Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:50, 8 November 2012 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,210 edits →Re. Arbcom page: re← Previous edit Revision as of 17:52, 8 November 2012 edit undoMBisanz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 edits →Re. Arbcom page: cmt ecNext edit →
Line 145: Line 145:
:: Just because it's a perennial problem doesn't make it any more excusable. What makes this particular case so particularly objectionable is the fact that the whole affair was about an administrative effort designed ''to give a guy some rest'', in a situation where he badly needed it, and the committee's involvement, made under the pretext of "tweaking" or "correcting" that effort, has been to turn it into its exact opposite. :: Just because it's a perennial problem doesn't make it any more excusable. What makes this particular case so particularly objectionable is the fact that the whole affair was about an administrative effort designed ''to give a guy some rest'', in a situation where he badly needed it, and the committee's involvement, made under the pretext of "tweaking" or "correcting" that effort, has been to turn it into its exact opposite.
:: I know it's not your personal fault (you voted in a timely fashioon, as did some others), but you chose to defend your idle colleagues. ] ] 17:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC) :: I know it's not your personal fault (you voted in a timely fashioon, as did some others), but you chose to defend your idle colleagues. ] ] 17:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

::(ec) Hi AGK. I don't think I share the same emotions as Fut.Perf., but I share similar emotions in the general case that I figured were worth sharing. My general thoughts on Arbcom requests are similar to those I've expressed to ] and seen in ]. I still get the feeling the Committee is very concerned with ensuring it makes a decision that is just and fair to those before it, which to me seems to be a secondary priority to what I see as its primary priority: Ending disruption. In the case above, I gather the Committee is concerned with hearing Cla68's request and additional comments, being fair to Mathsci, and crafting a remedy that preserves as much discretion to edit among the participants as is possible. I would reply that the goal should be a remedy that ensures the matter is never brought back to Arbcom or AE. In this case, as I said above, I don't think an interaction banned user has a right to request alteration of the remedy to include his opponent; he only has the right to ask for a reduction of his own ban. I would read the interaction banned user's ability to speak on the matter very narrowly because the goal is to end the disruption of interaction, not give the user the ability to seek a result they are satisfied with.

::I've been pondering a question I hope to ask Arbcom candidates this fall and I'm interested to see the response to it. It's along the lines of: Looking at ], please tell me which declined cases would have led you to block the filer or a major participant for disruptively bringing the matter before Arbcom? It's a derivative of my concern that Arbcom is far too lenient on parties to cases by assuming that those brought before it are acting in good-faith. By the time a dispute reaches Arbcom, there has usually been a failure on the part of someone. It may have been that the accused is guilty of violating policy or it may be that the filer is guilty of escalating a matter beyond reason or it may be that one of the parties has such poor communication skills that they cannot resolve a dispute on their own. Arbcom seems unwilling to recognize that most requests involves someone messing something up and is willing to entertain lengthy screeds of argument, let everyone speak their mind, and then tailor the narrowest sanction it thinks will address the precise problem. Broader sanctions (topic bans instead of interaction ban, site bans instead of interaction bans, etc.) instead of the most narrow sanction and severe sanctions for disruptive (overly long, IDHT, uncivil) conduct in Arbcom proceedings (the person should be on their best behavior, they know their behavior is being reviewed by the final body on Misplaced Pages) should be the norm, not the present outlier. This would send the clear message that Arbcom is not for continuing disputes in a different forum and manner, but rather a nuclear option that if invoked, will result in an end to the disruption. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:52, 8 November 2012

"For the dancers to appear at once ridiculous – stop up our ears to the sound of music, in a room where people are dancing."

Where this user currently is, the time is 21:22, Friday 17 January 2025.

This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email.

I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

Centralized discussion

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)

You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)

You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaratam

You think someone using 40 proxies is not worth worrying about? We have behavioral evidence in the form of the AfD comments on known socking paid editor's AfDs. If Elen can confirm that all or most of the IPs are from the same subnet, then close it I guess, otherwise if they are scattered all over the world, I think it would be very naive to not assume that someone with access to so many proxies would be able to dodge a checkuser with careful management of their resources. Gigs (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't look at this again tonight because I'm heading offline, so I've reverted my closure of the investigation until I can respond in full to your concerns. AGK 21:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks for taking another look Gigs (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Feel free to close it now. We are no closer to having any more evidence here than we were a week ago. It may be better to keep his paid editing activities where we can see them anyway. Gigs (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


