Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision and Lorik Cana: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
m →Some problems with wording: cursed to hell, but not stemming the flow (I think) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Football biography |
|||
__NOINDEX__{{ACA|SlimVirgin-Lar=yes}} |
|||
| playername = Lorik Cana |
|||
==Comments== |
|||
| image = [[Image:Lorik cana.jpg|260px]] |
|||
What, no sanctions on Slimvirgin for wasting everyone's time and falsely accusing someone? [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| fullname = Lorik Cana |
|||
:It looks like her accusation will be found to be without merit, and she will be reminded. There is an embarrassing finding that she did not respond to ArbCom. Isn't that enough? ... I guess she could have been "cautioned" or "admonished" but there is no real difference in effect. And anything more serious? Desysopping? No. The problem did not involve use of tools. Temporary block? To prevent... what exactly? The incident is over. What could be done in addition? Some sort of punishment is the only option I can think of. And WP does not do punishment; ArbCom does not do punishment. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 22:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| dateofbirth = {{birth date and age|1983|7|27}} |
|||
::This anonymous and uninvolved user agrees that blocking and such would serve no purpose, but still thinks something a little more strongly worded seems to be in order. Say: "Slimvirgin is reprimanded for bringing serious accusations against other users which were probably false, and which she has in any case failed to substantiate; for doing so in an inappropriate forum, and in so doing, avoidably endangering the privacy of other users; and for failing to co-operate with the Committee in investigating matters she herself had originally brought up." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.60.238.85|66.60.238.85]] ([[User talk:66.60.238.85|talk]]) 02:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
| cityofbirth = [[Pristina]] |
|||
:No sanctions is right, but the point of her not providing any evidence will haunt her forever, because this is exactly what she does, over and over again against everybody she dislikes. Together with the line in the sand, maybe we are now getting to the point where those that have been chased away by her can come back and actually do their job of creating an encyclopaedia instead of dealing with the numerous baseless accusations of SlimVirgin. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| countryofbirth = [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]] |
|||
::I mostly agree with kimvdl. I don't think a sanction is appropriate here, but perhaps a remedy that the findings of this case should be prominently linked to on here user/user talk page for some period of time? I'm sure the folks at the [[Wikipedia Review|Board of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth]], are up in arms over this, and furiously trying to decide who else might be a sockpuppet of sv (with a similar amount of evidence it appears). It's really to bad she didn't just email the committee with some explaination, even an irrational one. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 08:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| height = {{Height|m=1.86}} |
|||
:::Lets be clear, making repeated accusations everywhere without evidence is a form of harassment, and I am sure that as soon as this happens again, things will look much more grave for SV. But, the ruling in the parallel case came after this incident and you cannot fit those remedies retroactively to her/him. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 09:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| currentclub = [[Olympique de Marseille]] |
|||
::::I'm not suggesting anything from the ''omnibus waste of time case'' should be used here. Only that perhaps remedies from this case might be linked from the sv userpages. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but it just came to me. What the committee does in the future based on future activities, is unknowable by me, and I hope no one ever has to think about it again. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 09:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| clubnumber = 19 |
|||
:::::I think the community would've preferred a more aggressive caution, but whether it is a reminder or caution, it's effect is likely to be the same in this case - I do hope and would be glad if (a) these cases aren't treated indifferently by SV, and (b) her conduct is no longer a problem. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| position = Midfielder |
|||
| youthyears = <br/>2000–2002 |
|||
| youthclubs = [[Lausanne Sports]]<br/>[[Paris Saint-Germain FC|PSG]] |
|||
| years = 2002–2005<br>2005– |
|||
| clubs = [[Paris Saint-Germain FC|PSG]]<br>[[Olympique Marseille|Marseille]] |
|||
| caps(goals) = 69 (2)<br>98 (7) |
|||
| nationalyears = 2003– |
|||
| nationalteam = [[Albania national football team|Albania]] |
