Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 27: 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) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 367:
=== Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite ===
If one admin chooses not to act on a particular enforcement request, it doesn't stop another administrator stepping in. Whilst Sandstein might not agree and therefore decide not to take action, if another administrator believes the editor in question has broken the case remedies (In this case it is enforcement of discretionary sanctions) then that is up to them and they may block for that. From what I can see, Sandstein hasn't said he'll overrule other administrators and I suspect he wouldn't even challenge other administrators if they made blocks as part of Rlevse's restriction. It looks like Sandstein merely doesn't agree and doesn't feel comfortable enforcing the decision - that's his prerogative and feel free to simply block if someone goes against the 1RR restriction. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
=== Statement by Sandstein ===
Line 402:
*These final remedies have been linked to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]].
It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity. If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]] in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--<
=== Statement by other user ===
Line 452:
:''ScienceApologist's ban is amended to permit limited proxy editing related to the [[optics]] article. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]], [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]], and [[User:Durova|Durova]] have permission to proxy for ScienceApologist by editing the article, its talk page, and at process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.''
Kaldari and Sceptre should be adding their agreement to this propoal shortly, and ScienceApologist should be emailing the Committee to affirm his endorsement of this request. Respectfully submitted,
=== Statement by [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] ===
Line 518:
=== Statement by SilkTork ===
I have userfied an article, [[Blood of Angels]] deleted in an AfD for [[User:Ebonyskye]]. I have since discovered this archive: [[User talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1]] in which the user has been notified by [[User:Thatcher]] that a checkuser found a relationship between the Ebonyskye account and that of [[User:GuardianZ]] who was banned from editing the [[Midnight Syndicate]] article. Thatcher also informed Ebonyskye that the ban extended to related articles including Nox Arcana articles. The article I userfied is a Nox Arcana article. My query relates to the wording of the ArbCom case. "GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are banned indefinitely from Midnight Syndicate." is clear enough. However, "No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. " is less clear. Under the ruling is GuardianZ/Ebonyskye free to edit Nox Arcana articles? <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
::[[User:Fred Bauder]] has been notified: [[User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Clarification_request_on_wording_of_Midnight_Syndicate_ArbCom_decision]]. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
:::Proposed remedy: As the two main parties in the ArbCom case, SkinnyMcGee and GuardianZ/Ebonyskye have not engaged in edit warring since the ArbCom decision; that the general feeling is that there should be equality in this matter; that the wording of the topic ban allows for some ambiguity; and that an indefinate topic ban is an unusually harsh sanction, especially given, as far as I am aware, that the conflict took place on one specific article: that the ban on the specific article, [[Midnight Syndicate]], remains, but the wider topic ban is lifted for all parties. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
::::Request for clarity on Newyorkbrad's Motion. Could "any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban" be changed to "any administrator, other than [name], [name] and [name] who should bring potential infringements to the notice of a neutral aministrator, may reinstate the topic ban". I am not clear if I am an "involved administrator". <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
===Statement by Fred Bauder===
Line 545:
===Statement by Durova===
As the filing party who requested the Midnight Syndicate arbitration, I found SkinnyMcGee to be the more cooperative of the two primary disputants and subsequently awarded that editor a barnstar for creating a DYK about an unrelated (and uncontroversial) topic. GuardianZ was the primary aggressor in the original dispute. At no time in my observation did GuardianZ demonstrate a commitment to adapting to site standards or to Wikipedia's larger mission. To the extent that I noticed followup (which was quite some time ago), either GuardianZ or someone closely associated with that individual appeared to be openly contemptuous of project norms. Although I have not encountered the Enonyskye account directly, if the Committee were to demonstrate lenience toward either side of the dispute I would encourage them to either extend it toward SkinnyMcGee or else equally toward both parties. Meat/socking and topic ban evasion should not be rewarded while the party who demonstrates improvement remains under full sanction.
:Is there anything the arbitrators are seeking? Could put together an updated report with diffs etc. if there were an indication of what the Committee is interested in.
::To Carcharoth: I am not seeking a lifting of SkinnyMcGee's editing restrictions. Raised that solely to illustrate the point that a reduction of SkinnyMcGee's restriction would be more justifiable than the present request.
