Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 61: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. |
m fix lint issues |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 87:
=== Statement by NuclearWarfare ===
I took a quick look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Lyncs&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 Lyncs' 100 most recent article space edits]. The edits seem to be fine, but they go back quite far (Aug 2011) and aren't incredibly substantial so there isn't a lot of history to examine. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<
=== Statement by Cirt ===
Line 122:
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* I believe the clerks are preparing to close these motions, with only the first carrying (and the second and third being unsuccessful, as arithmetically impossible). [[User:AGK|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Question to Lyncs: Does your request include termination of the one-account restriction? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting statements from the community that what Lyncs believes is appropriately acceptable behavior is indeed so perceived by the community. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
* The argument to end the unban restrictions is not compelling, and given the absence of discretionary sanctions for this topic I am therefore reluctant to allow Lyncs' (Justallofthem) appeal. However, I too will await statements by the community (if any are to come) before adjudging. [[User:AGK|<
:* Standard discretionary sanctions apply to this topic. I am therefore minded to vacate the existing sanctions, even with the appellant's limited edits this year. A motion to this effect could be proposed if my colleagues are of the same mind. [[User:AGK|<
*I have to admit the lack of contributions to base the solving of past issues concerns me greatly. If I had to vote now, it would be to decline, but waiting for more comments first. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 04:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline for now''': ask again when you've made substantially more edits perhaps? [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 134:
* While I would prefer to see more editing in a range of topics, I believe that the ARBSCI discretionary sanctions would apply in this case, and would likely be sufficient. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
*Sort of willing to let the topic ban go at this time, but not then other two restrictions. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 18:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
*It is problematic that there are so few edits from which to make an assessment; however, in the absence of concerns from the community, a lifting of the Scientology topic ban seems acceptable as time has passed and we have been lifting restrictions for other editors; also, there are discretionary sanctions in place as well as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas SPA remedy] to deal with any improper editing. I don't see a need to lift the restriction on using one account, given the low level of activity in the single account; and lifting the interaction ban would be best done in consultation with Cirt - preferably after a period of positive editing. In conclusion, I would decline lifting the interaction ban and the one account restriction, but would not oppose lifting the topic ban. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
=== Motions: Scientology (Lyncs) ===
:
For reference, the current restrictions on {{user|Lyncs}} (who previously edited as {{user|Justanother}} and {{user|Justallofthem}}) are:
Line 167:
:; Support
:#Proposed. [[User:AGK|<
:# The discretionary sanctions are enough of a "Safety net" to make this worth a shot. Would have liked to see more edits, nut it is what it is. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 00:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:# Per Courcelles. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:# In the unlikely event there are fresh COFS probelms, DS can take care of the. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:# In the absence of a compelling reason to continue the restriction I support this; while the meagre edits are a concern, the sanctions in place should deal with any problems. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:# Courcelles sums up my thoughts.