|||
| nationalcaps(goals) = 31 (1) |
|||
| pcupdate = [[9 August]], [[2008]] |
|||
| ntupdate = [[14 September]], [[2008]] |
|||
}} |
|||
'''Lorik Cana''' (born on [[27 July]] [[1983]] in [[Pristina]]) is an [[Albania]]n [[football (soccer)|footballer]]. A midfielder, 1.86m tall and weighing 86kg, he plays for the [[Albania national football team]] and [[Olympique de Marseille]] of France at club level. He holds [[Albania]]n, [[France|French]] and [[Switzerland|Swiss]] citizenship. |
|||
== Informally == |
|||
==Early Life== |
|||
With all due respect, does this committee even know what "informally" means? (word games aside, I think it's important that you specify ''exactly'' what you're accusing him of if this proposal is allowed to stand) --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Born in [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], Cana left as a young child to escape the war. He ended up moving to [[Switzerland]]. His father, [[Agim Cana]] who happen's to be the football Manager of [[FK Vllaznia]], also he was once a very famous [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslav]] footballer who was part of the so-called "Golden Generation" of [[KF Prishtina]] during the 1980s. His father's experiences in football inspired Lorik to take up the sport as well. As a young boy he joined the [[Lausanne Sports]] in Switzerland. He then worked up the ranks of the [[Swiss]] team and very quickly became an instant hit despite only being a youth team player. He played at [[Lausanne Sports]] until the year 2000 when he was spotted and signed by the [[France|French]] giants, [[Paris Saint-Germain]]. This was a dream come true for Lorik because he always wanted to play for the best teams in the best leagues. |
|||
:I believe the use of "informally" in this proposal is simply meant to contrast with the use of the word "formal" in proposed principle 4. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Career== |
|||
== Breach of privacy? == |
|||
After joining [[Paris Saint-Germain]] he spent three years working up the ranks of the [[France|French]] club, while doing so he attracted big insterest from big clubs like [[Arsenal FC]], but his visa wouldn't allow him to go to the trials at the [[North London]] club. Lorik finally broke into the first team of [[Paris Saint-Germain]] in 2003 and quickly became one their main players. During the 2003-2004 season he played 32 games, scored one goal, won the [[Coupe de France]], and finished second in the [[Ligue 1|French Division 1 league]], proving to be one the most successful seasons of his career so far. This success was repeated the next season when he also played 32 games for the Paris team and scored one goal. However, at the beginning of the 2005-2006 season the coach of [[Paris Saint-Germain]] changed and Lorik was not part of the new manager's plans at the club. This then prompted Cana to move to the south of [[France]] and join the most successful club in French history, [[Olympique de Marseille]]. Since joining [[Olympique de Marseille]] he has cemented his place in the starting eleven, and scored the winning goal in the first match between his new club (Olympique de Marseille) and his former club (Paris Saint-Germain). He has been the team captain of his club since the departure of the former captain [[Habib Beye]] to [[Newcastle United]] during the summer transfer window of 2007. Lorik has hardly missed a game since joining the [[Marseille]] based club. During the transfer season, Lorik was offered 19 million euros by the [[FC Arsenal]] Coach to join, Lorik refused and decided to stay with [[Marseille]]. |
|||
==Career achievements== |
|||
"...a technical breach of the privacy policy may have occurred..." Did this breach happen spontaneously, without human involvement? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Winner of the [[Coupe de France]] 2004 with [[Paris Saint-Germain FC|Paris SG]] |
|||
:If Lar did something to compromise the Privacy Policy (and if ArbCom sees its role as to evaluate this), then most likely he should be admonished, or reminded to be more careful. If his actions were mitigated, that might be considered as well (for instance, by limits on data isolation, apparent good faith, or if any breach was limited and acknowledged). However, I think it's worth noting that the issue of privacy does not appear to relate to SlimVirgin, or for that matter to have been raised by anyone who was affected. The claim relating to SV, that Lar had misused checkuser, appears to have been unsupported. I think this distinction is also important since any claimed "bad faith" presumably could not be tied to the alleged privacy violation with a non-party to this case. This could be a reason not to address the privacy issue here at all, but I think should at least be pointed out. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Runner-up of [[Coupe de France]] in 2006 with [[Olympique de Marseille]] |
|||
* Runner-up of [[Coupe de France]] in 2007 with [[Olympique de Marseille]] |
|||
* Albanian football player of the year 2003-2004 |
