SlimVirgin-Lar arbitration case, Arbcom lazy, or just stalling? Options Rating

[Shalom]

It's been two months since Arbcom accepted a case to review Lar's action to checkuser SlimVirgin. How long does it take to figure this out? Can it be that difficult to determine whether Lar acted correctly or not?

Yawn.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...#Any_updates.3F

[Milton Roe]

It's been two months since Arbcom accepted a case to review Lar's action to checkuser SlimVirgin. How long does it take to figure this out? Can it be that difficult to determine whether Lar acted correctly or not?

Yawn.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...#Any_updates.3F

Well, yes. Since ArbCom has officially decided that SV can do no wrong, even if 8/9 of them think if might sometimes possibly appear that she does wrong, to some people; and since nobody can think of a single thing to hate Lar over, finding the two in conflict causes mental circuit breakers to pop at the WP powerstructure. Their eyes glaze over, and soon they begin to think about something (anything) else.

Back in the days when I used to file my own tax returns instead of intelligently going to a specialist, I did some SERIOUSLY nasty yard and housework and car repair every April, trying not to think about doing the thing. If ArbCom is human, they do the same.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Sun 28th September 2008, 6:58am

[Giggy]

It would be reckless to make any guarantees, but I can say that there has been much discussion on the case, and it is fair to say that the Committee is in substantive agreement on many of the major issues. Obviously we would all like to have this resolved as soon as practicable. --bainer (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine what they're on disagreement on...

[Piperdown]

WP should consider such editors to be among its most valued contributers. Ironically, childish blind loyalty and worse is rewarded instead for the good of its senators and kings who answer to no-one once entrenched.

As to what if anything should be done about SV’s malfeasance, it is a difficult question and probably a moot one. SV is an unusual editor in that she is many things at once: an intelligent, engaging, inquiring intellect; a loyal wiki-friend; a terrific writer and uncommonly productive editor; a habitual POV-pusher, hobby-horse rider and original researcher; and a chronic “victim” and vengeful liar. As content is the preeminent thing in a volunteer encyclopedia, even more important than honesty and decency, and as Slim is a prolific contributor of, on the whole, extremely high-quality content, I do not think she should be perma-banned. And given that she has no record of admin abuse per se, I don’t even think she should be desysopped. Her enormous productive energies should not go to waste. But when she cries foul, when she labels someone a “troublemaker” or “troll-enabler” or “CU-in-WR’s-pocket” or whatever the latest oleaginous smear, the reaction of admins and Arbcom members should approximate that of a World Cup ref when a member of the Italian national soccer team dives to the ground and grimaces in agony while grasping his unscathed ankle.--G-Dett (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...#Any_updates.3F

[EuroSceptic]

They just have to find a way to save SlimVirgin, which become increasingly difficult. Just remember, she only has been a named party in remedies three times before.

[Shalom]

They just have to find a way to save SlimVirgin, which become increasingly difficult. Just remember, she only has been a named party in remedies three times before.

What's so hard about that? You can't seriously desysop SlimVirgin for making a baseless accusation against Lar, in the worst-case scenario - and I emphasize in the strongest possible terms that I don't know what happened and I don't assume either party is guilty or innocent. So ArbCom can admonish her and advise people in future to bring concerns of that nature privately to the ombudsman commission or arbcom instead of making accusations on ANI that the accused, by nature of the subject matter, can't defend himself against. I mean, if SlimVirgin messed up here, assume good faith, issue a token admonishment and advice for how to handle similar situations in the future, and move on. Is that too harmful or blunt, that even this is beyond the ability of Arbcom to state clearly - again, assuming that the facts warrant such a declaration?

[Piperdown]

They just have to find a way to save SlimVirgin, which become increasingly difficult. Just remember, she only has been a named party in remedies three times before.