:# [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
:# With the firm reminder that the topic-ban can be reinstated through enforcement of discretionary sanctions, or by motion of this Committee, in the hopefully unlikely event this becomes necessary. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 197:
:; Oppose
::#I view this as less significant to the wider appeal, and by his own admission so too does the appellant, but I propose this anyway in the event that there is a belief that the restriction is also no longer necessary. (I oppose because of the history of socking, but would not oppose a further amendment to remove this condition at some later time.) [[User:AGK|<
::#No case for lifting this has been made. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]]
::# Premature to ask for this to be among the first sanctions lifted. In general, the "only one account" should be the ''last'' sanction lifted, such that the community can clearly scrutinize all legal edits from the one editor in order to assess the relaxed sanctions' effectiveness. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 06:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::# [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::# '''[[User:SilkTork|<
::# Agree with Courcelles - I'd be willing to relax the restriction if there was a good reason, but otherwise, prefer to keep it in place for now. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::# Since Lyncs isn't really pressing for this restriction to be lifted at this time (see his response to my question), I don't think this step is necessary. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 212:
:; Comments by arbitrators
::*Just speaking personally, for good cause, I'd be willing to ''modify'' the restriction, say if Lyrics wanted to run a bot. But not lift it. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 15:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Good point. Yes. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
==== Motion: To vacate interaction ban (Lyncs) ====
Line 221:
:; Support
::#Proposed, per Lyncs' request (and Bishonen's reminder, above). I missed that Lyncs has asked for the interaction ban to be vacated too. In supporting this motion, my own thinking is that I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the same problems that existed at the time of the ''Scientology'' case will exist today (if the interaction ban is removed), but of course I do expect Lyncs to understand that, if this motion carries and we end up with more of the same mistreatment of Cirt, he will be appropriately sanctioned by further amendments. [[User:AGK|<
::#
:; Oppose
::#I'd like to see a period of positive edits and behaviour - a proper bedding in, before lifting this restriction. As Cirt is currently restricted from the topic area this gives Lyncs a breathing space to re-establish himself. I'd be happy to revisit this request after 3 months, or whenever there is a sufficient evidence of calm interaction and consensus building with other users. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
::# At the moment, I'd prefer to just remove the topic ban, and see how things progress from there. If after a few months of removing the topic ban, all is well, we could revisit this issue. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::#Per Phil. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 01:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
::# Also prefer to give Lyncs the time to re-establish himself/herself as an editor. No prejudice to a future appeal in a few months of effective editing and interaction with other editors. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
::#Per Phil.
::#Per SilkTork, PhilKnight, and Risker. And like them, I'd be willing to revisit this in due course. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
::#Per Phil [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 22:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Line 420:
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* The question raised in this clarification request was relatively simple to begin with, and appears to have been answered in depth by several arbitrators. Therefore, this request can probably be archived in a day or two by any available clerk (barring substantial submissions by more of my colleagues). Thanks, [[User:AGK|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Line 426:
* I think Roger is essentially correct, however if Anthonyhcole continues in this manner, the next stage should be filing a report at WP:AE, which would likely result in a topic ban. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
** Anthonyhcole's comment about the 'autistic/psychopathic orientation' is completely unacceptable, and I'm beginning to think that a lengthy topic ban is required. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 15:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* "Could the committee please clarify for me whether there is a ban in place on discussing the curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad?": No such ban exists. However, if your behaviour becomes disruptive you may be appropriately sanctioned in a [[WP:AE|request for enforcement]]. To the other commentators, this extended dialogue is irrelevant to the question of whether Anthonyhcole is currently subject to restriction, and any concern about his behaviour should be directed to the enforcement noticeboard. In any enforcement proceedings, extensive discussion about AHCole's conduct should be avoided. Enforcing arbitration decisions on contentious articles is quite difficult enough without a crowd of editors shouting "Off with his head!". [[User:AGK|<
:* Chowbok, I find your statement inherently unhelpful. [[User:AGK|<
