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

[Sarcasticidealist]

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"?

I'm more curious about how a body like Arb Comm can vote on a proposal to "informally note" something.

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".

The allegations occurred before the C68-FM-SV ruling.

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

Well, they didn't sanction him. And if telling his wife whatever he told his wife is a violation of the privacy policy, well, that's not Arb Comm's fault.

[Neil]

The allegations occurred before the C68-FM-SV ruling.

Maybe so, but the fact of their baselessness and the apparent inability of SV to evidence her claims becoming known did not.

Had the SV-Lar case closed prior to the C68-FM-SV ruling, I would imagine SV could well have recieved a harsher judgement in the C68-FM-SV ruling. As it is, as the allegations took place before the C68 case, and the findings afterwards, SlimVirgin probably gets off lighter than if both had happened before, or both after.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Maybe so, but the fact of their baselessness and the apparent inability of SV to evidence her claims becoming known did not.

Had the SV-Lar case closed prior to the C68-FM-SV ruling, I would imagine SV could well have recieved a harsher judgement in the C68-FM-SV ruling. As it is, as the allegations took place before the C68 case, and the findings afterwards, SlimVirgin probably gets off lighter than if both had happened before, or both after.

That's likely so (although Arb Comm was presumably aware by the close of C68-FM-SV that she wasn't going to substantiate her allegations). My point is just that when you put somebody on probation of a sort, you can't find retroactively that they violated it on the basis of behaviour before the probation was imposed. If her conduct re: SlimVirgin-Lar was sanctionable, the place to sanction it was SlimVirgin-Lar, not as an extension of C68-FM-SV.

[Doc glasgow]

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"?

I'm more curious about how a body like Arb Comm can vote on a proposal to "informally note" something.

Actually, this is correct. It is formally for the WMF/Ombudsman to rule on privacy policy violations, thus Arbcom are making an informal observation (their own opinion) and it has no formal/legal status.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Actually, this is correct. It is formally for the WMF/Ombudsman to rule on privacy policy violations, thus Arbcom are making an informal observation (their own opinion) and it has no formal/legal status.

Well, I'm not convinced that that a lack of authority to act necessarily makes something informal (could Arb Comm not "formally declare" that it considers a given action to be a violation of WMF policy, even if it's not charged with enforcing and has no mandate to enforce that policy?), but that's semantics. Thanks for the clarification - that makes sense.

[dogbiscuit]

I guess the question on timing is this:

Having come to the conclusion that unsubstantiated allegations of harassment was a particularly harmful form of behaviour, and SlimVirgin has demonstrated that she is quite capable of submitting evidence, including demanding delays when it suited her on other cases; was there any further request from ArbCom after the conclusion of the SV/FM case to insist on SlimVirgin either:

a) backing up the claim with evidence;
withdrawing the allegation with a suitable apology;
c) providing ArbCom with some reason as to why she was holding the ArbCom process in contempt by not submitting evidence, while at the same time she had sufficient time to publicly defame Lar (if the allegations are substantially unproven).

Given the answer is None of the Above, ArbCom should feel quite entitled to treat a "Well Respected Admin" harshly. Of course, if the ArbCom did not communicate any warnings, they make their position slightly weaker, but the argument still stands, and actually does not particularly depend on the other case.

[wikiwhistle]

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

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

If someone is a position where they handle confidential info, they shouldn't share that, should they, especially if they share it with someone who is involved in working at the same place.

It's like if I had a partner and I were a social worker or something, I wouldn't name names when discussing my clients in front of my partner, especially if my partner happened to know the client concerned.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Mon 6th October 2008, 2:11pm

[Lar]

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

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

If someone is a position where they handle confidential info, they shouldn't share that, should they, especially if they share it with someone who is involved in working at the same place.

It's like if I had a partner and I were a social worker or something, I wouldn't name names when discussing my clients in front of my partner, especially if my partner happened to know the client concerned.

Be careful not to jump to conclusions about what was or was not shared with anyone, please. Especially if your input data is based on allegations made by a party that is proposed to be admonished for not substantiating their allegations.

I'm not going to comment further on evidence given in confidence but I think that is a valid caution.

This post has been edited by Lar: Mon 6th October 2008, 3:07pm

[gomi]

Be careful not to jump to conclusions about what was or was not shared with anyone, please. Especially if your input data is based on allegations made by a party that is proposed to be admonished for not substantiating their allegations.

In other words, this could as easily be about Jayjg sharing checkuser data with SlimVirgin as about anything else.

[the fieryangel]

Be careful not to jump to conclusions about what was or was not shared with anyone, please. Especially if your input data is based on allegations made by a party that is proposed to be admonished for not substantiating their allegations.

In other words, this could as easily be about Jayjg sharing checkuser data with SlimVirgin as about anything else.

Bingo...and they're probably not going say anything else about the subject.

I think that this looks like (merited, IMHO) vindication for Lar here!

[Proabivouac]

Be careful not to jump to conclusions about what was or was not shared with anyone, please. Especially if your input data is based on allegations made by a party that is proposed to be admonished for not substantiating their allegations.

Am I alone in seeing the irony that the Arbitrators themselves have not bothered to substantiate their own allegations ("findings of fact")?

I would advise against drawing any conclusions from this case, which was conducted in secret by a Committee not famed for its sound judgment; their arrogant pronouncements may be entirely worthless as they have been in the past. As checkusers, they are also palpably conflicted: why should they wish to check their own powers? Have they ever done so?

There may be any number of reasons why Slim didn’t produce evidence: she didn’t open this case, nor did she present any evidence in the last one. It might simply be that she lacks faith in the process or just didn't wish to participate. Why didn't Giano, who was brought before the committee for criticizing the leadership, present any evidence?