|||
* 2nd [[Albanian]] international to ever score a [[Champions League]] Group Stage goal after [[Besart Berisha]]. |
|||
==International career== |
|||
== Other evidence? == |
|||
Lorik Cana was eligible to play for either [[Switzerland]], [[Albania]] or [[France]] as he has all three passports, out of these three he chose [[Albania]] as he feels that all [[Albanian]]s are the same wherever they live, most say he made the right choice by letting his heart and not his brain make the choice. Cana has been involved with the [[Albania national football team]] since early 2003, after receiving a call-up by the federation. He accepted the invitation and by [[11 June]] he had already made his international debut at the age of just 19. Since joining the team he has made 30 appearances and scored 1 goal for Albania. |
|||
==Career Stats== |
|||
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094632.html WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 33, Sun Jul 20 18:30:08 UTC 2008] |
|||
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094655.html Sun Jul 20 23:16:51 UTC 2008] |
|||
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094663.html Mon Jul 21 00:28:38 UTC 2008] |
|||
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094684.html Mon Jul 21 12:33:16 UTC 2008] |
|||
In the emails linked above, SlimVirgin and Lar directly contradict each other, on matters involving Lar's wife and a third editor. Has this third editor submitted evidence? If so, does his evidence support Lar's account of events, or SlimVirgins? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="prettytable" |
|||
== Some problems with wording == |
|||
|----- |
|||
! Season |
|||
! Club |
|||
! Country |
|||
! Competition |
|||
! Matches |
|||
! Minutes |
|||
! Goals |
|||
! Assists |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2002–03 || [[Paris Saint-Germain]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 3 || 225 || 8 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2003–04 || [[Paris Saint-Germain]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 32 || 2589 || 1 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2004–05 || [[Paris Saint-Germain]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 32 || 2644 || 1 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2005–06 || [[Paris Saint-Germain]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 2 || 51 || 5 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2005–06 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 28 || 2520 || 1 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2006–07 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 33 || 2864 || 6 || 1 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2007–08 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 34 || 3036 || 7 || 2 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2008–09 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[Ligue 1]] || 3 || 232 || 9 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
|} |
|||
==Europe Stats== |
|||
Since ArbCom is not authorized to make policy, it is important the the wording of principles and proposed actions be worded carefully to suit the fundamental issues of the particular case. With this in mind I have some concerns with how some of the elements of this page are worded - I am not faulting ArbCom procedures or decisions, I am just trying toi alert the committee to issues that seem to have gotten lost; |
|||
{| class="prettytable" |
|||
*The small compromise of editor privacy that the use of this tool represents is weighed against the central role CheckUser has assumed in preserving Wikipedia's traditional way of functioning. |
|||
|----- |
|||
I have two problems. First, why on earth should the use of checkuser compromise an editor's privacy, as long as the editor is not editing in inappropriate ways? Obviously checkuser is ''intended'' to "compromise" the identity of an editor when the editor is abusing Wikipedia. The issue of privacy is only salient when the editor turns out not to be abusing Wikipedia. this distinction ought to be clear in the wording. Second, maybe this is true, but this phrasing misses '''the''' salient point for this case, which is that not all violations of privacy are equal. In some cases, compromising the privacy of an editor will cause no harm to the editor; in other cases, tremendous harm. This proposition is, frankly, useless unless if takes this distinction into account. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
! Season |
|||
* Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the Committee. |
|||
! Club |
|||
maybe so, but the issue is not simply one of remit, it is also this: what knowledge does ArbCom need in order to make a fair ruling? If it needs to know whether the privacy policy has been breached to make a fair decision, then it needs to find out before it deliberates. If it is the WOC's remit, then ArbCom must request and wait for a finding by the WOC before deliberating. Without including this point, the present wording manages to be both accurate and counter-productive. it misses the ultimate issue. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 04:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