* Per PhilKnight, a topic ban for Anthonyhcole may be appropriate. In addition to what's mentioned above, I find "...the reader's understanding of the life of the prophet (pbuh)" inappropriate. Muhammad is not "the prophet" to Wikipedia, nor are honorifics appropriate per [[WP:PBUH]], and the notion that Anthonyhcole brought his own conduct up ''himself'' would tend to indicate he sees nothing wrong with carrying on in such a manner on a talk page. While I applaud the religious diversity Wikipedia supports, our purpose is to write an NPOV encyclopedia, and editors who argue strenuously with the community on the basis of their own personal convictions can readily cross the line into disruptive editing--not for the use of honorifics, but for the tenacity which they strive to make Wikipedia into their own preferred image. The same could be said of any religious fundamentalist so set on one worldview that he or she strives to avoid an NPOV presentation of a topic touched on by his or her beliefs, of course. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
**To respond to my colleagues' points below, I do believe that any POV language, even that with benign inherent religious assumptions, is inappropriate for use in a mixed audience like Wikipedia, and that the use of such language is not in keeping with our expectations of collegiality. Asking "How can we best portray Our Lord?" on [[Talk:Jesus]] would be equally inappropriate from a Christian. We should tolerate such language from new editors, provided it is not excessively inflammatory, while educating them about the expectations of civil discourse. But then, I believe that use of CE/BCE language is more appropriate than either BC/AD or [[Hijri year|AH]] dating for an NPOV encyclopedia, a view which has not been endorsed wholeheartedly by the community, per [[WP:ERA]]. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
*There is no ban on appropriate discussion, but there has long been a ban on people [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]], that is either in making comments that are intended to stir up discontent, or in opening up formal procedures just to make a point. At some point each one of us on Wikipedia has disagreed with a decision made; however, the nature of the project is that it operates by consensus - it has to operate by consensus otherwise we would be forever consumed by dispute; so when a decision is made that we disagree with, we accept it and move on. I suggest you either accept the consensus or edit away from that topic if it upsets you. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I believe that Anthonyhcole has received guidance from the comments above, although perhaps not the specific advice he was hoping for. To recapitulate, the community has decided that some images will remain present on [[Muhammad]], and that consensus should be respected for the foreseeable future. Disagreement with the consensus may be expressed as appropriate, but in a non-disruptive and non-tendentious manner. I hope Anthonyhcole will now take this message to heart, so that enforcement action, as sought by some of the commenters and suggested by some of my colleagues, will not be necessary. On a separate point, responding to Jclemens, a believer's use of honorifics or the term "prophet" in referring to Muhammad ''on talkpages'' does not by itself, in my view, constitute a problem. As this Committee decided in a 2006 case, "Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims." [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
*Nothing really more to be said, but chiming in to agree with my colleagues above, and with Newyorkbrad that collegiate talk page discussion does not require the removal or deliberate avoidance of honorifics.
{{abot}}
Line 512:
I was one of the editors who offered evidence for this sanction [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Workshop#Malleus Fatuorum topic banned|in the first place]]. Since it has been enacted, I have found that it is not fit for purpose. Specifically, it can be used to silence Malleus Fatuorum by moving discussions on a vote to the talk page - so long discussions sometimes remain on the RfA. The focus should be at [[WT:RfA]] specifically, which is where (in my opinion) the disruption occurred, not the subpages. I should also note that no uninvolved administrator has yet topic banned Malleus from a specific RfA (to the best of my knowledge). I would propose shortening the remedy to <br><br>
''Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.''<br><br>
I do not see the rest of the remedy as useful. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;
:I'm unimpressed at what this has turned into since I made my initial comment. Whilst I still stand by my comments, I do not approve of this request turning into what it's turned into. Yet another little drama fest, over nothing, with intense labelling by both sides. I'm seeing the merits of Volunteer Mark's Alpha or Omega options - though I'd suggest that administrators deserve blocks just as much as non-admins in Omega. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;
=== Statement by Br'er Rabbit ===
Line 522:
=== Statement by [[User:Equazcion|Equazcion]]===
I wanted to comment on {{diff|User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|500633874|500633345|this diff}}, that [[User:Br'er Rabbit]] brought above. I've had to fix a lot of edit conflict messes from other editors, as they generally result in text getting inserted into the header of a page. I've never seen anything end up erroneously within another person's comment. I accept Malleus' eventual explanation that this was indeed a technical error, but I don't think there was reason to assume anything either way when Fram contacted Malleus. My first thought on seeing an edit like Malleus' would have indeed been to see how the editor would explain it when confronted. Fram {{diff|User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|500633072|500630933|presented the matter}} without any accusatory demeanor, but simply asked that the edit be corrected. There was no baiting. Malleus nevertheless chose not to explain anything until the matter was brought to ANI, and instead responded with stonewalling and insults until then.
:I'd like to reply to all the present and inevitable comments that start with ''"I'm not excusing his behavior, but..."'': Yes, you are excusing it, in all the ways that matter.
Line 534:
:There was a [[Family Guy]] episode where some high school students were standing around trying to think of something to do. One suggested, ''"Hey, want to go push the janitor, knowing he can't legally push us back?"'' Enter Malleus, our very own high school student, who gets to push us around whilst exploiting the fact that we can't push back -- and if we do, all the better for him.
