Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 29: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 46:
=== Statement by other user ===
*"''Editors with prior sanctions are inevitably going to [be] dealt with by ArbCom more robustly than those with entirely clean hands''"—that's understandable (and I believe fair). Why did {{user|Tennis expert}} receive exactly the same remedy as {{user|John}}? TE made approximately 100 times the revert-type edits that John did, and TE had prior [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Tennis+expert sanctions] (one of which to do with the date-delinking case), whereas John had "''entirely clean hands''"? [[User:HWV258|<b><
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
Line 82:
If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.
No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. —[[User:Mythdon|<
===== Note by Mythdon =====
I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. —[[User:Mythdon|<
===== Additional questions by Mythdon =====
In term D, it states:
:''Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.''
While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. —[[User:Mythdon|<
After the mentors appointment, in regards to ''"...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval."'', would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards ''"...approval for every single comment"''. —[[User:Mythdon|<
===Non-statement by [[User:Stifle|Stifle]]===
Line 135:
;Statement by Xeno
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2|PeterSymond's re-RFA]] nearly broached [[WP:200]] and had less than 8% opposition. While I don't know if the community feels the same way about these two, clearly we were willing to forgive the temporary lapse in judgment on Peter's part, I would hazard a guess the same is true here. –[[user:xeno|<
;Statement by Jennavecia
Line 157:
;Statement by Durova
Peter and Chet both made a serious mistake which they are unlikely to ever repeat. Have had extensive conversations with all three parties, principally because before the password issue arose I had collaborated on content with Steve toward his triple crown drive. Both Peter and Chet have learned from the mistake. Would support Coffee in whatever venue he chose to pursue resysopping.
:Per SoWhy, there is no reason that Peter's decision to seek resysopping from the community should be construed as a precedent to deny a venue that was specifically offered to Coffee when he resigned his bit. When the Committee makes a commitment to consider resysopping by direct application, the Committee binds itself to honor that commitment by considering the request on its own merits without reference to tangential factors.
;Statement by Maxim
Line 170:
; Statement by Balloonman
I know that there are several members of the current ArbCOM group who are opposed to temporary desysoppings, but I am personally in favor of them. I think it should be easier to move into adminship and out of it... and then back into it. Under the current system, the bit is too hard to remove and people generally fight to keep it because once it is gone it is gone. I am not overly familiar with Coffee's history, but I trust the people who are speaking up. I also think that anything we can do to make it easier to move in and out of adminship is a plus. Thus, I support restoring the bit... although, I would echo some comments above that Coffee may want to take it slow while regaining his wikifeet.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<
:Response to Cool Hand Luke below: I appreciate your wanting to have Coffee undergo an RfA, but the committee's basis for making that a requirement was relinquished in August. The original ruling was that Coffee had two options that were up to him. He has chosen this option. As that option was afforded to him by the committee, then the committee needs to consider it. Changing the rules now would be unfair.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<
;Statement by Steve Crossin
I'll keep what I want to say to a bare minimum. Three editors made mistakes in this incident in August, but I was the major offender and instigator. The community, for the most part, has forgiven me, so I don't see a reason why the community hasn't forgiven Chet. I agree with what AGK has said above, re-sysopping Chet would close this horrible mess. I wouldn't want Chet to have to go through RFA again because of me. The transgression was mine, and he shouldn't have to pay for it. I would urge the committee to reinstate Chet's adminship. Sincerely, <
=== Clerk notes ===
Line 270:
=== Statement by J.delanoy ===
My understanding of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Establishing_consensus_on_names instructions] given to the referees was that we were ''required'' to reject any proposal that we felt was not based in policy. Based on the comments of the other referees and myself, I think it is clear that we are in agreement that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/main_articles&oldid=298598861#Proposal_G:_the_UN_provisional_solution Proposal G] was not within policy. Frankly, it would be just plain wrong to submit a proposal for consideration that '''all''' of us would have no choice but to reject out of hand, even if consensus were gained for it. [[User:J.delanoy|<
===== Reply to Carcharoth =====
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Advertising_this_discussion [[User:J.delanoy|<
=== Statement by Shell Kinney ===
Line 321:
User Redking7 has been trying to start a discussion on [[Republic of Ireland]] (currently where information about the 26-county state is located), first started [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland&diff=294812418&oldid=294781831 here], which expanded out to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland&diff=297247016&oldid=297144400 this much] before text was removed. Ok, there's a bunch of crap happening here, but sticking to the point that ArbCom is involved, Redking's attempt to rename the ROI article at the time discussion was going on clearly (to me) is against the case's first motion from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=296047880 here] (in that ''Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.'' Now, I'm willing to give a benefit of a doubt to some degree: the above motion closed on June 12th, Redking7's suggestion opened on June 6th and it looks like it may have been spurred by that. However, Redking7 continues to argue over the details of this (see comments from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Ireland&diff=297102328&oldid=297102127 this diff] as well as discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Redking7s_violating_rules_laid_down_by_arbcom here].