! Country |
|||
* An essential element of the judgment and discretion that CheckUsers must exercise consists of balancing, each time a check is requested, the compromise of editor privacy that "running a CheckUser" necessarily represents, against the evidence of abuse of multiple accounts or other serious user misconduct. As with any discretionary decision, there are circumstances in which reasonable CheckUsers operating in good faith could disagree as to whether a given check was warranted. |
|||
! Competition |
|||
I suggest that this is a test-case for revising what constitutes "probably cause" for checkuser. perhaps we can come up with a clearer algorithm for when Checkuser is necessary. I think the guidelines here could be more specific and clear about two obvious conditions: probably cause to believe an editor is using multiple accounts, AND probable cause that the user is doing so specifically and deliberately to violate Wikipedia policies. I think probably cause in both cases needs to be established before authorizing checkuser. I leave it to members of ArbCom to discuss what evidence suffices to demonstrate probable cause. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 04:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
! Matches |
|||
*SlimVirgin made a series of allegations of impropriety in a large number of emails sent to the wikien-l mailing list—a public list that is archived on the web—in the third and fourth week of July. These allegations presented a negative view of the conduct of Lar and one of the Ombudsmen, Mackensen, and are part of a threaded discussion, wide-ranging and lacking in consistency. |
|||
! Minutes |
|||
I am curious to see how this "finding of fact" will be used. As i read it it makes two very non-controversial claims. The first is that allegations were made on the list-serve. Is the issue that she should have made the allegations on a Wikipedia talk page? Tat in my mind would have been the ideal course of action, because the fundamental virtue of Wikipedia is transparency, meaning, virtually all deliberations occur in public. But while the list-serve is less public, I think it is still transparent enough for this case, so I don't see what kind of recommendation this fact would have any bearing on. The second is that the discussion lacked consistency. But this is the nature of most dialogues or discusions. As people discuss issues, they may come to feel more or less comfortable sharing certain private matters. or they may remember something they forgot. Or they conversation itself may lead them to a new insight, or to change their mind. Discussions, whether on article talk pages or on list-serves, are not meant to be consistent arguments, they are meant to be open fora for working out evolving views. So tu summarize, this finding of fact seems redundant. Simply by saying it was discussed on the list-serve, we can infer that over time inconsistent or contradictory statements were produced, reflected on, reconsidered ... [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
! Goals |
|||
*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. |
|||
! Assists |
|||
This profoundly concerns me because i conside the general point dangerous. Wikipedia will thrive through transparency. Virtually every abuse and scandal at Wikipedia that I know of involved some degree of a lack of transparency. The only question is, did Slim Virgin violate anything confidential or private? I am of course refering to private, personal matters. one cannot violate the privacy of the Wikipedia community which by definition is public. Frankly, I wonder whether ArbCom is projecting. Because ArbCom is in a position of power (like people authorized to use checkuser, and the Ombudsman), they do have a burden to protect people's privacy. Wikipedia editors, it seems to me, do not have any such obligation (unless it verges on illegal behavior). I certainly see an irony here in that one principle suggested is that the needs of checkuser may outweigh the privacy concerns of editors - while in this point Slim Virgin seems to be being held to a higher standard. editors should not be held to higher standards than ArbCom members or bureaucrats. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|----- |
|||
*Despite repeated requests from the Committee, as well as several extensions of the submission deadline, SlimVirgin has failed to provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint in this matter. |
|||
| 2004–05 || [[Paris Saint-Germain]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Champions League]] || 6 || 540 || 0 || 0 |
|||