Overall, it's just plain funny to see people here saying, "Yay, secret hearings, go Arbitrators!"

If by chance I ever participate on Wikipedia again, let me state in advance that I will refuse to submit myself to their unearned authority: they should instead be overthrown.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 7th October 2008, 4:52am

[Milton Roe]

If by chance I ever participate on Wikipedia again, let me state in advance that I will refuse to submit myself to their unearned authority: they should instead be overthrown.

If you go around this old world being shocked by, and refusing to submit to, "unearned authority," you're in for The House of Pain.

My strategy is to avoid dealing with those "authority figures" as much as possible. Because it turns out they almost never honestly earned it. It ain't just Wikipedia!

[dogbiscuit]

Be careful not to jump to conclusions about what was or was not shared with anyone, please. Especially if your input data is based on allegations made by a party that is proposed to be admonished for not substantiating their allegations.

Am I alone in seeing the irony that the Arbitrators themselves have not bothered to substantiate their own allegations ("findings of fact")?

I would advise against drawing any conclusions from this case, which was conducted in secret by a Committee not famed for its sound judgment; their arrogant pronouncements may be entirely worthless as they have been in the past. As checkusers, they are also palpably conflicted: why should they wish to check their own powers? Have they ever done so?

There may be any number of reasons why Slim didn’t produce evidence: she didn’t open this case, nor did she present any evidence in the last one. It might simply be that she lacks faith in the process or just didn't wish to participate. Why didn't Giano, who was brought before the committee for criticizing the leadership, present any evidence?

Overall, it's just plain funny to see people here saying, "Yay, secret hearings, go Arbitrators!"

If by chance I ever participate on Wikipedia again, let me state in advance that I will refuse to submit myself to their unearned authority: they should instead be overthrown.

Well that comes back to my comment: if that really is her position then she is making a pretty solid statement of holding ArbCom in contempt.

WR is touted as being out to undermine WP, yet here we have a supposed loyalist apparently of the view that WP does not meet with her standards. Arguably, that is far more damaging to WP than a bunch of the lunatic fringe griping from WR?

However, there is nothing new here. The likes of SlimVirgin, Jayjg and the ID Cabal have all made it pretty clear that only their own personal views of Wikipedia are what count, and everyone else can go hang. And they have done more than anyone to spawn a culture of gamesmanship rather than working with honest people who have identified serious issues with the workings of Wikipedia to make Wikipedia an ethical and useful project.

[that one guy]

Surprise surprise, ArbCom asks for evidence from SV, and she fails to deliver.

[EuroSceptic]

Surprise surprise, ArbCom asks for evidence from SV, and she fails to deliver.

Duh. It is nice to see an official recognition of that at WP

[Cla68]

Surprise surprise, ArbCom asks for evidence from SV, and she fails to deliver.

Duh. It is nice to see an official recognition of that at WP

Wikitumnus who apparently was one of the previously undisclosed editors in this case, has left a long statement. No one responded to it, so Carcharoth posted a notice about it further down the page. Mackan79 then points out some inconsistencies with it.

In other sections on the page, SLRubenstein, Tom Harrison, and MONGO, in an extremely epeolatric manner, try to put some spin on the case decision. Mackensen and Lar respond, among others, and, IMO, effectively deflate those attempts, mainly by repeating what they had said previously about the incident, and pointing out, again, the crux of the issue which is that SV was given two months to back up her public accusations with some evidence, which she was apparently unwilling or unable to do.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 13th October 2008, 11:39pm

[gomi]

MONGO, in an extremely epeolatric manner, try to ... spin ... the decision

I don't run into a lot of words I've never seen before, but ....

Epeolatric ... a word not found in the Webster's New World behind my desk, or on Dictionary.com, or in my old (paper) OED. But on Wikipedia: "epeolatry literally means the worship of words".

This particular bit of circularity hilarity caught my eye, and my funnybone. It's like "sesquipedalian", making fun of itself, on a couple of levels.

[Cla68]

MONGO, in an extremely epeolatric manner, try to ... spin ... the decision

I don't run into a lot of words I've never seen before, but ....

Epeolatric ... a word not found in the Webster's New World behind my desk, or on Dictionary.com, or in my old (paper) OED. But on Wikipedia: "epeolatry literally means the worship of words".

This particular bit of circularity hilarity caught my eye, and my funnybone. It's like "sesquipedalian", making fun of itself, on a couple of levels.

Full disclosure: I subscribe to Wordsmith.org's mailing list and epeolatry was today's word.

[Cla68]

Surprise surprise, ArbCom asks for evidence from SV, and she fails to deliver.

Duh. It is nice to see an official recognition of that at WP

Wikitumnus who apparently was one of the previously undisclosed editors in this case, has left a long statement. No one responded to it, so Carcharoth posted a notice about it further down the page. Mackan79 then points out some inconsistencies with it.

In other sections on the page, SLRubenstein, Tom Harrison, and MONGO, in an extremely epeolatric manner, try to put some spin on the case decision. Mackensen and Lar respond, among others, and, IMO, effectively deflate those attempts, mainly by repeating what they had said previously about the incident, and pointing out, again, the crux of the issue which is that SV was given two months to back up her public accusations with some evidence, which she was apparently unwilling or unable to do.

Kirill and NYB have responded on the talk page and politely informed Slrubenstein that he's barking up the wrong tree.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 14th October 2008, 2:58am

[Cla68]

SV has posted some more public accusations without evidence, and was immediately taken to task for it by what appears to be a neutral observer.

To accuse Lar of offering to "trade wiki-gossip for information" from WR participants without evidence is really some dirty pool.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 21st October 2008, 12:02am