Arbitration

[mendaliv]

Hey, let's bully the Arbs...

GorillaWarfare, your accept is disgraceful. What axe do you have to grind I wonder? CassiantoTalk 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO GorillaWarfare represents the worst possible type of Arb. She acts nice, does almost nothing of value, wants to be in a position of leadership but rarely spends much time doing it other than strutting around wearing her Arb hat. It's functionaries like her that are killing Wikipedia. She honestly believes she is better than other editors and her condescending tone/nice girl routine is sickening.

Meh. I don't think GW acts particularly nice, though I don't think she's any worse than any other arb beyond the fact that she seems more active than the others. What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

[Vigilant]

Meh. I don't think GW acts particularly nice, though I don't think she's any worse than any other arb beyond the fact that she seems more active than the others. What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

The biggest problem with her is that she has no idea what it MEANS to be a neutral adjudicator.
Her behavior in the Ironholds/Oliver Keyes ARBCOM case was ridiculously incompetent and compromised.

She flatly stated that she was treating him differently than other people 'because he was her friend'.

[mendaliv]

Meh. I don't think GW acts particularly nice, though I don't think she's any worse than any other arb beyond the fact that she seems more active than the others. What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

The biggest problem with her is that she has no idea what it MEANS to be a neutral adjudicator.
Her behavior in the Ironholds/Oliver Keyes ARBCOM case was ridiculously incompetent and compromised.

She flatly stated that she was treating him differently than other people 'because he was her friend'.

I definitely considered calling for her to recuse in the Fram case after this e-mail which pretty clearly showed partiality for T&S in a dispute where the facts were unclear.

[Kumioko]

Meh. I don't think GW acts particularly nice, though I don't think she's any worse than any other arb beyond the fact that she seems more active than the others. What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

The biggest problem with her is that she has no idea what it MEANS to be a neutral adjudicator.
Her behavior in the Ironholds/Oliver Keyes ARBCOM case was ridiculously incompetent and compromised.

She flatly stated that she was treating him differently than other people 'because he was her friend'.

I definitely considered calling for her to recuse in the Fram case after this e-mail which pretty clearly showed partiality for T&S in a dispute where the facts were unclear.

I agree with both of you.

[mendaliv]

"As you value your life or your reason keep away from the moor."

Same could be said for Wikipedia generally.

[Vigilant]

"As you value your life or your reason keep away from the moor."

Same could be said for Wikipedia generally.

Devil take the hindmost.

[Newyorkbrad]

"As you value your life or your reason keep away from the moor."

Same could be said for Wikipedia generally.

Stop Hounding me.

[Kumioko]

"As you value your life or your reason keep away from the moor."

Same could be said for Wikipedia generally.

Stop Hounding me.

[C&B]

Badaboom-tish!

[mendaliv]

Now 2/0/1, with the newest acceptor not in favor of suspending. In light of how many illustrious individuals have called for denial on various (in my view, mistaken) grounds, the shitstorm that an acceptance will create will be flat-out amazing.

[Vigilant]

Now 2/0/1, with the newest acceptor not in favor of suspending. In light of how many illustrious individuals have called for denial on various (in my view, mistaken) grounds, the shitstorm that an acceptance will create will be flat-out amazing.

They have to accept.
It's clear the community can't handle this cult of personality.

[Jans Hammer]

Callanecc has resigned from the committee linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source[/link]
Obviously will not be missed.

[el84]

Callanecc has resigned from the committee linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source[/link]
Obviously will not be missed.

Ahahahahahahaha.

Three resignations this year, and they had already decreased their number by 2?

Some future cases may end up with not even having 4 active arbs on them.

[Vigilant]

Callanecc has resigned from the committee linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source[/link]
Obviously will not be missed.

I also want to confirm that this has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening with the project but solely real life

[Anroth]

"Hey guys, we have been caught up the proverbial creek here, how about we all just slowly resign until there isnt enough people left to have a case?"

Thats not actually a terrible plan, given the current ARBCOM are basically going to be percieved as corrupt WMF stooges at this point.

[C&B]

Courcelles: Putting as much into arbitration after resigning as they did beforehand.

[Mason]

Cascading failure (T-H-L) seems a possibility.

[Kumioko]

Courcelles: Putting as much into arbitration after resigning as they did beforehand.

More actually!

[Osborne]

There's a video on this type of subornation.