The question is, why? Has she been asked and been given an opportunity to answer this question? has any other editor provided ArbCom with evidence that explains why SlimVirgin may not have given a complete sentence? If, as ArbCom has already suggested, editors may have obligations to protect the confidentiality or privacy of others, this may constrain them in the nature of statements they give to ArbCom. For ArbCom to make a fair ruling, it needs to know whethe this is the case or not. Otherwise, ArbCom risks turning into Wikipedia's version of the HUAC. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|----- |
|||
*In sum, SlimVirgin has been quick to make statements potentially damaging to other editors, but tardy in matters of clarification, mediation, and resolution of the points that she has raised. |
|||
| 2005–06 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Cup]] || 8 || 569 || 0 || 0 |
|||
I find this odd given that the first proposed principle here as much as admits that someone (Lar?) violated privacy in using checkuser. If ArbCom itself admits that checkuser was abused in this way, how much more clarificaion does SlimVirgin need to provide? Again, I see a kind of projection: since someone with CheckUser violated someone's privacy, Arbom now asks an editor to do the same. But two wrongs do not make a right. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|----- |
|||
*Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. |
|||
| 2006–07 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]] || 2 || 180 || 0 || 0 |
|||
This is '''surely''' misworded. Surely, ArbCom means to say, "Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, and having considered evidence presented by other interested parties about the check at issue, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion." Right? The fundamental issue here is the question of Lar's alleged abuse of power. Certainly a man has the right to defend himself. But when a person in power is accused of abusing authority, a finding of fact cannot be made solely on the basis of the person in power's statement. This only compounds any abuse of power. The findings of fact must be based on evidence gathered from a variety of sources. I know that others besides Slim Virgin have presented evidence. Even if SV's own statement was incomplete, Arbcom has to take into account evidence provided by others. This ought to be rephrased to make it clear that ArbCom's finding of fact is not based solely on Lar's say-so. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|----- |
|||
*Informally, the Committee notes that a technical breach of the privacy policy may have occurred in this case; but that, given the limitations of our operating environment with regards to data isolation, it is unclear whether any reasonable means for preventing breaches of this nature are available at present. |
|||
| || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Cup]] || 3 || 198 || 0 || 0 |
|||
Inadequately worded. ArbCom needs to explain the difference between a "technical breach of privacy" and "a breach of privacy." Also, "reasonable" is a function of "proportional" but the wording of this statement provides only one half of the equation, the operating environment. the other half is the potential harm caused by the breach of privacy. Without knowing the potential harm it is inmpossible to say what is reasonable or unreasonable - costs must be the benefits must be measured against the costs, which includes potential for harm. Also, I again note that ArbCom is admitting that Lar abused his trust. To fault SV for refusing the betray a trust is hypocracy. Or did you guys mean to say something else? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 05:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|----- |
|||
*The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. |
|||
| 2007–08 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Champions League]] || 6 || 540 || 0 || 0 |
|||
Um, I think ArbCom needs to distinguish between "dispute resolution," which ought to take place in public and be transparent, and other kinds of investigations which need to be in private. I am not denying that some matters should be handled privately, but "dispute resolution" is not one of them. Again, transparency is the greatest virtue of Wikipedia, and the guarsanteur of freedom from abuse of power and of integrity. We should sacrifice transparency only under the most compelling of circumstances. The finding, that Lar's abuse of checkuser and violation of privacy is somehow tolerable, but SV's complaints are intolerable, I find hard to square. You know, this page is available to the general public. Any journalist or skeptic who reads it and sees this apparent double standard might leave with a very jaundiced view of Wikipedia. We need to avoid scandal, and double-standards like the one that aat least ''appears'' to be going on here risk scandal. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 05:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|----- |
|||
| || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Cup]] || 3 || 270 || 0 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| 2008–09 || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Champions League|CL Third qualifying round]] || 2 || 126 || 0 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