I personally see this as rules-lawyering (the intent of what ArbCom wants seems perfectly clear), but rather than act first, ask questions later, I will assume good faith for now but seek ArbCom's clarification if discussion about the renaming of individual articles that are part of the Ireland naming issue can be discussed on those individual talk pages or should they be brought to the Ireland Collaboration project. --[[User:Masem|M<
=== Statement by Redking7 ===
Line 434:
We have a number of accounts hanging around— some new, some set up before the ArbCom case but not used much—who are arriving to thwart normal editing in various ways. One of them, {{user|User:Hadashot Livkarim}}, was recently found to belong to {{user|NoCal100}}, who had been topic-banned during the recent case. Under the current rules, it is difficult to get a CU done unless we already think we know who the account belongs to. I have just requested a CU on {{user|LuvGoldStar}}, an obvious sock or meatpuppet, and was told by a clerk that it would violate the "no-fishing" rule: see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuvGoldStar]]. But I have no idea who's behind it, and it really doesn't matter. If we can't act against an account like that, then we're basically powerless to stop the kind of highly partisan editing the latest ArbCom case acted against. Editors on the I/P pages shouldn't be expected to spend hours or days analysing edits to come up with a suspicion to justify a CU, when it's obvious at a glance that the account isn't a legitimate one.
Two things would help enormously: (1) if checkusers could be told the normal "no fishing" policy is eased when it comes to I/P articles, and (2) if admins could be reminded that checkuser and other evidence isn't always necessary: that if a new account, or an account with very few edits, is acting in a highly partisan manner on the I/P pages, admins may consider blocking it under the reasonable suspicion that it's a topic-banned editor returned, or an account acting as a meatpuppet. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
==== Response to Vassyana ====
Line 447:
:*Secondly, advice to admins to be more aggressive in topic-banning accounts with very few edits who conveniently turn up to revert or add support for a position. A statement such as, "The Committee hereby invites administrators to pay special attention to new accounts, or old accounts with few recent contributions, who arrive to focus on specific positions at the Israel-Palestine pages, and to have no hesitation in topic-banning them." That one sentence would make a huge difference.
