Fred wrote:
A full investigation will improve the quality of our decisions. A partial or poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their quality. It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
I think you are missing the point. I don't see anyone wanting to limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like. The issue is of who they have the right to impose penalties on.
Again: if someone is accused by a RfA listing, they have the opportunity to write in their own defence and to have their fellows write in their defence. Then the AC imposes a penalty on a different person who had no such opportunity since they didn't know it was necessary. It is fundamentally unfair.
The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
The solution: except perhaps in emergencies, the AC should only be able to impose penalties on someone who has had an opportunity to mount a defence. There should be a rule on how much opportunity must be given.
Zero.
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
zero 0000 said:
Fred wrote:
A full investigation will improve the quality of our decisions. A partial or poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their quality. It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
I think you are missing the point. I don't see anyone wanting to limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like. The issue is of who they have the right to impose penalties on.
The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions. There is no issue that I can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia. It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to Wikipedia by their actions? If the latter, it should levy penalties to all who merit such penalties. If it only ever penalizes the people nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions. There is no issue that I can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia. It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to Wikipedia by their actions? If the latter, it should levy penalties to all who merit such penalties. If it only ever penalizes the people nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.
I believe that's the longer form of what I meant when I said "you greatly underestimate the propensity of our more antisocial editors for gaming the system" ;-)
- d.
David Gerard said:
I believe that's the longer form of what I meant when I said "you greatly underestimate the propensity of our more antisocial editors for gaming the system" ;-)
Indeed. Having said that, I think arbcom must take great care to afford all involved in a case an opportunity to give evidence in their defense. Towards the end of the recent Robert the Bruce case, it emerged that one innocent third party named by Robert the Bruce as a sock puppet only heard of this accusation by accident. He had not been involved in the arbitration case at all except by being named, unknown to him, by one of the parties. A sock puppet check was ordered on him without his knowledge. In cases of sock puppet accusations sometimes the accused may be able to, and certainly should always be given the opportunity to, convince the arbitrators that he is not a sock puppet. Many people use AOL which I understand uses a round-robin web proxy system, so it would be quite easy for two people with ostensible similarities in their patterns of Wiki usage to be mistaken for sock puppets.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Indeed. Having said that, I think arbcom must take great care to afford all involved in a case an opportunity to give evidence in their defense. Towards the end of the recent Robert the Bruce case, it emerged that one innocent third party named by Robert the Bruce as a sock puppet only heard of this accusation by accident. He had not been involved in the arbitration case at all except by being named, unknown to him, by one of the parties. A sock puppet check was ordered on him without his knowledge.
Yeah. I should add also that the AC is not perfect.
Mind you, sockpuppet checks are not IMO themselves an intrusion, as we do take care not to give the details, e.g. "technical evidence shows". Privacy is important.
In cases of sock puppet accusations sometimes the accused may be able to, and certainly should always be given the opportunity to, convince the arbitrators that he is not a sock puppet. Many people use AOL which I understand uses a round-robin web proxy system, so it would be quite easy for two people with ostensible similarities in their patterns of Wiki usage to be mistaken for sock puppets.
We are *keenly* aware of the anoying case of AOL ...
Sockpuppetry is usually flagged through a remarkable similarity in edits and favourite topics. Occasionally when a noted sockpuppeteer starts throwing around spurious allegations of sockpuppetry against his detractors. Writing and editing styles are what's telling; technical evidence is only a corroboration.
- d.
Right, if you want to play a game, try BatMUD.
Fred
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:59:28 -0000 (GMT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
zero 0000 said:
Fred wrote:
A full investigation will improve the quality of our decisions. A partial or poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their quality. It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
I think you are missing the point. I don't see anyone wanting to limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like. The issue is of who they have the right to impose penalties on.
The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions. There is no issue that I can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia. It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to Wikipedia by their actions? If the latter, it should levy penalties to all who merit such penalties. If it only ever penalizes the people nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions. There is no issue that I can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia.