| || [[Olympique de Marseille]] || {{FRA}} || [[UEFA Champions League]] || 1 || 90 || 1 || 0 |
|||
|----- |
|||
|} |
|||
I have one final issue I would like to raise, because I am very troubled by a thought I have and if I am wrong I would appreciate someone explaining to me why i am wrong. This is my thought: based on the public ArbCom record, the basic facts are the following: |
|||
* SV and Lar entered into a conflict on the list-serve |
|||
* another editor opened an ArbCom case |
|||
* SV never participated in the ArbCom case |
|||
* SV is faulted for entering into the conflict on the listserve |
|||
* SV is faulted for not making a statement to ArbCom. |
|||
What disturbs me is that IF the first three facts are accurate, THEN the two conclusions are in conflict. I can see ArbCom taking one of two positions, but I cannot see it taking both. One position is: this was a conflict between SV and Lar; SV did not want to involve ArbCom, and that is fine - but if SV wanted to handle this dispute between herself and Lar, she should have approahed Lar via e-mail and handled it privately. The second position is, this kind of conflict must be handled by ArbCom and should not be left to two adults to try to resolve on their own. IF ArbCom takes the first position, then it CAN fault SV for having gone public on the list-serve, but CANNOT fault SV for not making a statement to ArbCom. IF ArbCom takes the second position, it can fault SV for not having given a statement, but cannot fault her for having aired her views on the list-serve - an ArbCom proceeding is public, and if arbCom insists on SV making her statement public, it is in no position to censor her at the list-serve where I do not think it has any jurisdiction. |
|||
It is clear that SV wished to hash out this conflict with Lar, and did not wish to take it to ArbCom. I see nothing wrong with this. I do not think it is right for people in a dispute to go to ArbCom unless both parties agree; ArbCom should be a recourse of last resort when other attempts at dispute settlement have failed. But surely the first attempt should be informal and between two people. Why do we need some authority to step in? We are adults and ought to be supported when we try to resolve disputes among ourselves, without seeking any authority. With this in mind, it seems to me that ArbCom wishes to punish SV NOT for her behavior towards Lar, but rather because she ignored ArbCom. This is the thought that really disturbs me. Wikipedia is an open society. We created ArbCom to deal with certain kinds of violations of personal behavior policies on talk pages of articles, and articles. Slim Virgin is not accused of violating a personal behavior policy relating to the editing of an article. ArbCom's jurisdiction here is not clear cut in my mind and I do not see what basis it has especially when Wikipedia is a voluntary association for forcing Slim Virgin to take her case to ArbCom. We all created ArbCom with mixed feelings. I know that ll of the members of the ArbCom work very hard: I do not envy you; I admire the work you do and appreciate it. But we also know that however necessary ArbCom is, it was very risky creating an authority and the implied hierarchy in what should be an open society, an anarchic community. So I admire and appreciate the work you do in mediating disputes involving the violation of personal behavior policies in the course of editing or discussing articles. But I am very wary about attempts to expand ArbCom's power over editors. I think it is a vey dangerous precedent for ArbCom to seek to punish SV because she chose not to involve ArbCom in her dispute. So this is the thought that disturbs me. it is premised on the five facts i list above. I would LOVE it if someone told me I am wrong, that I am mistaken in one of the facts, or am ignorant of some of the circumstances. Please, someone tell me this is the case. |
|||
==External links== |
|||
There is another contradiction that disturbs me. SV is faulted for making incomplete and unsupported statements on the list-serve, AND is faulted for "going public." My first question would be: is it possible tht the stuff SlimVirgin did not disclose on the list-serve is ''precisely'' stuff she felt had to remain confidential? Is it possible she reproted things to Jimbo that she did not report on the list Serve precisely to protect people's privacy? Or perhaps she told no one? I just do not see how SV can be told that she should not have gone public AND be faulted for not having revealed all in public. This is a double-bind, it is an impossible demand and unfair. |
|||
*[http://www.om.net/fr/Equipes/201002/Effectif_pro/1528/CANA Lorik Cana] OM.net |
|||
*[http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/fo/profiles/18899.html Lorik Cana's Yahoo Profile] |
|||
*{{lfpfr|103409}} |
|||
{{Olympique de Marseille Squad}} |
|||