:So before we yet again say ''"I don't excuse him, but [insert comment that excuses him],"'' let's think. A little more than usual this time.
'''@Parrot of Doom:''' I'll make you a deal: If consensus is that that comment of mine you linked to is indeed on the level of Malleus' behavior, I'll gun for an indefinite block for both Malleus and myself.
'''@Volunteer Marek:''' If mirroring sanctions on another person from the other side should somehow make enacting them on Malleus easier, I hereby volunteer. I'd take a three-month ban, so long as Malleus gets it too. I'll gladly give up three months of my wiki-life to give three months of reprieve to the rest of Wikipedia from Malleus' vitriol. Yeah yeah, content creation, but I actually think maintaining the right environment is more important than retaining one good content creator. The former has the potential to retain more content creators and general positive contributions. Or you can ban us both from all corners of RfA, though admittedly I tend to stay away from there on my own already.
:PS. No part of this is a joke. I'd do it.
'''@Ched:''' ''If'' it could be said that every time Malleus calls someone a twat it's because someone else prodded him into it, then this has happened enough times that we can say Malleus is far too easily prodded. It takes two to tango. Being prodded, if it has happened (and I'm definitely not saying it has), is not an excuse for the type of behavior Malleus exhibits. I get prodded all the time, as do others, and none of us react that way. We're under the impression that we're expected to control ourselves and not fly off the handle whenever an excuse comes along. Either we're all mistaken and are actually welcome to act like children when someone presents the opportunity, or we're not and Malleus needs a clear and broad edict to shape up or suffer a lasting consequence.
'''@Pesky:''' Calling the other side the "out-to-get-Malleus brigade," in same post where you say you're sick of polarizing name-calling from us such as "fan club," etc, is pretty vexing. And in response to this exchange:
Line 547:
::''"Where's that 'vicious dog' comic strip again? [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky</span>]]"''
:I find these dismissive characterizations just as "uncivil" as the "names" you point out. A characterization doesn't have to be in the form of a name in order to have the same exact mocking effect you describe in your statement.
=== Statement by Parrot of Doom ===
Line 662:
=== Statement by Volunteer Marek ===
All of you, find something better to do. [[User:Volunteer Marek|<
Oh screw it, I'll tell you what I really think.
Line 688:
So just say it. "We are not going to do crap to anybody because taking an actual stance on this insanely stupid controversy would endanger our chances in the next ArbCom election or might otherwise piss off too many people. Hence we will follow the usual way of The Wikipedia and make pronouncements and pontificate but otherwise do nothing. Thank you for playing, see you next time, but please try, just try to realize how pathetic all of this is". If the ArbCom can just take a leading messianic role in admitting it's ineffectualness and patheticness in the circumstances of this case, perhaps others will too, and sincere heartfelt chest beating ''mea culpas'' will result. And the sound of a thousand fists beating against a thousand guilty chest will drown out the wolf cries of the githyanki and usher in a new scarlet dawn of a new millen .... ah sorry, getting lost there. Basically, maybe it will be enough to make at least some of the people involved - Malleus and his friends, his enemies, random passerbys and the ArbCom itself, and hey, me too - stop and think "Wow! I'm being a petty idiotic shit here".
