QUOTE
Statement by Alecmconroy
Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.
In as brief as possible:
In September, SV (as a party in this case) was strongly admonished in what I interpreted as a "final warning" to alter her behavior.
Since that time, Arbcom has been privately considering the allegations SV made against Lar and Mackenson. In that case, SV has continually refused to "provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint" regarding her allegations against Lar and Mackenson, despite numerous requests to do so from the committee. At the same time, she did not offer any retraction of her earlier public allegations.
By 20 Oct, in the SV-LAR proposed decision, seven arbs had endorsed another warning to SV in the form of finding which said:
"SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties."
Despite the numerous warnings to conduct the case in private, on 20 Oct, SV again made a public statement in which she re-iterated her allegations against Lar and Mackenson. diff redacted for privacy
In response, NYB again warned against further public discussion. An arbcom clerk archived the discussion, and another clerk then blanked SV's statement from the archive. The committee stated that
"Parties are instructed to make no further posts to this page pending further input from arbitrators. Other editors are urged to do the same."
In response to these warnings, On 21 Oct, SV again violated Arbcom's request-- posting on the talk page despite instruction not to do so.[8].
A clerk removed the comment and again warned SV that Arbcom had instructed parties not to post on the page.
Again on 21 Oct, SV immediately re-inserted it, again directly violating the request not to post on the page.
In short, SV was warned about her behavior in the C68-FM-SV decision. She was again warned by the proposed decision which had been endorsed by seven arbs. She was yet again warned by NYB and the arbcom statement not to post. She was still yet again warned by a clerk. Despite these multitude of warnings, SV yet again persisted in the violating the warnings and editing disruptively.
In the remedy "Further Review and Sanctions", the Committee promised that they would "impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations"
When the C68-FM-SV sanctions were being discussed, I defended letting SV off with a warning, and I argued she would likely change her behavior after so strongly-worded a warning. The span of 34 days has, regrettably, shown her behavior to be unchanged. If anything, the behavior appears to have worsened.
This cannot be allowed to persist. In addition to the direct harm caused by bad behavior, there is an inherently corrosive effect in allowing one individual to completely ignore so many repeated warnings without consequence. For these reasons, I humbly request Arbcom consider some further sanction against SV. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Response to Sam Blacketer: I was very uncertain of the proper venue for this. Could be a new case, could be at SV-LAR, could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, or could be a clarification. I didn't put it at SV-LAR because that case's central focus is on events that happened in private in March, whereas my concerns are with events that happened in public in October. But please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. -Alecmconroy (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Response to Bainer: Just want to clarify-- I'm not concerned about SV's behavior last March/July. We can't expect her behavior in March to have been affected by a warning she received in September. My concern is about SV's behavior during the past week.
As it happens, most of that behavior took place on a Arbcom page-- but that's more or less irrelevant. The location of her behavior isn't important. What's important is that this week Arbcom gave SV some very, very clear "lines in the sand" and warned her repeatedly not to cross them-- and she crossed every single one of them anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
More than anything-- all the debate about the original dispute is irrelevant. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST THIS" and she posted this. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST _ANYTHING_" and she posted something. A clerk told her "DO NOT ADD THIS COMMENT" and she added it back.
And still, not a single block has been applied, not a single sysop bit has been flipped. I bet you, right now, if I were to go and edit that page that no one is supposed to edit, I would be given NO warnings, no second chances, no do-overs. I bet if I edit warred against an arbcom clerk, the time it took to block me could be measured with a stopwatch. And I for one, am quite sick of there being two sets of rules around here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.
In as brief as possible:
In September, SV (as a party in this case) was strongly admonished in what I interpreted as a "final warning" to alter her behavior.
Since that time, Arbcom has been privately considering the allegations SV made against Lar and Mackenson. In that case, SV has continually refused to "provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint" regarding her allegations against Lar and Mackenson, despite numerous requests to do so from the committee. At the same time, she did not offer any retraction of her earlier public allegations.
By 20 Oct, in the SV-LAR proposed decision, seven arbs had endorsed another warning to SV in the form of finding which said:
"SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties."
Despite the numerous warnings to conduct the case in private, on 20 Oct, SV again made a public statement in which she re-iterated her allegations against Lar and Mackenson. diff redacted for privacy
In response, NYB again warned against further public discussion. An arbcom clerk archived the discussion, and another clerk then blanked SV's statement from the archive. The committee stated that
"Parties are instructed to make no further posts to this page pending further input from arbitrators. Other editors are urged to do the same."
In response to these warnings, On 21 Oct, SV again violated Arbcom's request-- posting on the talk page despite instruction not to do so.[8].
A clerk removed the comment and again warned SV that Arbcom had instructed parties not to post on the page.
Again on 21 Oct, SV immediately re-inserted it, again directly violating the request not to post on the page.
In short, SV was warned about her behavior in the C68-FM-SV decision. She was again warned by the proposed decision which had been endorsed by seven arbs. She was yet again warned by NYB and the arbcom statement not to post. She was still yet again warned by a clerk. Despite these multitude of warnings, SV yet again persisted in the violating the warnings and editing disruptively.
In the remedy "Further Review and Sanctions", the Committee promised that they would "impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations"
When the C68-FM-SV sanctions were being discussed, I defended letting SV off with a warning, and I argued she would likely change her behavior after so strongly-worded a warning. The span of 34 days has, regrettably, shown her behavior to be unchanged. If anything, the behavior appears to have worsened.
This cannot be allowed to persist. In addition to the direct harm caused by bad behavior, there is an inherently corrosive effect in allowing one individual to completely ignore so many repeated warnings without consequence. For these reasons, I humbly request Arbcom consider some further sanction against SV. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Response to Sam Blacketer: I was very uncertain of the proper venue for this. Could be a new case, could be at SV-LAR, could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, or could be a clarification. I didn't put it at SV-LAR because that case's central focus is on events that happened in private in March, whereas my concerns are with events that happened in public in October. But please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. -Alecmconroy (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Response to Bainer: Just want to clarify-- I'm not concerned about SV's behavior last March/July. We can't expect her behavior in March to have been affected by a warning she received in September. My concern is about SV's behavior during the past week.
As it happens, most of that behavior took place on a Arbcom page-- but that's more or less irrelevant. The location of her behavior isn't important. What's important is that this week Arbcom gave SV some very, very clear "lines in the sand" and warned her repeatedly not to cross them-- and she crossed every single one of them anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
More than anything-- all the debate about the original dispute is irrelevant. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST THIS" and she posted this. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST _ANYTHING_" and she posted something. A clerk told her "DO NOT ADD THIS COMMENT" and she added it back.
And still, not a single block has been applied, not a single sysop bit has been flipped. I bet you, right now, if I were to go and edit that page that no one is supposed to edit, I would be given NO warnings, no second chances, no do-overs. I bet if I edit warred against an arbcom clerk, the time it took to block me could be measured with a stopwatch. And I for one, am quite sick of there being two sets of rules around here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You have to divine them by observation. That's part of what we Wiki-shamans are paid for-- to tell you what the spirits want, over there. Yes, many--- even most--- editors would be blocked in stopwatch time for stuff other people get away with, as in this case. But how are you going to know that, without a lot of experience? Thus, the need for our shamanistic advice.