But even if someone can explain to me that I am wrong about ArbCom, as I hope someone can, I still do not think ArbCom has a right to criticize SV for anything she said at the listserve. i say this for two reasons. First, I was not aware ArbCom had any jurisdiction over the listserve. i thought it was only the moderator who could and should police inapporpriate use of the listserve. Second, as I said, I think now more than ever we should be fighting to make Wikipedia as transparent as possible. let people at the listserve criticize SV, and let SV criticize others. That's the "market-place of ideas" where things whould play out in the open. |
|||
{{Lifetime|1983||Cana, Lorik}} |
|||
It really does disturb me that ArbCom has in effect declared that Lar abused his position of power, yet exhonorates him and castigates SV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 05:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway&oldid=226860811#Break:_checkuser It wasn't all off-wiki.] [[User:Tombomp|Tombomp]] ([[User_talk:Tombomp|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tombomp|contribs]]) 07:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:"ArbCom has in effect declared that Lar abused his position of power" - where? --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 07:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:People from Priština]] |
|||
I'm loath in involve myself here, but Slrubenstein, you're effectively taking the position that a person may repeatedly allege improper use of checkuser without actually taking that up with the only bodies which may police such activity. I find this absurd. Checkuser abuse is a serious matter which deserves investigation, an investigation SlimVirgin appeared unwilling to initiate. I don't find it acceptable in the least for an accusation of checkuser abuse to hang in the air with no investigation or resolution. SlimVirgin, according to these findings, submitted no evidence. If she submitted no evidence, what was she basing her accusations on? Evidence so secret and private that no one may actually see it? If so, why did SlimVirgin go public at all, when she must have known that she could not support her allegations in those forums? Why didn't she make a private complaint to the Arbitration Committee, which could have actually reviewed same and taken action? Why didn't she make a formal complaint to the Ombudsman Commission, which has a mandate to investigate breaches of the privacy policy? Lobbying individual members doesn't count--at no time were any official mechanisms engaged until Thatcher brought the case. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Albanian footballers]] |
|||
[[Category:Albania international footballers]] |
|||
[[Category:Paris Saint-Germain players]] |
|||
[[Category:Olympique de Marseille players]] |
|||
[[Category:Ligue 1 players]] |
|||
[[Category:Albanian-Swiss people]] |
|||
[[de:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[es:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
Slrubenstein can attempt to spin this however he wants. To a disinterested observer (like me), who has no axe to grind with any party, the conclusions are pretty transparent and pretty damning. They spin themselves. Now, let's move on, wiser.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 12:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[fr:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[it:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[nl:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[ja:ロリック・カナ]] |
|||
[[pl:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[pt:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[ru:Цана, Лорик]] |
|||
[[sq:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[fi:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
[[tr:Lorik Cana]] |
|||
Revision as of 08:06, 13 October 2008
 | |||
| Personal information | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Full name | Lorik Cana | ||
| Height | 1.86 m (6 ft 1 in) | ||
| Position(s) | Midfielder | ||
| Team information | |||
Current team | Olympique de Marseille | ||
| Number | 19 | ||
| ‡ National team caps and goals, correct as of 14 September, 2008 | |||
Lorik Cana (born on 27 July 1983 in Pristina) is an Albanian footballer. A midfielder, 1.86m tall and weighing 86kg, he plays for the Albania national football team and Olympique de Marseille of France at club level. He holds Albanian, French and Swiss citizenship.
Early Life
Born in Yugoslavia, Cana left as a young child to escape the war. He ended up moving to Switzerland. His father, Agim Cana who happen's to be the football Manager of FK Vllaznia, also he was once a very famous Yugoslav footballer who was part of the so-called "Golden Generation" of KF Prishtina during the 1980s. His father's experiences in football inspired Lorik to take up the sport as well. As a young boy he joined the Lausanne Sports in Switzerland. He then worked up the ranks of the Swiss team and very quickly became an instant hit despite only being a youth team player. He played at Lausanne Sports until the year 2000 when he was spotted and signed by the French giants, Paris Saint-Germain. This was a dream come true for Lorik because he always wanted to play for the best teams in the best leagues.