That's basically the mob mentality epidemic on WP. Although it only affects 10% of the editors, they produce 80% of the comments.
What we don't see is they only produce 10% of the CONTENT. As such, this is many more times as much disruption, than benefit.
Proportions are my rough estimates, and only intend to demonstrate that it should be the other way around.

[Kumioko]

There's a video on this type of subornation.

That's basically the mob mentality epidemic on WP. Although it only affects 10% of the editors, they produce 80% of the comments.
What we don't see is they only produce 10% of the CONTENT. As such, this is many more times as much disruption, than benefit.
Proportions are my rough estimates, and only intend to demonstrate that it should be the other way around.

Saying they produce 10% of the content is a generous statement. Most don't produce any content at all and worse, many of them actively destroy it!

[Poetlister]

Hey, let's bully the Arbs...

GorillaWarfare, your accept is disgraceful. What axe do you have to grind I wonder? CassiantoTalk 18:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You expect to be criticised ruthlessly if you become an Arb.

[Poetlister]

Isn't she Molly - the woman who got really pissed off with Kidpung when he referred to her by her name?

Certainly her name is Molly.

[Poetlister]

What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

Is there something wrong with trying to right institutional wrongs? Or are you saying that these wrongs don't exist?

[mendaliv]

What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

Is there something wrong with trying to right institutional wrongs? Or are you saying that these wrongs don't exist?

It’s just not the role of adjudication to right such wrongs. The role of adjudicators is to adjudicate. To provide a neutral and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes. And to the extent public policy considerations do come into play, that isn’t an excuse to turn the Committee into a policymaker, it just means that those considerations may tip the balance on a case-by-case basis.

[Vigilant]

What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

Is there something wrong with trying to right institutional wrongs? Or are you saying that these wrongs don't exist?

It’s just not the role of adjudication to right such wrongs. The role of adjudicators is to adjudicate. To provide a neutral and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes. And to the extent public policy considerations do come into play, that isn’t an excuse to turn the Committee into a policymaker, it just means that those considerations may tip the balance on a case-by-case basis.

Nobody on ARBCOM understands this.
Nobody who seeks to be on ARBCOM wanted to be on ARBCOM to do that type of work.

People who run for ARBCOM want to steer the wiki ship.

[mendaliv]

What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

Is there something wrong with trying to right institutional wrongs? Or are you saying that these wrongs don't exist?

It’s just not the role of adjudication to right such wrongs. The role of adjudicators is to adjudicate. To provide a neutral and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes. And to the extent public policy considerations do come into play, that isn’t an excuse to turn the Committee into a policymaker, it just means that those considerations may tip the balance on a case-by-case basis.

Nobody on ARBCOM understands this.
Nobody who seeks to be on ARBCOM wanted to be on ARBCOM to do that type of work.

People who run for ARBCOM want to steer the wiki ship.

Yep. And that is scary.

[mendaliv]

As regards the arguments about MJL and the quality of the filing, as people are fond of shouting lately, Wikipedia isn't a court: We aren't bound by strict pleading rules. Sure, notice of what's at issue is good, but that could be handled at the time of acceptance rather than the time of complaint. Many who criticize the filing also seem to accept that the status quo is not working. A case would give the chance to resolve this in an orderly fashion rather than another dozen AE/AN/ANI threads.

The response I got is hilarious.

@Mendaliv: "Shouting" is evidently something sanctionable. Who are you accusing of "shouting"? And do you have any diff to support (or is it just a baseless accusation you like to throw on a public board)? And tell me, do you label this "shouting"?

Methinks IHTS is approaching a Joe Jamail (T-H-L) moment.

[Poetlister]

What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

Is there something wrong with trying to right institutional wrongs? Or are you saying that these wrongs don't exist?

It’s just not the role of adjudication to right such wrongs. The role of adjudicators is to adjudicate. To provide a neutral and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes. And to the extent public policy considerations do come into play, that isn’t an excuse to turn the Committee into a policymaker, it just means that those considerations may tip the balance on a case-by-case basis.

Are the adjudicators obliged to be confined by the existing rules, however unsatisfactory or absurd? Should they not have the right to point out if the rules need amending? Of course, that's not the same as saying that the rules have been amended.

[mendaliv]

What annoys me is that many of the actions she supports come off more as interested in righting institutional wrongs using the Committee's authority rather than adjudicating disputes. But this same criticism can and should be levied at the entire Committee.

