Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 61: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix font tag lint errors |
m fix lint issues |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
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 138:
=== 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)
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)
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|<
::#
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)
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 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 853:
*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
| |||