Sun 16th March 2008, 11:06pm
The case put forth by Sidaway, and the responses of the arbitrators are interesting. Sidaway is clearly out of his tree these days and is just making things up
to attack someone who disputes "the cabal". Mackan79 has gone from a "wiki-stalker" according to Slim, to a "long term harasser" according to Sidaway.
The response from FT2 sheds more light on GeorgeWilliamHerbert's outrageous block of Mackan -- which was another blatant show of power by the corrupt strain to attack outsiders:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n#User:Mackan79
edit conflict) Decline. (And involved, though as neutral administrative/arbitrator, rather than as a party, for full disclosure.) Background of my awareness: - GWH emailed Arbcom with his concern that Mackan had self-outed as a sock of a banned user, a concern worded fairly, and based upon a good-faith but erroneous interpretation of a post by Mackan. I investigated (at least 4 checkusers did so in total) and within 1.5 hours emailed GWH back that this was "exceedingly unlikely". GWH for reasons I don't fully understand, later blocked Mackan, a block that was reversed. Somewhere in all this Mackan positively identified himself to a checkuser (name, corporation, phone number, city), and was fully verified not to be the person in question. A discussion ensued by one Arbitrator whether the block log was problematic enough to be wiped, and due to concerns of excessive favor (this is not a move most users would have for a bad block) I posted a statement requesting communal views at ANI on the suggestion. SlimVirgin posted a strongly worded objection which to my mind was unhelpful and cited Mackan allegedly being a problem in other ways, then toned it right down to a fair one sentence opinion, which allowed the thread to be concluded fairly (no alteration to the log was made; the discussion at ANI is sufficient for Mackan to rebut allegations if raised in future). SV has stated she wishes to avoid Mackan and have him avoid her, and has not suggested raising any case on the matter as far as I know.
Upon review, I don't actually see an Arbitration need here. The dispute was quiet, and probably will be quiet. If Mackan visibly follows SV around and discomfits her, then there is a wealth of remedy in various policies and guidelines to deal with it, which she or anyone else can invoke. Arbitration is the last resort of this, and yet whilst it is laudable to seek to help others, it is not at all clear to me that "other measures have failed" (or even that there is a genuiinely active problem of a magnitude to need it at present). Indeed most measures have not been sought or tried. And the concern that possible misconduct by Mackan (if a problem) could not be addressed by those processes seems unsupported at this time. The one circumstance I would accept would be if there was strong evidence of harassment by Mackan that could not be shown on-wiki which was of such a nature that it would be material to assessing the matter and yet could not be made public. Even then an Arbitrator might post that they have seen material X which shows Y, for some kinds of material. The other matter is, SV herself has not sought any action save avoidance of dispute, a sensible approach. This brief spat is due to a misjudged post of hers that she very quickly withdrew, and which he too withdrew his response to in recognition of her withdrawal, both of them apparently seeking to avoid dispute. Posting his comment to her talk page instead, for discussion, is not under that circumstance, an action I would say signifies an arbitration case is proven needed for stalking.