Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 23: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create Tag: Disambiguation links added |
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix font tag lint errors |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 59:
==== Statement by [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ====
I have sympathy for both viewpoints here, but I think TTN is stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are a lot of articles, mostly fiction, that are candidates for either deletion, a merge or redirection, but how to deal with them? The obvious answer is to be bold and redirect/merge them, but often (and probably because it's TTN to an extent) this will get reverted, leading to the edit-warring problems we had before, which at least TTN has generally avoided this time. Adding merge tags is generally fruitless because many of these articles are so obscure and ignored that no reasonable discussion will ensue. And so we go to AfD, where - yes - many end up with results of Merge, ''but at least they've then got the weight of an AfD behind that merge''. I know this is another layer of bureaucracy, but possibly some sort of parallel discussion page such as Articles for Merging (AfM?) is an idea which would cope with this.
==== Statement by [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ====
Line 142:
I do not see what I would call any significant signs of edit warring as a result of TTN's extreme usage of the BRD process that would constitute any restrictions in terms of ''this'' RFAR case. If users wish to nail TTN for mass-AFDing articles or for abusing the BRD process to the point of gaming the system, then use the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process as intended, just as the [[WP:BEFORE]] process should be used as intended prior to nominating articles for deletion. Hence, I believe this to be another attempt at forum-shopping with ArbCom until the desired effect is achieved.
However, (huge caveat not present in my previous statement in the last request for clarification) even I find it a trifle annoying when I traverse through the day's AFDs and see the same types of articles nominated with the same reasons for ''and against'' deletion and with the same users going after each other like in some sort of a [[dog fighting|dog fighting ring]]. If users wish to nail TTN for that (along with the merge/redirect issues), it seems that starting at RFC/U (as [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] recommended by a very conscientious editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MuZemike&diff=256496724&oldid=256492729 here]) would make more sense and then work from there. I am afraid, however, that the community's patience especially those returning to this RFAR case is wearing thin; I don't know if the community is willing to wade through the [[WP:BURO|lengthy process]] anymore. Hence, I think, in the near future and especially with the new arbitrators coming in, there will be a lot of friction between the Wikipedia community in general and the ArbCom to get troubling issues resolved. [[User:MuZemike|<
==== Statement by [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] ====
Line 148:
==== Statement by [[User:Masem|Masem]] ====
I have to agree with others that TTN is following the same process than anyone can for approaching merges of content, and he is pretty spot-on in identify articles that are inappropriate per guidelines, including the in-progress FICT that has been developed across a wide range of editors. If this was anyone else but TTN, people would simply blink and move on, since these fall into the bounds of suggested methods of editing. As long as it's understood that a "merge" result from AFD is completely acceptable from discussion, and (as been pointed out before to TTN, which it looks like he's following) the merge is noted in the merge target per GFDL, it's hard to see what TTN is trying to do as requiring any action above and beyond what admins can do. --[[User:Masem|M<
;Reply to DGG's 06<nowiki>:</nowiki>01 comment
If TTN was focusing on a large majority of articles from a single work of fiction at one time, as to invoke the ''fait acomopli'' approach that he was warned about before, then yes. But from the checking I've seen, he does maybe a few articles from different works, or when there is a block, he will put a multiarticle AFD togther. (I don't think this is 100% perfect, but this is from spot-checking). Both of these help to make sure that the articles that should be kept will be caught by those that want them to be without overloading them. The other thing seems to be that TTN does monitor those article he deletes, which is much better overall than "drive-by" editing Given that the general barrier to deletion/merging of an article seems to be much higher than the creation, "rapid tagging of articles for AFD" does not seem to disrupt WP save for those whose areas of fiction of interest are being merged. --[[User:Masem|M<
==== Statement by [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ====
Line 164:
I'm not going to say TTN is wrong in wanting to merge some of this content. I'm not even going to say he's wrong in declaring some of it completely unfit for Wikipedia. I will say he's not right about all of it. More importantly though, he's going about it completely wrong, proceeding on a delete/merge/redirect binge with no regard to the community or even [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risa Harada|existing merge efforts]].
