Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 29: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix font tag lint errors |
||
Line 82:
If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.
No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. —[[User:Mythdon|<
===== Note by Mythdon =====
I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. —[[User:Mythdon|<
===== Additional questions by Mythdon =====
In term D, it states:
:''Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Wikipedia until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.''
While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. —[[User:Mythdon|<
After the mentors appointment, in regards to ''"...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval."'', would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards ''"...approval for every single comment"''. —[[User:Mythdon|<
===Non-statement by [[User:Stifle|Stifle]]===
Line 135:
;Statement by Xeno
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2|PeterSymond's re-RFA]] nearly broached [[WP:200]] and had less than 8% opposition. While I don't know if the community feels the same way about these two, clearly we were willing to forgive the temporary lapse in judgment on Peter's part, I would hazard a guess the same is true here. –[[user:xeno|<
;Statement by Jennavecia
Line 434:
We have a number of accounts hanging around— some new, some set up before the ArbCom case but not used much—who are arriving to thwart normal editing in various ways. One of them, {{user|User:Hadashot Livkarim}}, was recently found to belong to {{user|NoCal100}}, who had been topic-banned during the recent case. Under the current rules, it is difficult to get a CU done unless we already think we know who the account belongs to. I have just requested a CU on {{user|LuvGoldStar}}, an obvious sock or meatpuppet, and was told by a clerk that it would violate the "no-fishing" rule: see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuvGoldStar]]. But I have no idea who's behind it, and it really doesn't matter. If we can't act against an account like that, then we're basically powerless to stop the kind of highly partisan editing the latest ArbCom case acted against. Editors on the I/P pages shouldn't be expected to spend hours or days analysing edits to come up with a suspicion to justify a CU, when it's obvious at a glance that the account isn't a legitimate one.
Two things would help enormously: (1) if checkusers could be told the normal "no fishing" policy is eased when it comes to I/P articles, and (2) if admins could be reminded that checkuser and other evidence isn't always necessary: that if a new account, or an account with very few edits, is acting in a highly partisan manner on the I/P pages, admins may consider blocking it under the reasonable suspicion that it's a topic-banned editor returned, or an account acting as a meatpuppet. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
==== Response to Vassyana ====
Line 447:
:*Secondly, advice to admins to be more aggressive in topic-banning accounts with very few edits who conveniently turn up to revert or add support for a position. A statement such as, "The Committee hereby invites administrators to pay special attention to new accounts, or old accounts with few recent contributions, who arrive to focus on specific positions at the Israel-Palestine pages, and to have no hesitation in topic-banning them." That one sentence would make a huge difference.
:The IP articles are in a mess. Specifically, material offering the Palestinian perspective is not being fairly represented. It is left out entirely, or it is added in a mealy-mouthed fashion so that the sense of it gets lost. I say this as someone who is not known as a pro-Palestinian editor—far from it, so I'm not simply trying to make things easier for "my POV." I'm genuinely interested in finding a way to enforce the ''real'' meaning of NPOV, which is the representation of ''all'' majority and significant-minority POVs in reliable sources (preferably historians in this area), even the POVs that make certain editors uncomfortable. NPOV does ''not'' mean that everything on Wikipedia must be acceptable to right-wing Israelis. I'm sorry if that's an inappropriate way to put it, but it's the bottom line. There are a small number of editors on the I/P articles who just want to be allowed to write articles, using scholarly sources, in whatever direction those sources take us. But we need help from the ArbCom. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
=== Statement by IronDuke ===
I don't see this as being particularly useful, aside from it violating [[WP:AGF]] and[[WP:BITE]]. You will, at best, generate a more sophisticated generation of socks. Why not use the ARBPIA sanction process already in place? Indeed, I wonder why it wasn't used on the editors involved in the Judea Samaria case -- much needless waste of talent on both sides would have been avoided, as well as the apparently very great temptation to sock. [[User:IronDuke|<
=== Statement by ChrisO ===
| |||