Oversight stats

Hey AGK, thanks for posting the monthly stats for CUs. :) I'm always wanting to know how busy i've been in a month :P. I notice though that the suppression statistics are now two months out of date, and i'm wondering if those could be updated. I understand everyone is busy these days, so if I should just post to func-en about this, let me know and i'll do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll update the suppression stats later tonight. I believe those are only one month out of date, but if I'm wrong I'll do an update for September as well as October. Regards, AGK 09:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You were correct that suppression statistics for the past two months were missing, so I've published the data for both September and October. Thanks, AGK 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom's decision

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't understand something about the reason you and the other arbitrators are giving for deciding to not make the interaction bans two-way. Most of the arbitrators who voted to decline Cla68's request for a case said in their comments this doesn't require a case because ArbCom could address it by motion instead. Now in your comment here, you say that you oppose making a decision by motion because the decision shouldn't be made without evidence being presented as can only be done in a case.

I said in my statement on the request page that I would like ArbCom to open a case, and if they do I am ready to present evidence that all five of the one-way interaction bans should be two-way. The reason I can't present more evidence is that ArbCom decided to address the request by motion instead, although now they also are rejecting the motion because they think any decision should require evidence in a case! If ArbCom rejects option A in favor of option B, and then also rejects option B because any decision should require option A, that brings new meaning to the phrase "paralysis by indecision". I sincerely hope ArbCom will have a better reason than this for deciding to take no action, if that is what they decide. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot control my colleagues' enthusiasm for motions over full cases, but perhaps you might find more success in persuading me if you publish at least a sample of evidence that supports making the bans bidirectional. At the moment, I see basically no evidence to support amending the bans, which is why I have opposed both the motion and the opening of a full case. If you were to substantiate your argument, perhaps I might support at least one of the two outcomes. Regards, AGK 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't going to say anything about Mathsci outside of the request itself. But since you're an arbitrator and you're asking me to show you some of my evidence, I assume I am allowed to answer your question.
I gave some evidence in the last part of my statement that the conflicts between Mathsci and The Devil's Advocate, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher have been more due to Mathsci's actions than those of the other parties. In TDA's case, it exists because Mathsci followed TDA to several discussion that had nothing to do with Mathsci or R&I in order to criticize him. (, , , ) In three of those four cases, Mathsci brought up his R&I related gripes with TDA even though the discussions had nothing to do with that topic, and in the last case it was in an AE thread that had nothing to do with me, TDA or Mathsci at all. When Mathsci brought us up in that thread, TDA and I were not having anything to do with him. The Devil's Advocate's statement gave some examples of the false accusations Mathsci made about him after bringing him up there, such as that The Devil's Advocate had claimed Mathsci was misrepresenting his medical condition, while TDA in fact claimed no such thing. Tijfo98 objected to Mathsci's attempt to hijack that AE thread, and told Mathsci his complaints about me and TDA belonged in a separate AE thread. So Mathsci posted a second AE thread about us later that day, which is what resulted in us being given one-way bans.
In my statement I also linked to this comment, which explains the cause of the conflict between Mathsci and SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2. In their case it was because Mathsci continued to attack them in arbitration discussions at a time when Trevelyan had stayed away from Misplaced Pages for the past four months, and SightWatcher had avoided Mathsci and R&I articles for the past year. This can be verified looking at the history of their contributions. When Mathsci began attacking them both in this discussion in May, Trevelyan had made no edits since January, and SightWatcher had made none related to Mathsci or R&I since May 2011. SilkTork warned Mathsci about this here, but Mathsci responded by calling SilkTork's warning "trolling". Trolling is the word for what people like Echigo Mole do.
Looking at the history of amendment requests on this page, it seems things like this have been happening for around two years, and they seem to always go the same way. The pattern is that Mathsci initiates a conflict by going out of his way to provoke another editor who's been avoiding him, and in the resulting conflict it is the other editors who get punished. Sometimes arbitrators have admonished or warned Mathsci about it (he also was admonished for it by an arbitration ruling in May), but his response to SilkTork suggests he considers these warnings invalid. I think if ArbCom does nothing to break this cycle, the same thing will continue to happen again and again. But if ArbCom could turn the five one-way interaction bans into two-way bans (Mine, TDA's, Cla68's, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher's), it would set a helpful precedent that the next time Mathsci provokes an editor who isn't doing anything to him, the interaction ban should cover them both, not just the other person.
Is that an adequate explanation? I haven't yet finished collecting diffs of some of the earlier editors who experienced this, like Ludwigs2 and Miradre. I can also present some evidence about how this happened in their case if you want me to, but it might have to wait a few days. Zeromus1 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