Yes, he isn't edit warring currently, but I'd argue it's only minimally reduced the, shall we say, "pissed off" effect his edits generate. Much of the community does not welcome his contributions or even presence, and strongly enough to complain to administrators and the arbcom semi-regularly. That sounds like reason enough to examine a re-extension of his editing restrictions. -- [[User:Yukichigai|Y|yukichigai]] ('''
==== Statement by [[User:Sgeureka|sgeureka]] ====
Line 222:
By bombarding editors with a large quantity of redirects or AfDs, you reduce their ability to react meaningfully to each individual one. If there was a single AfD on a specialist topic at a given time, you would expect a deep and meaningful discussion along with some work to improve sourcing and other requirements. Once this is scaled up to 50 AfDs, the editing resource is stretched so thinly that it can't possibly meet the demands of every discussion happening.
My final concern is Arbcom's reluctance to grasp the nettle and deal with the issue one way or another. Either grant TTN carte blanche to perform contentious edits as heavily as he can manage, or call time on his actions and rein him. Without a clear message either way, I can assure the members of Arbcom that another Request for Clarification will be raised by another well-meaning yet concerned editor within another three month period. '''''
====Statement by PeaceNT====
Line 336:
==== Statement by Sandstein ====
As a semi-regular AfD closer, but not otherwise (I think) involved in this issue, I recommend that the Committee take no action. As a closer, I've never found TTN's AfDs to be a particular problem, either in volume or in substance, and they generally result in a useful consensus, as indicated by the graph above. It also remains unclear what remedies exactly are requested here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
====Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz====
Line 509:
==== Statement by [[User:Durova|Durova]] ====
[[WP:DENY]] occasionally fails as a solution strategy. This is one of those times. Recommend ArbCom consider a formal complaint to the user's ISP, since the behavior obviously exceeds the boundaries of any normal terms of service. Persistent disruption has become a drain on volunteer morale. If ArbCom determines such action is outside its remit, then a formal recommendation of similar action to WMF would be in order. Respectfully,
==== Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] ====
Line 645:
*I would support a motion that lifts all sanctions except that related to Phil Sandifer. The situation from whence that sanction arose (there was additional on- and off-wiki behaviour that is not detailed in Phil's statement) is of such a nature that I cannot foresee any interaction between Everyking and Phil Sandifer that will not be perceived by many as a rekindling of hostility, now or in the future. As such, I would not be opposed to considering the avoidance sanction to be permanent. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*It is not yet 22 February. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*In view of the background, the Phil Sandifer sanction doesn't seem so onerous to me and I can see advantages in making it permanent. How does the project gain from its lifting? --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small> D<small>AVIES
*From email: Cool Hand Luke is recused from any Everyking issue.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 10:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*As far as I can recall, I've never had any significant direct contact with Everyking. My comments about him have occurred primarily during RFA and during Committee work. So I do not think that I need to recuse because of a bias formed from a personal discord between us. It is also worth noting that I've made comments about Phil Sandifer while doing Committee work so there is no reason to think that I would have a basis for favoring one side of this dispute over the other. But since the point of the Committee work is dispute resolution, and I think that there will be a better outcome in this situation if I recuse, I'm to do it. I'm doing this because Everyking appears to have the view that he is being unfairly targeted by past members of ArbCom, individually and as a group. So with my sincerest hope that if I abstain from commenting and have no involvement in this matter, the outcome will be better accepted by Everyking and he will be able to move on, I '''recuse'''. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥]] 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 658:
:# Proposed. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small> D<small>AVIES
:# Support. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support. The effective date of February 22 represents one year from the date of adoption of the previous motion. I do not believe that postponing the effective date is really necessary, but I far prefer this symbolic action intended to reflect the limitation contained in the prior motion over the likelihood that without this proviso, the present motion might well be defeated and we would be forced to revisit this entire situation again in the future. It bears emphasis that the common-sense principles underlying some of the sanctions being lifted against Everyking should nonetheless be followed by all users. Finally, no inferences should be drawn from the consensus that the sanction relating to Everyking and Phil Sandifer should remain in place. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 664:
:# Support per Brad and Coren. Per the previous motion filed by Everyking, suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in "good standing" be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered "in good standing". [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support. There's no need to wait for Feb. 22 to agree on something we can agree on today. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- [[User:FayssalF|<
:Oppose:
| |||