuss these issues here on this forum") on this know quite a bit about WP policy and have discussed it at length, otherwise we wouldn't have known that the questions were valid.

2. I was under the impression that Milton and I WERE having a theoretical debate. If understanding that makes you frame the question in a different way, then by all means do so. General, rather than specific, remarks are encouraged here, for obvious reasons.

The fact that Dzonatas had a public judgment made against him, one who is part of the eternal history of your site, makes the lack of any public voice of the accused that much more glaring. The comparison to a "Star Chamber" proceeding is made that much more valid.

This post has been edited by Carruthers: Wed 3rd September 2008, 7:37am

[FT2]

(Snip)
Q: Is there perhaps any way you could actually answer a question one day?
(Snip)

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

[Proabivouac]

Unlikely.

Please stop linking to laudatory opinions of yourself, FT2, as seen in nauseating force on your userpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2#Feed...in_the_hot_seat
Is this some NLP technique? Whatever its rationale, its effect appears to be to shield you from things you're doing that aren't working. This map is truly not the territory.

I am however impressed with your newfound brevity. Since this thread is entitled "Proabivouac's question", perhaps it's time you answered it:
Who solicited you on IRC to block me?
Don't pretend you don't remember; I won't believe you.

There is also Proabivouac's other question, still unanswered:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 3rd September 2008, 10:11am

[Kelly Martin]

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

More of the shit that you are widely reviled for. Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered. Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.