Is there something wrong with trying to right institutional wrongs? Or are you saying that these wrongs don't exist?

It’s just not the role of adjudication to right such wrongs. The role of adjudicators is to adjudicate. To provide a neutral and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes. And to the extent public policy considerations do come into play, that isn’t an excuse to turn the Committee into a policymaker, it just means that those considerations may tip the balance on a case-by-case basis.

Are the adjudicators obliged to be confined by the existing rules, however unsatisfactory or absurd? Should they not have the right to point out if the rules need amending? Of course, that's not the same as saying that the rules have been amended.

Oh sure, there's nothing keeping an adjudicator from editorializing in decisions that a rule ought to be changed, and for administrative bodies that have both an adjudicative and rulemaking role, they may in fact change the rules directly. The Committee's own policies implicitly recognize a separate adjudicatory and rulemaking role (ideally, their rulemaking is supposed to be circumscribed, with limited tasks such as making the rules arbitration procedure and proposing changes to the arbitration policy, and excluding the making of substantive editorial or behavioral policy).

And in certain circumstances, there would certainly be room for disregarding certain rules that cause absurd results. In law, you see this with things like equitable tolling of statutes of limitations. Of course, the ability to do these things depends on the governing policy of the adjudication: Prior to the union of law and equity, I'm reasonably sure you wouldn't be able to plead equitable defenses like laches (T-H-L) in a case arising entirely in the law courts. My point is that we take a lot of these things for granted, that we might choose to avoid what we perceive as an absurd or unfair result rather than strictly and uniformly applying the rules, but there needs to be a degree of comprehension of why we do things in a certain way. And, in theory, you can do whatever you want; you could make substantive rules of general application entirely through adjudicative processes.

But back to the Committee, the way the arbitration policy works is that it designates the Committee as an adjudicative body, and explicitly prohibits it from engaging in substantive policymaking. It can interpret policy as it exists and apply it, of course. An interesting corollary of this, and something that isn't being followed on Wikipedia, is that if the Committee is only authorized to interpret and apply policy rather than change and create policy, then if the policy changes, the Committee decisions interpreting and applying that policy are superseded. My understanding of actual practice, however, is that nobody would permit a community RfC to supersede or overturn a Committee decision. In fact, most Committee decisions are structured almost as to make superseding them by changing policy impossible. The Manning naming dispute, for example, talks about there being no consensus in policy about naming, and makes no principle findings about pronoun choice, but then goes on to sanction a large number of editors for discriminatory speech as a result of using the wrong name and wrong pronouns (whereas those who used the right name/right pronouns but were still disruptive got FoFs talking about a "battleground mentality").

One of the fundamental failures of the Committee in virtually every case, in fact, is that Principles and FoFs are treated almost as superfluous or as a means of reciting background information. In practice, these should be the meat and potatoes of every decision, with the remedies taking up an extremely minor role. This is part of why I've been so pissed off about the consolidation and migration of discretionary sanctions regimes, such as the Sexology-Manning-GGTF-GamerGate-??? migration. Each successive change only brings the remedies forward, and abandons any FoFs. GamerGate is particularly awful, insofar as it purports to restrict speech on all gender-related disputes when there were no FoFs on all gender-related disputes. There must be a flow from Principles to FoFs to remedies, and it must be logical. When you don't do this, you get remedies that just sit out on their own with no explanation or justification as to why they were created or why they continue to exist. That's what'll happen if the Committee creates a "fake case" to carry all these gender discretionary sanctions regimes: There will be no justification that stems from an actual dispute, nor will there be an explanation as to why this was necessary, nor will there be any guidance as to how policy informs this regime.

In law, we talk about "findings of fact and conclusions of law". An adjudicator will make findings of fact based on the evidence presented, and will then apply legal principles or law to those specific findings, and from them derive conclusions of law. What the Committee appears to do is restate a variety of principles, state a few things that may have been brought up in evidence, and then state some remedies that they feel will resolve an area of disruption that they feel led to the case request. The need for this isn't just a matter of adding legal complexities to a system that works, it's a means of ensuring the legitimacy of decisions by some means other than "they're the arbitrators; what they say goes." The whole fiasco with nobody understanding why Ritchie333 was IBANned would not have happened had the Committee actually drawn up findings of fact and applied actual policy to those findings in order to conclude that the appropriate remedy was an IBAN.