Why should it be only people who have actually brought cases before ArbCom who must "suffer the consequences for their own behaviour where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia?" If you're so keen on the concept that everyone should suffer consequences for their behaviour, shouldn't you be promoting the idea that ArbCom should have its own investigative police, scouring Wikipedia for "deleterious" behaviour, and bringing all suspects before ArbCom for summary judgement?
It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to Wikipedia by their actions? If the latter, it should levy penalties to all who merit such penalties. If it only ever penalizes the people nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.
You've set up a Strawman ArbCom, and then insisted that the current ArbCom is vastly better. ArbCom has never been "a catspaw with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept enemies", and there is no indication that it will ever be so. Rather, it has been a body which has helped rid Wikipedia of some of its most egregious policy violators, editors who collectively have done more harm to Wikipedia than 100 "catspaw" ArbComs could ever do. The Cheese Dreams et al of Wikipedia were not banned for being "unadept" at "procedure-manipulation", and it is ridiculous to even imply as much.
Jay.
I think it clear that we should notice in anyone who has become involved. For example, although we have a warning on each arbitration page (the main page, not the evidence page) that editing the page enters you into the case, folks may not read or understand that. So unless the person made the original complaint or joined in it, if they latter add to the complaint, it may not be clear to them that they have become a "plaintiff" and subject to a "counterclaim".
Fred
From: zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:45:07 -0800 (PST) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
Fred wrote:
A full investigation will improve the quality of our decisions. A partial or poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their quality. It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
I think you are missing the point. I don't see anyone wanting to limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like. The issue is of who they have the right to impose penalties on.
Again: if someone is accused by a RfA listing, they have the opportunity to write in their own defence and to have their fellows write in their defence. Then the AC imposes a penalty on a different person who had no such opportunity since they didn't know it was necessary. It is fundamentally unfair.
The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
The solution: except perhaps in emergencies, the AC should only be able to impose penalties on someone who has had an opportunity to mount a defence. There should be a rule on how much opportunity must be given.
Zero.
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
zero 0000 wrote
The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
The argument, I take it, is that the ArbCom should only be able to apply remedies to the editor complained of.
OK - suppose that was agreed today - how long would it take for every 'accused' to figure out that it is possible to bring a countersuit against the 'accuser'? Now an number of those suits would no doubt be thrown right out by the ArbCom. But for those where there is not such a clear case, wouldn't it come to much the current position?
Charles
Charles Matthews said:
zero 0000 wrote
The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
The argument, I take it, is that the ArbCom should only be able to apply remedies to the editor complained of.
OK - suppose that was agreed today - how long would it take for every 'accused' to figure out that it is possible to bring a countersuit against the 'accuser'? Now an number of those suits would no doubt be thrown right out by the ArbCom. But for those where there is not such a clear case, wouldn't it come to much the current position?
There would be procedural problems that would render such cases difficult to manage. For instance if Arbcom is not been permitted to act on evidence brought by a defendant, who is then banned, the defendant will not be able to participate in the counter-suit. The current way is better.
zero 0000 wrote:
Fred wrote:
A full investigation will improve the quality of our decisions. A partial or poor investigation restricted by artificial rules will reduce their quality. It's pretty much summed up by "The more you know..."
I think you are missing the point. I don't see anyone wanting to limit the AC's ability to look wherever they like. The issue is of who they have the right to impose penalties on.
Again: if someone is accused by a RfA listing, they have the opportunity to write in their own defence and to have their fellows write in their defence. Then the AC imposes a penalty on a different person who had no such opportunity since they didn't know it was necessary. It is fundamentally unfair.
The accuser is treated worse than the accused.
The solution: except perhaps in emergencies, the AC should only be able to impose penalties on someone who has had an opportunity to mount a defence. There should be a rule on how much opportunity must be given.
Turning an acusation around and looking at the activities of the accuser does not imply that the accuser would be deprived of the right to defend himself. If the AC determines that the accuser's activities need examining they would bring the matter to his attention at that time for comment.
Ec