Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:08, 3 June 2007

Arbitrators active on this case

• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Morven
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away:

• Blnguyen
• Neutrality
• Paul August
• Raul654

Comments

Contradictory? Unclear? Why are we having this discussion? Has the ArbCom started policing private channels of communication? This is plain ridiculous. Do I need to point out various instances where communication over IRC was rejected as any kind of evidence by the ArbCom? Please judge us solely on what we do here on Misplaced Pages. Note to clerks: Please do NOT remove this message. This needs to be read by each and every arbitrator. We're not a banana republic, and there has to be accountability on each and every function of the ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick 04:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're on the verge of closing without remedies for that very reason. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mack, and what about the on-wiki evidence that I have produced? Please do take a look – . — Nearly Headless Nick 17:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mackensen et al - I don't care what other stuff y'all decide on, you have to settle the question of whether the blocks were justified or not. Apart from the e-mail evidence, substantial on-wiki evidence has been provided over Bakasuprman, D-Boy and Sbhushan's disruptive activitis and tag-teaming with Hkelkar's socks. If you don't settle that question, you will not have answered the central issue that brought all this to ArbCom. If you don't, I am personally inclined to reinstate the blocks (which were removed only for this case) based on the evidence provided and the ANI consensus - and that is not gonna be devoid of controversy. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  Is some aspect of "the Committee is unable to determine whether the various allegations made regarding the involved parties are accurate" unclear? Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - it is "unclear" why "the Committee" is not giving its opinion on the on-wiki evidence presented to substantiate the case. There are more than 50 diffs presented regarded Baka, D-Boy and Sbhushan's disruptive editing and tag-teaming with Hkelkar's socks. I can understand if you don't want to deal with the question of e-mail evidence, but this is on-wiki evidence. And P.S. - Lokshin, lose the attitude, ok? You and your precious "Committee" had no hesitation in ignoring my request for guidance, which could have prevented this mess. What makes you think you have any right to lecture me now? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have some respect for all the hard work, tension and headache taken up by Baka, D-Boy, Sbhushan, Abecedare, myself, DaGizza and Sir Nick to present their cases to the best of their abilities. You and your pompous Committee have said nothing, done nothing to help resolve this issue, acted irresponsibly by ignoring my request for guidance and now you are telling us that hours of work digging up diffs and configuring e-mails and arguing on workshops and soul-searching about one's purpose on Misplaced Pages is for nothing? 1-2 cop-out proposals, 1-2 wise ass comments and we're done, eh? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And for God's sake, there is a bloody direct precedence with the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan and Hkelkar 1 - you can't even uphold your own line of judgment and decisions. The same parties have been involved in 3-4 ArbCom cases and other failed ArbCom requests - get ready for yet another case over exactly the same issues in a month's time. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is even a single diff of Sbhushan's tag-team with Hkelkar's sock? Here is a diff of Rama's Arrow's defending Hkelkar's sock ; Fowler has provide more evidence of RA with Hkelkar's sock. So who is meatpuppet of Hkelkar? On one point I agree with Rama's Arrow, don't leave us in limbo. Rama's Arrow should be held responsible for his mudslinging and abuse of admin power. On different note please resolve the dispute with Dbachmann. I have tried all options; spend six months trying to resolve this. After last rejection of ArbCom request, Dbachmann undid months of work and that is disruptive behavior. Dbachmann is creating this battleground on wikipedia. It is NOT a content dispute. Wishing the problem to go away, will not make it go away, it will just get worse.Sbhushan 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And the pissing contest that the workshop and evidence pages became -- "You suck! "no, you suck!" "no, you're an asshole!" "no, YOU'RE the asshole" -- is hardly making it better, and I've had trouble finding a single contributor to either that seems worth listening to for more than a paragraph. From what I can tell, every single one of you should be blocked for activities not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. --jpgordon 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Jp? :))) It will be fun to see you defend your decisions on ANI, and then ArbCom! LOL Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The fun thing is that I don't have to. --jpgordon 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be cool with getting blocked as long as Rama's Arrow and DaGizza receive the same penalties and are no longer admins.--D-Boy 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think arbcom is acting correctly. Rama can point us to unicorns, meatpuppetry, East Dakota whatever he wants. Whatever. As soon as my name is cleared of these opprobrious nonsense, I'm WP:VANISH.Bakaman 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Word.--D-Boy 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • If you people want to keep up this bickering on the Workshop, go right ahead. It doesn't belong here. This is all part of the problem and in no way furthers a solution. Thank you. --jpgordon 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)'