Anyway I'm getting far afield. There are so many interconnected things wrong with the Committee, it's practically impossible to explain any one thing without getting into every other thing. Like, this whole problem of not issuing proper opinions can get us into the whole natural justice problem.

[mendaliv]

I strongly believe these edits to be by Eric Corbett who has scrambled his password. Like him, I urge the Arbitrators to accept this case. This constant limbo and failure to face up to ALL facts, serves no one well. The current situation is divisive. Personally, I think EC is his own worst enemy and regularly serves himself up as fodder for narrow minded admins keen to hit the headlines for use of their tools rather than their content contributions. However, He also frequently offers up unpalatable facts with more than a grain of truth, these are clearly unwelcome in the upper echelons of the project. We, the editors, need to decide: Do we want to hear what he says or should he be silenced. Either way, the current situation is intolerable. Accepting the case will be a complete shit fest with all manner of crawling creatures emerging from the hedgerow. The Arbs need to brace themselves and accept this case.

While the framing is argumentative, he's not at all wrong about the fact that Eric Corbett is his own worst enemy. I'd also agree with the point about his statements being unpalatable and unwelcome in the upper echelons of the project, though I think Giano misidentifies what are (usually) opinions as facts. And at some level the whole mess needs to be addressed in some way.

[Poetlister]

Giano and Eric Corbett - an unbeatable double act.

[Vigilant]

Eric Corbett is an asshole who should have been held to account years ago.
That he hasn’t is the community’s shame.

[Beeblebrox]

"I'm scrambling my password and you will never hear from me again"

(immediately edits while logged out)

I ean, it could be a joe job but if his best friend Giano is buying it....

[Randy from Boise]

"I'm scrambling my password and you will never hear from me again"

(immediately edits while logged out)

I ean, it could be a joe job but if his best friend Giano is buying it....

The IP address links back to Manchester, so if it's a joe job, it is one that pays attention to detail.

It probably is our favorite thin-skinned little daisy. We'll soon see a new user called Malleus Corbett (T-C-L) popping up on WP, I am sure.

RfB

[Poetlister]

We'll soon see a new user called Malleus Corbett (T-C-L) popping up on WP, I am sure.

RfB

Oh yes, Eric is extremely imaginative.

[mendaliv]

We'll soon see a new user called Malleus Corbett (T-C-L) popping up on WP, I am sure.

RfB

Oh yes, Eric is extremely imaginative.

We need a Dog Latin (T-H-L) version of “Corbett” in the feminine genitive plural if we’re gonna have that account. “The hammer of the Corbett [women].”

[Jans Hammer]

"I'm scrambling my password and you will never hear from me again"

(immediately edits while logged out)

I ean, it could be a joe job but if his best friend Giano is buying it....

The IP address links back to Manchester, so if it's a joe job, it is one that pays attention to detail.

It probably is our favorite thin-skinned little daisy. We'll soon see a new user called Malleus Corbett (T-C-L) popping up on WP, I am sure.

RfB

I cannot buy the password scrambling thing. It requires double entry to reset a password. Is there another way?
Also, Courcelles seems to have awoken from his tauper - commenting and supporting a case about EC.

[Osborne]

I cannot buy the password scrambling thing. It requires double entry to reset a password. Is there another way?

A password manager will fill out both fields with a random pass. Just don't save / write down. Without manager: copy some random garbage as pass, then forget it. Easy to do, but Eric is just bluffing.

[mendaliv]

I cannot buy the password scrambling thing. It requires double entry to reset a password. Is there another way?

A password manager will fill out both fields with a random pass. Just don't save / write down. Without manager: copy some random garbage as pass, then forget it. Easy to do, but Eric is just bluffing.

Yeah exactly, it's something that's been done for a long time really. Just pound out some gibberish in Notepad and copy-paste it into the password field, don't save it, and log out. Done.

[Jans Hammer]

I cannot buy the password scrambling thing. It requires double entry to reset a password. Is there another way?

A password manager will fill out both fields with a random pass. Just don't save / write down. Without manager: copy some random garbage as pass, then forget it. Easy to do, but Eric is just bluffing.

Yeah exactly, it's something that's been done for a long time really. Just pound out some gibberish in Notepad and copy-paste it into the password field, don't save it, and log out. Done.

And I've worked in I.T. for 30 years!

[mendaliv]

I cannot buy the password scrambling thing. It requires double entry to reset a password. Is there another way?