Career
After joining Paris Saint-Germain he spent three years working up the ranks of the French club, while doing so he attracted big insterest from big clubs like Arsenal FC, but his visa wouldn't allow him to go to the trials at the North London club. Lorik finally broke into the first team of Paris Saint-Germain in 2003 and quickly became one their main players. During the 2003-2004 season he played 32 games, scored one goal, won the Coupe de France, and finished second in the French Division 1 league, proving to be one the most successful seasons of his career so far. This success was repeated the next season when he also played 32 games for the Paris team and scored one goal. However, at the beginning of the 2005-2006 season the coach of Paris Saint-Germain changed and Lorik was not part of the new manager's plans at the club. This then prompted Cana to move to the south of France and join the most successful club in French history, Olympique de Marseille. Since joining Olympique de Marseille he has cemented his place in the starting eleven, and scored the winning goal in the first match between his new club (Olympique de Marseille) and his former club (Paris Saint-Germain). He has been the team captain of his club since the departure of the former captain Habib Beye to Newcastle United during the summer transfer window of 2007. Lorik has hardly missed a game since joining the Marseille based club. During the transfer season, Lorik was offered 19 million euros by the FC Arsenal Coach to join, Lorik refused and decided to stay with Marseille.
Career achievements
- Winner of the Coupe de France 2004 with Paris SG
- Runner-up of Coupe de France in 2006 with Olympique de Marseille
- Runner-up of Coupe de France in 2007 with Olympique de Marseille
- Albanian football player of the year 2003-2004
- 2nd Albanian international to ever score a Champions League Group Stage goal after Besart Berisha.
International career
Lorik Cana was eligible to play for either Switzerland, Albania or France as he has all three passports, out of these three he chose Albania as he feels that all Albanians are the same wherever they live, most say he made the right choice by letting his heart and not his brain make the choice. Cana has been involved with the Albania national football team since early 2003, after receiving a call-up by the federation. He accepted the invitation and by 11 June he had already made his international debut at the age of just 19. Since joining the team he has made 30 appearances and scored 1 goal for Albania.
Career Stats
| Season | Club | Country | Competition | Matches | Minutes | Goals | Assists |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002–03 | Paris Saint-Germain |  France |
Ligue 1 | 3 | 225 | 8 | 0 |
| 2003–04 | Paris Saint-Germain | France |
Ligue 1 | 32 | 2589 | 1 | 0 |
| 2004–05 | Paris Saint-Germain | France |
Ligue 1 | 32 | 2644 | 1 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Paris Saint-Germain | France |
Ligue 1 | 2 | 51 | 5 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
Ligue 1 | 28 | 2520 | 1 | 0 |
| 2006–07 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
Ligue 1 | 33 | 2864 | 6 | 1 |
| 2007–08 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
Ligue 1 | 34 | 3036 | 7 | 2 |
| 2008–09 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
Ligue 1 | 3 | 232 | 9 | 0 |
Europe Stats
| Season | Club | Country | Competition | Matches | Minutes | Goals | Assists |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004–05 | Paris Saint-Germain | France |
UEFA Champions League | 6 | 540 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
UEFA Cup | 8 | 569 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006–07 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
UEFA Intertoto Cup | 2 | 180 | 0 | 0 |
| Olympique de Marseille | France |
UEFA Cup | 3 | 198 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2007–08 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
UEFA Champions League | 6 | 540 | 0 | 0 |
| Olympique de Marseille | France |
UEFA Cup | 3 | 270 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2008–09 | Olympique de Marseille | France |
CL Third qualifying round | 2 | 126 | 0 | 0 |
| Olympique de Marseille | France |
UEFA Champions League | 1 | 90 | 1 | 0 |
External links
- Lorik Cana OM.net
- Lorik Cana's Yahoo Profile
- Lorik Cana – French league stats at LFP – also available in French (archived)
{{subst:#if:Cana, Lorik|}}
[[Category:{{subst:#switch:{{subst:uc:1983}}
|| UNKNOWN | MISSING = Year of birth missing {{subst:#switch:{{subst:uc:}}||LIVING=(living people)}}
| #default = 1983 births
}}]] {{subst:#switch:{{subst:uc:}}
|| LIVING = | MISSING = | UNKNOWN = | #default =
}}