A blizzard of links will not work with experienced editors—I had a look at the first few, and they show nothing wrong. I am familiar with the occasion of the first link as it was on my watchlist and I had a long discussion with a user here who had misguidedly removed Mathsci's perfectly acceptable comment. It is beyond credibility that an account (Zeromus1) created on 19 August 2012 has independently decided that Mathsci requires sanctions, after miraculously encountering Mathsci at Marseille, and after creating Bias in Mental Testing ("The book is based on the fact that the average IQ of African Americans had been consistently found to lie approximately 15 points lower than that of White Americans..."). Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you expect me to do? AGK asked me to publish at least a sample of evidence that supports making the bans bidirectional, and said at the arbitration request page that what's needed was time to examine the situation in detail. If AGK wants to examine the situation in detail, that is not possible without providing lots of links.
The importance of the threads like the one at WQA is that they show the cause of the conflict between Mathsci and The Devil's Advocate. It exists because Mathsci has several times attacked TDA for R&I related issues in threads that had nothing to do with Mathsci or R&I. A one-way interaction ban is only appropriate if the person being sanctioned is the only one responsible for his conflict with another. But threads like that one show The Devil's Advocate definitely is not the only person, or even the main person, responsible for his conflict with Mathsci.
ArbCom can examine my own editing history if they like, but remember I'm not a completely inexperienced user. I had a few years of experience editing as an IP until about 2009. When I joined I already was familiar with R&I articles (although not with Mathsci), and as I said here I joined Misplaced Pages with the plan to help Yfever contribute to articles about Arthur Jensen's writings. The Red Pen of Doom previously asked me about this here. Zeromus1 (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi AGK. I understand your desire to continue fact-finding by engaging with Zeromus, but I must note that if they continue to violate their topic ban by visiting and discussing it on various arbitrators' talkpages, I will have no choice but to block them until they agree to not violate their interaction ban on any page of Misplaced Pages, in response to any inquiry, from anyone, for any reason. The email channels to Arbom remain open and are sufficient to handling any appeals or clarifications Zeromus may require. Thanks. MBisanz 14:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions permit editors to appeal the sanction to the arbitration committee, and corresponding with an arbiter, when instigated by that arbiter, is reasonably a part of such an appeal. When an person in authority, such as a member of the committee asks an editor to do something, and that editor does so, it is grossly unreasonable to punish the responding editor, even if the response is arguably a violation of a topic ban. Monty845 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Monty here, MBisanz; he's discussing an appeal of the ban, he has to discuss the topic he's banned from in order to make any kind of sense. I'm not seeing how you're helping here. KillerChihuahua 20:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
KC, if you read his first statement, he's not discussing an appeal of a ban, he's discussing his desire to add a ban on Mathsci. He doesn't ask once that his own ban be removed or lessened, only that Mathsci be two-way banned. I think it's wholly reasonable to expect an editor banned from interacting with another editor on-wiki will be limited to only discussing his own interaction ban on the Arbcom pages or in emails with the Committee. To permit an interaction banned person fifteen additional userpages from which to pursue sanctions against the other party would negate much of the purpose of the original ban. MBisanz 21:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Monty, Zeromus1 came to AGK's talk page to initiate the thread and AGK never asked him to respond here. If Zeromus1 desired to abide by his ban, he would have kept any references to Mathsci within his section at the requests page or in emails to Arbcom. He selected the option that violated his ban when other options were available. AGK did not invite him to do something that could only be done by violating his ban. MBisanz 21:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
AGK did not specifically ask for a response here, but did ask for a response, and I think a reasonable editor could conclude that responding here was consistent with what AGK was asking for. Generally, I think we should leave this sort of thing to the members of the committee. I just have a problem when we jump on an editor for doing something that an admin, or even more an ARBCOM Member asked them to, even if the editor should have known better. Monty845 21:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I generally try to avoid the idea that someone can cleanse their own behavior by framing it as a question or clarification from authority because that simply encourages gaming of the system. Zeromus1 came here on his own to start this conversation with AGK and the burden is on Zeromus1 to make sure his edits do not violate the ban, not on AGK to make sure his responses do not encourage Zeromus1 to violate his ban. Also, the sanction itself is quite broadly worded: indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, Mathsci (talk · contribs), broadly construed, anywhere on Misplaced Pages. While Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment are impliedly excluded to permit appeals, I don't see any exception permitting him to talk to an arbitrator on the arbitrator's talk page about sanctioning someone else. MBisanz 21:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Your interpretation of Zeromus1's interaction ban is incorrect. Under the correct definition of an interaction ban, the banned user is explicitly permitted to ignore the ban in the pursuit of "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." An arbitrator's talk page strikes me as an appropriate forum.

