Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 38: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create Tag: Disambiguation links added |
m Fixed tracked syntax errors (obsolete/stripped tags) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 32:
Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]], and [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci's]] pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question.<small> [that is, not related to global warming. It is related to the case on which clarification is sought. 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)]</small> I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
*<small>LessHeard vanU: Thanks. The remaining clarification needed would address situations where I have a pre-existing involvement with an issue, where I am not an uninvolved passer-by "meddling." Later, I'll ask to address the problem of where I'm neutral, uninvolved, but have evidence to present that might be overlooked. I can present it off-wiki, but wouldn't it be better to present it directly? Maybe not!</small>
*<small>Mathsci leads with a claim that I've misrepresented various users, but I noticed little variance between my sketchier account, above, and his more detailed account, below, except he adds some mind-reading and speculation as fact. I did discuss mentorship with GoRight before, but did not consult with him before filing the comment in the climate change RfAr, so "pre-decided arrangement" would be an overstatement. Mathsci correctly reports Ryan's comment, which puzzled me, is Ryan in charge of RfAr? I thought the arbitrators were. The only mention of "vendetta" is here, just above. It means that Mathsci has an axe to grind and is grinding it. As to "cabal," what I called the "cabal" in my case was roughly the same set of editors now accused of ownership of the global warming articles. The two cases are closely connected, which could easily be shown. "Cabal" and "vendetta" are not related. Vendetta is personal. Why was that relatively brief statement in the Climate Change RfAr worth all this email to an arbitrator, administrator, an AE request, etc.? I'd say it's obvious. Vendetta.</small>
*<small>Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes.</small>
*<small>Durova, as usual, hits the nail on the head.</small>
*<small>MastCell's comment is disappointing. I had no intention to test the limits, I was surprised at all this fuss. Sure, I might have interpreted the ban more tightly, but I have difficulty keeping something in mind that I don't understand, and I don't understand the ban, ''why'' it was placed, so I discounted it, thinking that ArbComm couldn't possibly have wanted me to refrain from making a comment where I was so involved.</small>
*<small>General comment about mentor. I have asked Fritzpoll to be my mentor. He had suggested it previously, and I had accepted, but there may now be complications. I'll let Fritzpoll explain it if he considers it prudent. I did not, however, consult Fritzpoll, not imagining that consulting a mentor for the subject statement was necessary. In effect, with my statement, I consulted ArbComm, it was hardly a hidden action! --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)</small>
=== Statement by LessHeard vanU ===
Line 89:
To the new arbitrators: I used to mentor five people. One of them reformed after a long string of edit warring blocks to become a sysop on this site and four other WMF sites. He has become an OTRS volunteer and he serves on the Arbitration Committee of another wiki. Another became a featured content contributor and hasn't been blocked since 2008. There have been other successes. Yet my objections to the 2009 Committee's direction were so strong that I ceased accepting new mentorships and resigned from existing ones.
The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was ''phantom mentorship'': writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background.
:Re: MastCell's statement, his cynicism is a case in point for why mentorship becomes so difficult as an element of arbitration decisions. When a mentorship occurs informally the focus is on its results: does behavior actually improve? Some editors choose mentors well and others choose badly. That shakes itself out. The one essential element that can't be forced is mutual trust. My suggestion is to wish Abd well with his new mentor because that appears to be the only mentor available to him, and either remove mentorship from the formal remedy or rename it, because what it appears the decision was seeking was not a mentor but a screener to preapprove specific kinds of posts. The latter might be a good idea but it isn't mentorship.
=== Statement by MastCell ===
Line 230:
=== Statement by Vecrumba ===
I am commenting only because Four Deuces solicited my presence. Dialog would be better served without observations contending collusion: "''In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject''" which propagates the meme that the editors named were impotent to find the article on their own or express their own opinion. I stated clearly what I thought "Communist genocide", the article, should encompass at the start of the brouhaha.<br> The Cold War meme is that the Soviet Union was behind the spread of all Communism (capital "C"). The reality is that more than one despot perverted communism (small "c") to their self-serving purpose. Where the article in question here and others are concerned, it's up to the editors currently topic banned to show good judgement. It's also up to their editorial opposition to similarly show good judgement.<br> Lastly, to request clarification for hypothetical edits which have not occurred ultimately only invites continued rhetoric. As for myself, I am looking forward to putting my sources regarding Russia to good use outside the area of conflict. I suggest closing this and opening a request for <u>'''clarification'''</u> if and when required based on an ''actual edit'' (and <u>'''not'''</u> open a request for enforcement, which is more often than not an act of bad faith assuming bad faith, i.e., guilty until proven innocent). <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> [[User:Vecrumba|<
: A better mechanism might be for ArbCom to review editor contributions periodically, say monthly, rather than editors generating a potentially endless stream of requests for clarification or enforcement. Or contending [[Aspic]] is an area of geopolitical strife. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> [[User:Vecrumba|<
:: I regret my perception of Nsk92's below that seems to paint the EE conflict as exacerbated by the editors sanctioned as the result of the EEML procedings. Rather than dwell on possibilities of bad faith actions (gaming et al.), I suggest the periodic review to insure keeping heat out of the system in 2010. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> [[User:Vecrumba|<
=== Statement by uninvolved Nsk92 ===
Line 380:
I tried looking into the original reasons for the topic ban (imposed by Raul) but didn't uncover any obvious smoking guns, nor did I find obvious evidence of the type of problematic POV pushing that has been attributed to him. Perhaps I missed it, or it was too subtle to detect for someone not an expert in the subject area. The worst I found was a relatively unpleasant conflict with MONGO.