What's so hard about that? You can't seriously desysop SlimVirgin for making a baseless accusation against Lar, in the worst-case scenario - and I emphasize in the strongest possible terms that I don't know what happened and I don't assume either party is guilty or innocent. So ArbCom can admonish her and advise people in future to bring concerns of that nature privately to the ombudsman commission or arbcom instead of making accusations on ANI that the accused, by nature of the subject matter, can't defend himself against. I mean, if SlimVirgin messed up here, assume good faith, issue a token admonishment and advice for how to handle similar situations in the future, and move on. Is that too harmful or blunt, that even this is beyond the ability of Arbcom to state clearly - again, assuming that the facts warrant such a declaration?

i think you desysop SV for starters for accepting under false "I am an admin I can help" pretenses and forwarding Judd Bagley's "evidence" email(s) to Gary Weiss. Then there is her behaviour in the banning of Sparkzilla matter. There there's the matter about her adminship activities involving most of the most prolific contributors to this forum. Holy cow the list would be longer than....why Cla68 & other Wp'ians lists already compiled in RFC's and RFA's. Which apparently too many people stuck their fingers in their ears, closed their eyes, and sang "la-la-la I can't hear you!"*



* Official motto of the 2006-2008 Arbcom

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 28th September 2008, 6:50pm

[Shalom]

Arbcom was already aware of whatever it knows when they closed the Cla68-FM-SV case without even voting whether to desysop SlimVirgin. So although the outcome I was looking for is not a secret, the contents of the SlimVirgin-Lar evidence cannot possibly push the issue any further than it has already gone.

[The Adversary]

They just have to find a way to save SlimVirgin, which become increasingly difficult. Just remember, she only has been a named party in remedies three times before.

Well, they have removed one of her fangs, and that is a promising beginning. IMHO.

[The Joy]

They just have to find a way to save SlimVirgin, which become increasingly difficult. Just remember, she only has been a named party in remedies three times before.

Well, they have removed one of her fangs, and that is a promising beginning. IMHO.

Yes, but cutting off one Hydra's head does not kill the Hydra. In fact, more heads may appear!

[Proabivouac]

Well, they have removed one of her fangs, and that is a promising beginning. IMHO.

Now SlimVirgin is responsible for Felonious Monk's actions? Most of what he's done here has nothing to do with her, so far I can discern.

[One]

Well, they have removed one of her fangs, and that is a promising beginning. IMHO.

Now SlimVirgin is responsible for Felonious Monk's actions? Most of what he's done here has nothing to do with her, so far I can discern.

Proab have been making a lot of posts to the effect that SlimVirgin is excessively demonized. I tend to agree with him. Bona fide nutters obsess over her (DL, Blissyu2, for example). On the other hand, some people have very legitimate grievances. But we shouldn't dilute those grievance with untrue garbage that just discredits our commentary.

FM was an abusive admin because he was an unrepentant POV pusher in ID cabal-type topics, not so much animal rights, LaRouche, Israel, Canada, or anything that could sanely be called one of SV's interests. She can't be blamed for every bad thing that happens on the site. When she is, it makes the commentator look foolish and/or obsessed with SV.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 1st October 2008, 2:10pm

[Kelly Martin]

FM and SV sometimes collaborated in crime, but FM's thuggery is largely his own doing. If anything, FM was Mel Etitis' protege, although Mel seems to have disappeared some time ago.

[The Adversary]

FM and SV sometimes collaborated in crime, but FM's thuggery is largely his own doing. If anything, FM was Mel Etitis' protege, although Mel seems to have disappeared some time ago.

FM was nominated for admin by ....yeah; you guessed it, SV herself. And SV earned one of her first barnstars (from Tomer) for her "amazing patience and hard work and perseverance in helping to get people, including ardent opponents, to recognize FeloniousMonk's merits as an admin candidate". I can´t be bothered to go back and find all the diffs from Slim, which earned her that barnstar-- (Some of the comments during voting for FM are pure gems..seen in the light of what happened later )

And then take a look a those FM blocked, and on whose "orders", so to speak (lots of evidence on the evidence-page in the Cla/SV/FM case). FM could always be relied on to block anybody Jayjg and/or Slim wanted to block. And he could do it because he was a socalled "uninvolved" admin.