::To Sam Blacketer: see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#Addendum:_Blooferlady]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#GuardianZ_is_Blooferlady.2C_who_happens_to_be_Joseph_Vargo.27s_manager_and_girlfriend]]. GuardianZ was indeed covered by remedy 2.
::The case in a nutshell is this: a close associate of a former Midnight Syndicate band member came to Wikipedia and attempted to convert the article into an advertisement for the talents of that former band member. The former band member had subsequently formed a competing band of his own. The primary aggressor first registered as Blooferlady, and later either edited as (or proxied via) GuradianZ. After the case ended either Blooferlady/GuardianZ or a close associate evaded the ban. Respectfully disagreeing with Fred Bauder's characterization of the edit warring as 'petty': this is a real world business dispute that migrated onto Wikipedia, so modifying the remedy could affect the business prospects of either or both bands.
=== Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] ===
Line 607:
*Brad, the remedies you point to name Skinny McGee, who last edited in [[Special:Contributions/Skinny_McGee|August 2008]], and GuardianZ who last edited in [[Special:Contributions/GuardianZ|March 2007]]. I'm aware that Ebonyskye is considered to be either GuardianZ, or someone with a similar viewpoint, or someone mentioned under remedy 2 (''"present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics"''), but as Ebonyskye denies they are GuardianZ, we need to make clear that this proposed remedy applies to Ebonyskye regardless of the truth of the matter. You also say ''"Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account"'' - again, this is only hinting at things here. If this is aimed at Ebonyskye, that needs to be made explicit. I can't support this motion unless Ebonyskye is explicitly mentioned. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 06:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::The aim of the Arbitration/Requests/Clarification was to see if Ebonyskye was able to edit Nox Arcana related articles. The motion above would allow Ebonyskye to edit such articles if Ebonyskye is also GuardianZ; if Ebonyskye is a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics"; or if Ebonyskye was drawn into this by accident. The end result is the same. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
:::I agree with SilkTork's interpretation. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Still a few scenarios not covered, but this is fair enough for now. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
----
*Could "any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban" be changed to "any administrator, other than [name], [name] and [name] who should bring potential infringements to the notice of a neutral aministrator, may reinstate the topic ban". I am not clear if I am an "involved administrator", and others may also wonder. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
::I shall assume that I am an uninvolved admin unless informed otherwise, and so am able to act directly if I notice any problems. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
:::I know of no facts inconsistent with that. Without more, having taken prior enforcement action does not constitute involvement. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Thanks for clarifying that. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<
{{abot}}
Line 872:
:''Passed 10 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)''
Forget for a moment what organization this is: if it were a county government, or a sporting goods manufacturer, or anything else, this individual's Internet access privileges would long since have been curtailed on the organizational side. Wikipedians are volunteers who can (and have) blocked editing access from any organization up to and including the United States House of Representatives.[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Congressional_staff_actions_prompt_Wikipedia_investigation][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A143.231.249.141] It is entirely incidental that in this instance the organization happens to be a religion. It certainly is regrettable that things have had to go so far, and as a gesture of good faith I repeat my standing offer to nominate any Scientologist's biography for deletion upon request, if it meets the ''dead trees standard''.[http://durova.blogspot.com/2009/05/dead-trees-standard.html] If Shutterbug and the Church of Scientology are willing to assume their share of responsibility for the events that led to this impasse, and if they take good faith measures toward correcting the problems that led here, then I would gladly initiate a motion to modify and/or lift the restriction.
:Interesting. Let it be noted that I never endorsed any of the Scientology case workshop proposals to restrict the Church of Scientology from editing, and even spoke up on behalf of Scientologists' religious freedom.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop&oldid=292921824#Shutterbug.2C_Misou.2C_and_other_accounts_found_to_edit_from_Church_of_Scientology_addresses_topic-banned] I mentored Cirt not because of his views, but because he was willing to admit his mistakes and mend his ways. To extend a similar offer toward the other side of this case is not 'propaganda'; it is fairness.
=== Clerk notes ===
| |||