However, it so happens that you are also correct that I did not invite Zeromus1 to provide me here with evidence that the ban needs to apply to Mathsci too. I would rather such evidence be provided on the case request thread, where my colleagues and the rest of the community are afforded the opportunity to evaluate it. I think my present comment should conclude this thread, with any discussion of the actual case request being made at the request forum, and with any other discussion being moot. AGK 21:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing thread. As I explained in my most recent comment, any relevant material the committee ought to consider in conjunction with the pending case request should be submitted at the case requests page and not to my talk page. However, thank you all for your interest and comments. AGK 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AGK, I didn't try to present a full case because I thought I was bound by a restriction on word count on the ArbCom case request page. If the case had been accepted, I believe the full presentation of evidence would have clearly supported my position, because otherwise I wouldn't have made the request. Now, the rationale behind rejecting the motion is that there hasn't been enough evidence to support it. Talk about procedure getting in the way of resolution. Also, and I'm not directing this at you personally, if you guys were more responsive on the RfAR page, editors might not find it so necessary to start these separate discussions on you talk pages in order to get your attention, as has occurred here and on NYB's page. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Case request statements: "A short and factual statement of 500 words or fewer should be written, including diffs where appropriate, to illustrate specific instances of the problem." In a case request, you provide us with diffs that illustrate the problem; you do not omit the diffs entirely. If your statement is overlong, then extend it if necessary, or reduce non-evidential, obiter-like content (which is less useful to the committee). Does this resolve your concerns about conflicting rationales on the committee's part? Regards, AGK 19:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I would say that you shouldn't use lack of evidence as a rationale when a full case hasn't been opened. It's too late now for me to present full evidence now that almost everyone has voted. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
There has been plenty of opportunity for anyone to post a single link (with a brief explanation) showing a need to impose any kind of ban on Mathsci. There have been lots of attempts at that, but none that I have seen stand up to any scrutiny (one popular link shows Mathsci commenting on TDA at WQA—but Mathsci has made plenty of comments like that about other editors on that page, and the comment was several weeks before a one-way interaction ban was imposed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that, perhaps, it is a little unfair to lump all three into the one motion? I can certainly agree that there need be no two-way ban between Mathsci and the banned user, but to lump two other users in with this? That's not right and, with one of wikipedia's leading feature writers in particular as the target of on of these, it's actively wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.48.182 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Zeromus1

Hi AGK. The above posting is a fairly extreme violation of Zeromus1's editing restrictions. I have sent a private email to you concerning the account Zeromus1. Their editing history suggests that this is a sockpuppet of a specific site-banned editor. Please see the email for more details. Professor marginalia has already indicated similar problems with this account on the RfAr page. (Just for the record, SightWatcher is under an extended topic ban, not a one-way IBAN; and TrevelyanL85A2 is blocked indefinitely under AE discertionary sanctions, a block he has not appealed.) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The above remark was arguably ill-directed, because it ought to have been submitted to the full Arbitration Committee and not to me, but it is not a violation of his restriction (let alone an extreme one) and you are wrong to suggest otherwise. Interaction bans do not apply to legitimate dispute resolution related to the ban itself; whether or not the ban ought to apply to you (as well as Zeromus1) unarguably falls within that exemption. I will read your e-mail presently. Regards, AGK 21:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for proceeding on my two emails. It's a relief to see that my analysis of editing style was not up the creek: Professor marginalia was also extremely helpful there, as was Johnuniq. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration in different languages

Hi AGK,
I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but does Arbitration Committee at English Misplaced Pages help other language Wikipedias where such committee doesn't exist? We are facing some persistant problems on Marathi wikipedia which the administrators are not able to handle. Any guidance or direction towards solution would be great. Thanks in advance.
-(PuneriPunekar) पुणेरीपुणेकर (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Puneri. Sorry to hear that your home project has an intractable dispute, but I'm afraid the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee takes nothing to do with any other Wikimedia website or project—so we would be unable to assist the Marathi Misplaced Pages. The arbitration policy expressly limits our authority to the English Misplaced Pages, and any informal advice or assistance we could offer would also be worse than useless, because our knowledge and experience (such as they are) would be worse than useless on a non-English project that I suspect will have different norms and policies to this project. You may wish to try Meta's requests for comment process (although I'm told that it can be an unreliable resource). Best wishes, AGK 15:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
AGK, Thanks for your help! - (PuneriPunekar) पुणेरीपुणेकर (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Are YOU thinking about running for the Arbitration Committee this year?