[[User:Volunteer Marek|<
=== Statement by Tarc ===
Line 724:
===Statement by Ched===
As long as the Arbitration Committee condones (by lack of asserting a firm hand) this childish behavior of provoking and prodding established editors then this type of drama can be expected to continue. I'll agree that Malleus could have easily turned the tide with a "wasn't intended, feel free to fix it" rather than the {{tl|sofixit}} approach. On the other hand; Fram is no N00b here .. he knew full well what he was doing, and the ''It turns out to be quite telling.'' comment was a direct and pointed bait of something that Malleus has said before. Br'er Rabbit and Drimes pretty much nailed the basics above here. And in a sense I agree with NY Brad in the "Not impressed" comment - except that I /AM/ impressed ... just not in a positive way. As long as the committee allows these children to run amok tormenting people who actually contribute valuable content to the project - then you'll have to be prepared to deal with this juvenile drivel from the "puling masses". If you cater to these immature editors rather than offering a firm guiding hand .. then expect to hold court to "Lord of the Flies". It's up to you folks .. I really don't care anymore. But if you're gonna sit "on high" and pass judgment, then ya damn well ought to step back and be objective. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<
: {{Like|I've been ''trying'' to convince people of that for ''years''. —[[User:Br'er Rabbit|Jack Merridew]] 00:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}}
Line 735:
===Statement by LadyofShalott===
Dreamguy said, "I also regularly see him ignoring or arguing against well-established concepts of our WP:NPOV policy like WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to advance particular (and peculiar) viewpoints." What!? I've never seen Malleus do that, nor do I think I've even seen that alleged about him before. Diffs are required for such a strong claim of wrongdoing. <
=== Statement by [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner|Pesky]] ===
I'm only butting in here to pick up on the point (already noticed) about anyone who's not <s>in the out-to-get-Malleus brigade</s> <ins>at the far end of this (and similar) deeply polarising situations</ins> being referred to as "fan club", "enthusiast", "enabler", and all those other derogatory, demeaning, belittling [add thesaurus here] terms which are so often '''uncivilly''' slung about every time something like this rears its head again. It's both (in many cases) completely untrue, and (in most cases) pathetically polarising and moronic. Yes, moronic.<p>'''Name-calling is incivility.''' And it's ''still'' incivility when the names are "enthusiast", "enabler", "fan club", "supporter", or anything else along those lines. And, personally, I'm ''sick'' of being called names like this by people who either don't "know", me or ''hardly'' "know" me, every time there's a conflict. Doesn't ''anyone'' accept the possibility that there are actually some good-faith editors in here who'd really like this stuff to be approached in a mature, reasonable, flexible-minded, mediated, think-outside-the-box, ''constructive'' (as opposed to destructive) way? So, Arbs, please take note of all the unwarranted personal attacks on the motives, credibility, and personality of the intellectually mature and constructive. And take a good hard look at '''this''' kind of incivility which is undermining the strengths of what is allegedly an intellectually-mature society. It's insidious. It's pervasive. It's contemptible. And it's increasing. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk</span>]]) 10:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 766:
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
:This is a reminder to all editors that they should comment in their own sections only. [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' --[[User:Guerillero|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Line 774:
* I'm not impressed by some of the user conduct here, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would improve the situation, so I don't support action on this request. Regarding the broader situation, I suppose the takeaway is that those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to spend too-large portions of their wikilives on the arbitration pages. What I have said to Malleus Fatuorum before, and now repeat, is that I respect his view that serious editors should spend most of their wikitime on content creation, but the way in which his wordings sometimes inflame and prolong disputes has predictable effects that are inconsistent with that goal, and if for this reason alone, he should reconsider his approach. (It is well-known that Malleus Fatuorum has low regard for me, so he may not take my thoughts seriously, but that is neither here nor there.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
**On my talkpage, Malleus Faturoum has disagreed with the last sentence of my comment. That being that case, I hope he will give the balance of what I have said very careful attention. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
*I've looked back at Malleus's RfA contributions since August last year and I find that he engages in a robust manner, joining in as well as initiating discussions, and sometimes picking out points in other people's comments and responding to them. Other than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryan_Vesey&diff=500631559&oldid=500631370 this] I have found no other clear instances of incivility, and no clear evidence of Malleus doing worse than other regular RfA commentators. I have seen him being accused of badgering when joining in a discussion thread or asking for clarification of someone's comment. However, RfA is a discussion process, and sometimes it is helpful to engage with others in that discussion to clarify their views - this is not badgering. While I feel it is worthwhile to offer a reminder/warning to Malleus to ensure that comments he makes ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia are not personalised in a manner that any reasonable person would read as insulting and unnecessary (such as "you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought"), I don't think his general involvement in RfA is such to make a restriction. If people are concerned about the robustness and general tone of discussions on RfA, that is a matter for everyone, not just one user. I'm not in favour of this amendment, and I feel that "should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA" is sufficient, and encourage admins to carry this out and Malleus to accept that if he insults someone in an RfA he will be told to take no further part in it. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I'm getting the impression everyone's moving on. Ultimately the main thing is that the big wheels' keep on churning. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
*I think Silk's points are worth taking to heart. Banning a user from a discussion process on account of their behavior does not address the root of the issue in any way; editors should be held to the same standards of conduct no matter where they are on the project. I encourage uninvolved admins to use the case remedies as necessary.