In the end, I would advocate something in between continuing a total topic ban and a complete lifting of restrictions, perhaps a longer probationary period. I don't see any reason why waiting until April would improve matters however. <strong>[[user:henrik|<
==== Statement by John Vandenberg ====
Line 491:
==== Statement by NuclearWarfare ====
I forwarded an email to the Arbitration Committee (on what gmail says is 1 Jan 2010 13:04:56 -0500; I am assuming that is either 13:04 or 18:04 UTC) that is of relevance to this discussion. Any arbitrators looking over this request for amendment probably should look over that email first. Best wishes, [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
:I note that John believes that my actions were not warranted under the terms of the discretionary sanctions that were voted upon in this case. However, I believe that violating the clean start policy (invoking it while you are in an active ArbCom dispute is a violation of the spirit, if not the wording, of the rule) by editing the same article you were restricted on, would count as disruptive editing, which the article probation is meant to prevent. It does not matter what the edits were, but the fact that he was trying to influence content by posting in response to SD on the talk page without revealing his old account was troubling. I believe that merited a formal topic ban at the very least. However, I would have no problem with the Arbitration Committee or a group of editors on a [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:AE]] reversing my action if they feel that it was excessive. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<
==== Statement by other editor ====
Line 516:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/338711430#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Falun Gong}}
Line 534:
Remedy 1 provides for "article probation" for all articles in the area of conflict. But article probation, as specified at [[WP:GS#Types of sanctions]] ("Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages") only allows article or topic bans. However, in some situations, administrators may wish to impose less drastic measures. For instance, in the open enforcement request at [[WP:AE#Simonm223]], I think that a revert restriction would be more appropriate, at least initially, than a topic ban. Although one might assume that, ''[[a maiore ad minus]]'', the authority to impose a strong sanction such as a topic ban implies the authority to impose lesser sanctions, it is preferable (for the avoidance of doubt and wikilawyering) that such authority be expressly provided for.
I make this request as an administrator active in [[WP:AE]] (again since January 1, having confidence in the new ArbCom), and have no involvement in the original case or in any other disputes concerning Falun Gong. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
==== Statement by Vassyana ====
Line 705:
{{user|Brews ohare}} is permitted to participate in [[WP:FAC|featured article candidacy]] discussions for "[[Speed of light]]" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned|remedy #4.2]]).
'''Enacted''' - ~ <
; Support
Line 730:
{{user|Brews ohare}} is permitted to edit images used in the "[[Speed of light]]" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's [[WP:FAC|featured article candidacies]]. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Brews_ohare_topic_banned|remedy #4.2]]).
'''Enacted''' - ~ <
; Support
Line 752:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/340497313#Request to amend prior case: EEML (2)|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by '''
; Case affected : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list Eastern European mailing list]
Line 770:
:''The applicability of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users in general is confirmed for this request, and in particular, Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem and Durova have permission to proxy for Piotrus by editing the [[Lech Wałęsa]] article, its talk page, and at process pages directly related to the Good Article request.''
Malik Shabazz and Xavexgoem should be adding their agreement to this proposal shortly, and Piotrus should be emailing the Committee to affirm his endorsement of this request. Respectfully submitted,
=== Statement by Xavexgoem ===
Line 788:
==== Motions ====
:''(There being 17 arbitrators, of which 1 is inactive and 1 is recused, 8 is a majority)''<small>~ <
1) Proxy authorization
Line 966:
====Motions====
:''(There being 17 arbitrators, of which 2 are inactive and 1 is recused, 8 is a majority)''<small>~ <
1) Topic ban narrowed
Line 1,133:
{{user|Abd}} and {{user|William M. Connolley}} shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.
'''Enacted''' ~ <
; Support
| |||