Good. We need as many well-qualified candidates as we can get. However, if you have time, I encourage you to consider some of the questions I have asked of prospective candidates in this essay: User:AGK/ACE2012. I started writing the essay as a summary of my experience on the committee this year, and ended up with a list of things that would make a candidate a good or bad arbitrator. The essay could be correctly read as a "checklist" for people who aren't sure if they are a good fit for the committee, though I was a little direct in some sections so I hope I don't scare off anybody who is on the fence. I hope my thoughts are useful. AGK 23:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Every time I am tempted, I remember how many unpopular things we do (I have done) in helping out as an admin. And since, unlike really anything else, even RfA, Arbcom elections, really are voted elections, I decide that I doubt I have a chance, and go find something else to help out with : ) - jc37 00:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re. Arbcom page

How nice of you to be "prepared to accommodate" your fellow arbitrators' slowness. Sure, it wouldn't pain you to have this case open for another week or two. It wouldn't pain me either. It's somebody else you're hurting. Is it so difficult to realize that being in front of Arbcom and waiting for potential sanctions being contemplated causes massive stress to people? It's never been more obvious than in the present case. Every day you keep this case open is causing misery. No, I am not going to "calm down". I am enraged, by the collective impression of cold, arrogant insensitivity towards its fellow human beings that the committee has shown in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The slowness of the arbitration process in this matter is not a recent phenomenon, and I am surprised that this case request (of our thousands of others) makes you so angry. Every editor knows that it takes the full committee some time to make a decision. Although I have every sympathy for Mathsci and the other editors over whom our "axe" is hanging, there is literally nothing I can do if another arbitrator chooses to vote after taking several days for consideration. (The arbitration policy allows us to count an arbitrator as "inactive" only if they no edits or send no e-mails related to arbitration in seven days.) I also submit that if you choose to describe SilkTork's actions to be "cold, arrogant insensitivity" rather than patient, reasoned consideration, then you choose to perceive the situation in the worst possible way—and to make a conscious assumption of bad faith. AGK 17:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because it's a perennial problem doesn't make it any more excusable. What makes this particular case so particularly objectionable is the fact that the whole affair was about an administrative effort designed to give a guy some rest, in a situation where he badly needed it, and the committee's involvement, made under the pretext of "tweaking" or "correcting" that effort, has been to turn it into its exact opposite.
I know it's not your personal fault (you voted in a timely fashioon, as did some others), but you chose to defend your idle colleagues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Hi AGK. I don't think I share the same emotions as Fut.Perf., but I share similar emotions in the general case that I figured were worth sharing. My general thoughts on Arbcom requests are similar to those I've expressed to NYB and seen in WP:There is no justice. I still get the feeling the Committee is very concerned with ensuring it makes a decision that is just and fair to those before it, which to me seems to be a secondary priority to what I see as its primary priority: Ending disruption. In the case above, I gather the Committee is concerned with hearing Cla68's request and additional comments, being fair to Mathsci, and crafting a remedy that preserves as much discretion to edit among the participants as is possible. I would reply that the goal should be a remedy that ensures the matter is never brought back to Arbcom or AE. In this case, as I said above, I don't think an interaction banned user has a right to request alteration of the remedy to include his opponent; he only has the right to ask for a reduction of his own ban. I would read the interaction banned user's ability to speak on the matter very narrowly because the goal is to end the disruption of interaction, not give the user the ability to seek a result they are satisfied with.
I've been pondering a question I hope to ask Arbcom candidates this fall and I'm interested to see the response to it. It's along the lines of: Looking at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests, please tell me which declined cases would have led you to block the filer or a major participant for disruptively bringing the matter before Arbcom? It's a derivative of my concern that Arbcom is far too lenient on parties to cases by assuming that those brought before it are acting in good-faith. By the time a dispute reaches Arbcom, there has usually been a failure on the part of someone. It may have been that the accused is guilty of violating policy or it may be that the filer is guilty of escalating a matter beyond reason or it may be that one of the parties has such poor communication skills that they cannot resolve a dispute on their own. Arbcom seems unwilling to recognize that most requests involves someone messing something up and is willing to entertain lengthy screeds of argument, let everyone speak their mind, and then tailor the narrowest sanction it thinks will address the precise problem. Broader sanctions (topic bans instead of interaction ban, site bans instead of interaction bans, etc.) instead of the most narrow sanction and severe sanctions for disruptive (overly long, IDHT, uncivil) conduct in Arbcom proceedings (the person should be on their best behavior, they know their behavior is being reviewed by the final body on Misplaced Pages) should be the norm, not the present outlier. This would send the clear message that Arbcom is not for continuing disputes in a different forum and manner, but rather a nuclear option that if invoked, will result in an end to the disruption. MBisanz 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions Add topic