Admin actions between parties barred

I would like some clarification about this proposed remedy. As there are 9 parties involved in this case including me, does it pertain to all the admins named? I do not really understand why I was named as an involved party as the only way I was involved was through endorsing Nirav's actions at ANI along with a host of other admins who have not been named as involved parties. If I can take the liberty of saying so, my admin actions have never been considered to be biased in any manner. Could the arbcom consider excluding my name from the involved parties, or excluding me from this remedy? Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you might move to be removed as a party? Oh Wise Arbcom Clerk: is that how it works? --jpgordon 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to list specifically the admins you intend to cover by the remedy. It appears that Aski_great has not blocked any of the parties before, and no one presented evidence against him or made workshop proposals against him. In that case you might reword the remedy as follows:

As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this dispute (Rama's Arrow, Sir Nicholas, Dbachman and DaGizza) are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Thatcher131 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I never took any admin action against the parties involved and my name was dragged into the dispute for no reason at all. I would also like to add my disagreement to what Aksi great writes there. It is true that he has not made any controversial blocks against the parties; we cannot ignore the fact that he chose to accept Rama's Arrow's email evidence (without looking at it) as a reason to block the aggrieved parties, which was ill-advised in my opinion. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom should also note that Aksi great was an involved party in the original Hkelkar case. This should not be apprehended as a criticism of Aksi great. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the facts (which I only glanced at) I think the most efficient way for the arbitrators to include or exclude editors from remedies is to name them specifically in the remedy itself. Thatcher131 06:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly one way of doing it. Another would be to refer to "administrators in this case who have previously been in conflict with another party...." See also my comments on User talk:Morven regarding the wording. Regards, Newyorkbrad 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Thatcher's idea is much better as your version still leaves a lot of ambiguity. It still leaves upto the administrators involved to see if they were in conflict with the other users which has always been the case. I have no problem with the first sentence "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in." as that is normal practice. The second sentence is where the problem is, especially the "under no circumstances" part. It would be best if the AC does mention the names of administrators part of the remedy. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity it is because as administrators you're expected to be able to use your brains and work out if you are too involved. I would suggest that it is likely that if any administrator listed as a party to this case used administrative powers against any other party, it would be interpreted by some as being too involved. Err on the side of caution. You are expected to be able to behave appropriately. You are not children and we are not parents. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am trying to say. If ultimately I have to work it out by myself (something which I have always done), what is the need of an explicit proposal barring me from blocking anyone involved in this case "under no circumstances"? There is no evidence against me, none of my blocks have been controversial, and I consider myself capable of "using my brains" as nicely put by you :). As I have said before, could the AC consider a proposal removing me from the list of involved parties as suggested by Jpgordon, or consider explicitly stating the names of administrators to be restricted under the proposed remedy as stated by Thatcher? - Aksi_great (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You can start that off yourself. In the Workshop, the first thing is "Motions and requests by the parties". Request to be removed from the case. --jpgordon 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the ArbCom could analyse acceptable evidence themselves and propose findings of facts. Nishkid and myself have been charged of "meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry" and teaming with some other users who were blocked. No evidence has been produced with regards to that. The blocks of Cindery, an ED troll, were endorsed by the community (RA archived the thread himself), pertained to real life harrassment of Samir. The blocks of Kuntan/Clt13 was endorsed unanimously by 42 members of the community, and have been brought up as a part of some dirt-digging venture. Reminding administrators (who have not blocked involved parties) is self-contradictory. Only two admins in this case have taken actions against involved parties, pertaining to the issues raised in this case, and those are Rama's Arrow and Dbachmann.

• The ArbCom should define/redefine meatpuppetry
• The ArbCom should highlight the role of administrators/users in this dispute through a proposed findings of fact etc. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

nex of res publica

<personal attacks removed>

This commentary with allusions to "tyrants and rapists" and scads of personal attacks is unwelcome on the arbitration pages, certainly in any case that I am clerking. Take it to your talkpage if you must, or better yet, don't. Newyorkbrad 23:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, these personal attacks are not helping the case by any means. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)