List behavior is off-wiki and outside ArbCom's
purview.
Uhhh-- that's a BIG no. See [[WP:CANVASS]]. Off-wiki behavior is
considered ALL THE TIME. Are you sincerely saying, after all the
uproar about the methodology, that the people who "enthusasticly"
endorsed the block don't need to have their actions looked at?
If you sincerely believe that list actions are
blockable, then would you
consent to a level 2 warning for WP:POINT and WP:AGF?
1. Who said anything about blocking? I say that you made a mistake,
and at least five other people fell for the similar mistake, and the
community needs to know who they are, so we can devote extra attention
to double-checking their math in the future (as well as in the past).
Suppose five different doctors consult with each other, and each one
agrees the patient needs surgery for stomach cancer. The patient
goes under the knife, and it turns out that the patient just
heartburn, and the surgery was malpractice. Sure, only one of the
five doctors actually performed the surgery, but all five made the
same stupid mistake, and all five need to have their licenses looked
at.
It's not about "blocking" anyone, it's not about blame-- it's about
prevention. The fact is-- anyone who looked at the "secret
evidence" and enthusiasticly endorsed a block probably shouldn't be in
the business of blocking people anymore. At the very least, the
community has to know who those people were, so we can keep an eye on
their actions in the future to make sure they don't repeat sorts of
the same mistakes.
.
If you sincerely believe that list actions are
blockable, then would you
consent to a level 2 warning for WP:POINT and WP:AGF? What's good for the
goose is good for the gander.
Whoa whoa whoa-- Are you saying that you think my merely discussing
this subject is a violation of "Disrupting Wikipedia to Prove a
Point"?!!?!?
Durova-- four days ago, you were practically guaranteed to be an
Arbiter. Today you're no longer an admin. This is BIG stuff, it is
VERY important, and it is HIGHLY worthy of discussion. I can't
believe you would seriously try to tell me that I shouldn't be
discussing this subject.
That's the thing about your "militia" members still don't seem to get.
You didn't get desysopped because you made one tiny bad block for 75
minutes-- that's not the issue.
The issue is-- you shouldn't be engaging in anything like this in the
first place. In a secret kangaroo court, you were BOUND to screw up
and execute an innocent man. It was only a matter of time.
It's like the drunk driver who crashes into a tree and says "So I
swerved off the road a little bit-- big deal! It was just a harmless
little accident-- why are you suspending my license?" The problem
isn't that the drunk driver accidently hit a tree-- it's that he was
engaging in behavior that was BOUND to hurt someone sooner or later,
but doesn't have the judgment to realize that driving drunk is a
problem.
As far as Assuming Good Faith-- every word I've said is backed up by
your own statements. You've told us there are lists, you've told us
about secret evidence, you told us about the five other sleuths and
the fact that the arbiters were involved. I'm not Assuming Bad
Faith-- I'm Assuming You're Tellling the Truth.
Alec