FM ..and Mel Etitis (+SV , Jayjg, Jossi) have been at the very centre of what I see as a very abusive system which basically goes like this:
"User A" feels strongly about/has COI conflict in "subject A"
"User B" feels strongly about/has COI conflict in "subject B"
"User C" feels strongly about/has COI conflict in "subject C"

(where "subject x" can be anything from 1-2 to 200-400 articles)

What happens then is that A, B, C becomes "wiki-friends" and protect each others articles, and do the admin-works for each other.
So:
*SV feels strongly for I/P and Animal right issues.....and she helps
*FM, who feels strongly for ID issues ... and helps
*Mel Etitis, who feels strongly about the article about himself (a marginal notable) + the articles about a few friends/colleges (which he mostly started as an anon ip) ...and they are all friendly with
*Jossi, who feels strongly about his guru

So SV makes sure that the article about the RL identity of Mel Etitis looks in tip top shape, support FM and Jossi in their POV...and in return she can be sure that one of her "friends" will always be at hand when she wants somebody blocked. And vice versa.

(The "minor" consequence of this is that the articles in the "subject x" field becomes horribly tilted.)

As I have said elsewhere: things have changed (to the better) since about August last year. But before then SV (and Jayjg) could always go on AN/3RR and report anybody, and be sure that those they reported were soon blocked. Many of those blocks were totally disputed. And many of those blocks were done by FM, swooping in out of the blue. (Again: look at the evidence-page.)

Of course, a lot (most?) of FM´s abusive admin work was totally unrelated to Slimmy. But still: I stand by my description of him as one of her fangs. A fang she cultivated.

This post has been edited by The Adversary: Thu 2nd October 2008, 7:24am

[Sarcasticidealist]

Proposed decision 's up.
1. Slimvirgin never submitted evidence.
2. The committee finds that this, as well as her choice of venue for complaining, was unhelpful.
3. The committee indicates that a technical violation of the privacy policy may have occurred (I'm assuming this is surrounding Lar and his wife, though perhaps he'll comment).

This post has been edited by sarcasticidealist: Mon 6th October 2008, 3:22am

[Obesity]

Wow, Kirill really lets her have it.

I wonder if anyone will suggest she has violated several of the principles emerging from the recent FM-SV affair:

• Charges of harassment or similar misconduct should not be made lightly or unnecessarily
• SlimVirgin has been an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors...but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily.
• Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

[cyofee]

Breach of privacy

8) Informally, the Committee notes that a technical breach of the privacy policy may have ocurred in this case; but that, given the limitations of our operating environment with regards to data isolation, it is unclear whether any reasonable means for preventing breaches of this nature are available at present.

What exactly is a "technical breack of the privacy policy"?

[The Adversary]

Breach of privacy

8) Informally, the Committee notes that a technical breach of the privacy policy may have ocurred in this case; but that, given the limitations of our operating environment with regards to data isolation, it is unclear whether any reasonable means for preventing breaches of this nature are available at present.

What exactly is a "technical breack of the privacy policy"?

Wasn´t it that Lar told his wife about CU-results?

[Giggy]

Breach of privacy

8) Informally, the Committee notes that a technical breach of the privacy policy may have ocurred in this case; but that, given the limitations of our operating environment with regards to data isolation, it is unclear whether any reasonable means for preventing breaches of this nature are available at present.

What exactly is a "technical breack of the privacy policy"?

Wasn´t it that Lar told his wife about CU-results?

Sanctioning a user for being married may be a new low for ArbCom.

[Neil]

As Obesity says above, SV's failure to submit evidence following some serious accusations is in express violation of "Parties are admonished and instructed to avoid ... unsupported allegations of harassment", and "Unnecessary involvement in disputes or administrator actions as to which a party may be unable to remain civil and professional or to avoid excessive emotional involvement".

According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Further review and sanctions, should any of the named parties continue to engage in misconduct as identified in the decision, a request for reopening of the case may be made at WP:RFArb.

The decision mentions "substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations".

This post has been edited by Neil: Mon 6th October 2008, 9:08am