A password manager will fill out both fields with a random pass. Just don't save / write down. Without manager: copy some random garbage as pass, then forget it. Easy to do, but Eric is just bluffing.

Yeah exactly, it's something that's been done for a long time really. Just pound out some gibberish in Notepad and copy-paste it into the password field, don't save it, and log out. Done.

And I've worked in I.T. for 30 years!

It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the addiction narrative. Like the trope of the alcoholic having an epiphany that alcohol is bad for him and pouring all his booze down the drain. I see password scrambling as roughly the same sort of reaction—and then trying to get the account back later the equivalent of getting a pipe wrench to open up the drain trap to drink any alcohol that's collected in it.

[ZettaComposer]

Yeah I've done it a couple of times when I really want to leave a site for good. If you really want it to stick then create a throwaway email account, set the password reset email to that account, and then delete the email account.

A site admin could fix it depending on the site, but they probably won't unless you can prove who you are. If you resort to that step they'll probably tell you to seek help.

[Vigilant]

Cassianto is well beyond Leave Brittney Alone territory

Aquillion, demonstrating perfectly why this witch-hunt needs to be closed, as soon as possible. We have gone from a legitimate AN report about baiting behaviour by Scottywong to a full-blown witch-hunt on Eric for doing nothing at all. The result? We have now lost Eric, probably this project's best ever writer, allowed for an antagonist to not receive even so much as an an admonishment, and patted the back of the troublemaking filer of this ludicrous case. Words fail me. CassiantoTalk 09:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

[mendaliv]

Cassianto is well beyond Leave Brittney Alone territory

Aquillion, demonstrating perfectly why this witch-hunt needs to be closed, as soon as possible. We have gone from a legitimate AN report about baiting behaviour by Scottywong to a full-blown witch-hunt on Eric for doing nothing at all. The result? We have now lost Eric, probably this project's best ever writer, allowed for an antagonist to not receive even so much as an an admonishment, and patted the back of the troublemaking filer of this ludicrous case. Words fail me. CassiantoTalk 09:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Honestly the behavior of Eric’s defenders in the RFAR itself should merit the attention of the Committee.

[Jans Hammer]

Cassianto is well beyond Leave Brittney Alone territory

Aquillion, demonstrating perfectly why this witch-hunt needs to be closed, as soon as possible. We have gone from a legitimate AN report about baiting behaviour by Scottywong to a full-blown witch-hunt on Eric for doing nothing at all. The result? We have now lost Eric, probably this project's best ever writer, allowed for an antagonist to not receive even so much as an an admonishment, and patted the back of the troublemaking filer of this ludicrous case. Words fail me. CassiantoTalk 09:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Words fail me"

If only. Not only does he start the AN thread that resulted in Eric storming of, when it comes to the AC case he begins with I have nothing meaningful to say about this utter tripe. but then proceeds to respond vehemently every other day to 9 other contributions

[10920]

Some sites will allow you to delete your account.

Anyway, I was thinking people who 'retire' should be forced to scramble their passwords. Might make them think twice!

[Poetlister]

Some sites will allow you to delete your account.

Anyway, I was thinking people who 'retire' should be forced to scramble their passwords. Might make them think twice!

At least their accounts should be locked by a steward, so that coming back takes a bit of effort.

[mendaliv]

Some sites will allow you to delete your account.

Anyway, I was thinking people who 'retire' should be forced to scramble their passwords. Might make them think twice!

At least their accounts should be locked by a steward, so that coming back takes a bit of effort.

Should be required as part of RTV.

[10920]

Also, since the Cassianto thread is locked, I figured I'd leave this here. A curiosity.

[EdgarPoe]

Aquillion, demonstrating perfectly why this witch-hunt needs to be closed, as soon as possible. We have gone from a legitimate AN report about baiting behaviour by Scottywong to a full-blown witch-hunt on Eric for doing nothing at all. The result? We have now lost Eric, probably this project's best ever writer, allowed for an antagonist to not receive even so much as an an admonishment, and patted the back of the troublemaking filer of this ludicrous case. Words fail me. CassiantoTalk 09:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Legitimate AN report my ass, Cassianto is a fucking tool. He'd gladly eat bangers and mash directly from Eric Corbett's dirty crack. I think it's beautiful that one of Lord Malleus's dutiful followers - in a pitiful attempt to exact revenge on Scottywong for a rather mild jab (particularly when compared to Corbett's average insult) - directly set in motion the events that will most likely result in Eric's downfall.