:The IP articles are in a mess. Specifically, material offering the Palestinian perspective is not being fairly represented. It is left out entirely, or it is added in a mealy-mouthed fashion so that the sense of it gets lost. I say this as someone who is not known as a pro-Palestinian editor—far from it, so I'm not simply trying to make things easier for "my POV." I'm genuinely interested in finding a way to enforce the ''real'' meaning of NPOV, which is the representation of ''all'' majority and significant-minority POVs in reliable sources (preferably historians in this area), even the POVs that make certain editors uncomfortable. NPOV does ''not'' mean that everything on Wikipedia must be acceptable to right-wing Israelis. I'm sorry if that's an inappropriate way to put it, but it's the bottom line. There are a small number of editors on the I/P articles who just want to be allowed to write articles, using scholarly sources, in whatever direction those sources take us. But we need help from the ArbCom. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
=== Statement by IronDuke ===
I don't see this as being particularly useful, aside from it violating [[WP:AGF]] and[[WP:BITE]]. You will, at best, generate a more sophisticated generation of socks. Why not use the ARBPIA sanction process already in place? Indeed, I wonder why it wasn't used on the editors involved in the Judea Samaria case -- much needless waste of talent on both sides would have been avoided, as well as the apparently very great temptation to sock. [[User:IronDuke|<
=== Statement by ChrisO ===
Line 498:
===Comment by Tony1===
As a party to the case, I have a conflict of interest in saying anything; I nevertheless ask for unusual leave from arbitrators to state that Kotniski, in my view, is one of the most honest, trustworthy editors I have met on WP, and has rare linguistic skills of great value to the project. I ask that the Committee consider lifting at the very least the ban on his editing of the style-guide talk pages. I believe the reversions referred to by Arbitrator Roger Davies were out of keeping with his normal demeanour. [[User:Tony1|<
=== Statement by Dabomb87 ===
Line 506:
=== Statement by Piotrus ===
As has been pointed out above, I do wonder: what was the rationale between the talk page ban? I am totally unfamiliar with the case in general, but my experience with Kotniski was quite positive - I have never seen him be uncivil or disruptive in discussions. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
=== Clerk notes ===
Line 622:
===Statement by Seicer===
While I have the feeling that CofM is very much agitated with recent events, in regards to ArbCom restrictions and sanctions that he feels that is unfair, lashing out at other respected and/or established editors and administrators at ANI is leaving a black mark on what may have been an otherwise credible case. I think the issue before the committee is simple, per what Thatcher noted. CofM should not be interacting with Wikidemon, period. The same should apply back for Wikidemon towards CofM to cover the bases, and any breach of this or continued disruption that does not abide by the bounds of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] should be intersected with an approperiate sanction. <small>[[User:Seicer|<
===Statement by Allstarecho===
Line 848:
===Comment by Balloonman===
There is a difference between Everyking and Coffee above. I struggled on Everyking's last RfA before eventually supporting. That being said, Everyking has gone before the community on four separate occasions and not regained the bit. While Coffee can come before the committee and if the committee refuses to grant the bit back, can then run for RfA, I do not believe the reverse is true. The Committee should reflect the views of the community. If the committe acts incorrectly, the appeal to the committee's actions are to the community---not the other way around. In this case, while I may not agree with the way things turned out for Everyking, I think the community has clearly spoken (on 4 occassions).---'''[[User:Balloonman|<
'''Proposal''' While I am adamant that 14 members of ArbCOM should not override the clear consensus of 4 RfAs, I would not be opposed to a carefully worded statement from ArbCOM stating that Everyking has been a benefit to the community and been productive. That he has ArbCOM's blessing to run for adminship via RfA should he choose to do so. This will allow the community to have the ultimate say while alleviating the stigma he suffers from being under an ArbCOM ban. That being said, such wording would have to be carefully worded as not to be an endorsement of resysopping... it would have to be neutral in tone.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<
Time to act? I may be mistaken, but I think there is a clear consensus forming among both the people who are commenting and the members of Arbcom. The idea of restoring Everyking to Sysop does not seem to have the necessary support. There does seem to be at least some interest/willingness to write a statement about EK to help assuage the stigma of the 3 year old stigma. I think somebody should go ahead and write up to 5 proposals: 1) Addressing the initial question---restoring the right of EK. I would expect that proposal to return the verdict of no. 2) Write a statement endorsing the restoration of the bit through RfA. 3) Write a neutrally worded statement indicating that EK should be judged for RfA based upon current actions. 4) Make a statement explicitly stating what the ArbCOM would like to see EK do before making a more definitive statement. 5) Declare that ArbCOM stands behind the original desysop of EK and does not support the restoration of the bit to him.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<
===Statement by Acalamari===
| |||