{{abot}}
Line 807:
* As it says on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|tin]], "All sanctions imposed under the provisions of a particular arbitration case are to be logged in the appropriate section of the case page". [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
*The existence of discretionary sanctions doesn't change the ability of admins to hand out standard, garden-variety edit-warring blocks. Of course, whether a block is filed as an AE block or not does change whether the restrictions on removing an AE block come into play. But there is nothing in the rules that ''requires'' a block that could be filed as an AE one be so filed. But, if an IP is going to be sanctioned under AE, the paperwork must be done, just as if it was an account that is blocked. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the templated notification is basically an individual "heads up" regarding the different conditions some articles operate under, and not some form of indictment of wrong-doing. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
* An admin may elect to use AE sanctions or community sanctions according to their judgement of the circumstances, so Fut.Perf.'s explanation seems reasonable. Where Fut.Perf may have erred, was in not responding to a legitimate query as to his actions as admins are [[WP:ADMINACCT|accountable]] for their actions: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." However, as it was the same day as posting the question that this clarification was opened, it's possible that Nug may have been a little impatient, and a second request to Fut.Perf. would have been more in keeping with the collegiate environment we attempt to create. There is no obligation on any user to answer queries in any particular order, and it is not uncommon for people to work upwards on their talkpage rather than downwards, or even to miss a query if a second one came in quickly. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I pretty much agree with Courcelles and SilkTork. In any event, this seems moot now, as the static IP has been warned as well. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
----
Line 847:
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
*Agree with Hersfold. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
**Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - [[User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js]] - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
**Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow [[WP:DATERET]], as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
**Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
*Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. [[User:AGK|<
*While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
* I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him? [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 935:
#Support, but again, just as we have "standard discretionary sanctions" for topic area, I suspect the time is right to have a list of "politically disputed geographic areas" and place all such features under a consistent set of restrictions. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
# I'm ok with this, however it would be preferable just to say 'the island of Cyprus', which would include the British bases that are neither part of Cyprus the country or North Cyprus. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
#We are refusing to expand the discretionary sanctions to this obviously problematic sub-topic because there has not yet been a full case. However, if such a case was opened, the result would almost certainly be to authorise discretionary sanctions anyway. We are not talking about customised, targeted remedies, but our catch-all, standardised DSs which are designed to allow chronic problems to be handled through enforcement. Although some clear differences exist, there is enough overlap between these geographical entities for me to feel comfortable in taking the short route; we don't need to arrive at the obvious outcome by means of a protracted, difficult case. (I wouldn't go as far as JCl. and say that we need to start authorising DSs for every nationalist dispute; the community can do that should it see fit.) [[User:AGK|<
;Oppose
Line 942:
#I appreciate the [[WP:BOLD]] approach in the motion, as well as RichWales' concerns that there are problems in this topic-area, but on balance I find myself agreeing more with Risker's and Hersfold's points, at least at this stage. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
# I'm also not prepared to either expand existing sanctions to include new geographical areas without a case or to expand the geographical bounds of the Balkans so radically that it includes Cyprus. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
# If there are concerns which the community cannot deal with then let us have a proper case to examine the issues. If the concerns are not yet sufficient to involve the Committee then I prefer that we do not summarily or pre-emptively use Committee protection. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
# Per Silk and Risker. Applying the same remedies to different issues without a case seems like a good way of enflaming the issue rather than addressing it.
# I was going to support in the interests of utiliity but the more I think about it, the more I think we need to hear a proper case about the issue if concerns have arisen, rather than expand sanctions from a geographically similar but non-identical scenario. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
| |||