Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 27: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:14, 27 March 2022

Latest revision as of 17:31, 3 March 2023

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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">Ryan</fontspan> <fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">Postlethwaite</fontspan>]]^{See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]}''' 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

=== 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.--<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Celtic;">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]_{''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''}</fontspan> 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===

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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

::[[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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:::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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 11:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

::::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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

===Statement by Fred Bauder===

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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:::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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 08:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:::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|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Script MT"; color=":#1111AA"; font-size="2:small;">SilkTork</fontspan>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|^YES!]]</span> 08:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

{{abot}}