Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:12, 9 December 2006

I was not in conflict with Ryulong

Dmcdevit said: Konstable was in conflict with Ryulong (talk • contribs) at the time. - no I wasn't. You can ask Ryulong himself to verify this, we were on good terms with no argument at the time (in fact look here for our conversation a couple of days prior to this - we were on friendly terms more than anything), there was some disagreement after AltUser - which happened after Ryushort. We are still are on good terms now by the way.--Konstable II 01:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 01:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Although the sole remedy that is going to pass in this case has nothing to do with this incident, I have checked the logs and they confirm Konstable's statement that the "Ryushort" attack account was created before he created "AltUser." Since there is no allegation or evidence that Konstable was ever in conflict with Ryulong regarding any matter other than any disagreement that might have existed regarding Ryulong's treatment of AltUser, the proposed finding that "Konstable was in conflict with Ryulong at the time" seems to be inaccurate, or at least unsupported. As indicated, this will make little practical difference (except to further lower the chance that Konstable will ever want to return to editing here), but I would prefer not to see an ArbCom decision issued containing a demonstrably unsupported finding of fact. Newyorkbrad 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence?

Without evidence having been submitted, this process becomes rather questionable. So where is the evidence? Those contesting Konstable's position on the workshop, have yet to submit evidence. Whereas Dmcdevit added partially-referenced proposed decisions three days before any content at all was added to the evidence page... Thus far, Konstable is the only one to provide an evidentiary account. What is going here? El_C 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Dmcdevit is one of the blocking admins, and he is the one making these accusations in the first place (also he was the one to propose that this Arbitration), he just failed to recuse himself for unknown reasons - hence the early proposals. Regarding others, in my evidence I covered everything in detail and frankly I don't think anyone has anything to say to that - those making the proposals of disruption and violating WP:POINT have abruptly left the discussion since then.--Konstable II 02:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See also some related discussion on the talk page for the Workshop. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the seeming haste in which Dmcdevit submitted proposals to this page raises a brow... Some clarification as to the extent of his role would be useful. To his defense, it is a bit late in the day to demand recusal (though better late than never, if applicable). Seeing how he was the first to accept the case, my question, in turn, is why the claim he's an involved party wasn't brought up then? El_C 08:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a suggestion of recusal at the outset of the case, which Dmcdevit declined. See here. Newyorkbrad 15:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stricken. Dmcdevit should better clarify his role, here, or anywhere, but certainly beyond that exchange (and at least respond to the last comment in it) before he undertakes any further edits to the project page. El_C 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that per his userpage, Dmcdevit is away from editing for a couple of day over the holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I said he ought to clarify "before undertak any further edits to the project page," not cut his vacation short. ;) El_C 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I just didn't want anyone to infer anything if he didn't answer for a couple of days, that's all. Newyorkbrad 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that is fair enough. El_C 18:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to clarify whatever needs it. Hopefully my response to the recusal proposal does that. In any case, those first few proposals I made were nothing final, just my initial thoughts. Indeed, it was because no one had offered evidence, that I committed them to paper. If we're talking about the same discussion, the last comment here is mine, from November 13. Dmcdevit·t 05:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence, then, why were these not added to the workshop? While Fred's support for your recusal is significant, I really am not sure what to make of this at this point, either way. El_C 12:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that a motion for recusal has now been posted on /Proposed Decision. In many real-world systems involving multi-member tribunals, a request for recusal is addressed solely to the individual concerned (see recusal). I don't know if there is ArbCom precedent on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminder to Fred Bauder

I still oppose a ban of this editor, for reasons discussed on /Workshop, but a month is certainly more reasonable than a year. Reminder that you need to edit the proposed enforcement paragraph to conform. Newyorkbrad 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Two questions, from a cursory reading:

R2 seems to say that he's banned for a month, but may return anonymously after that if he wants, whereas E1 says he can't return before a year. I haven't followed this really well, but that seems to be self conflicting to me.

I'll check this. Fred Bauder 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Second, P2 states that a user is responsible for accounts they create, OK. However I remember seeing somewhere that administrators can override the antispoofing username blocker by creating the account as an administrator, which I read as implying that they could do it for a user whose legitimate account creation was blocked. If they do so and fully turn the account over to that user then (EG. The password is changed so they no longer have access to it), are they still responsible for the user's use of the account? 68.39.174.238 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is intended to refer to accounts they create for themselves. Fred Bauder 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So someone could still create an account and not be responsible for its edits, but only after they've irretrievably put it beyond their use? 68.39.174.238 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who creates an account but then makes its password available to the public is performing a minor act of vandalism. Such an act is liable to incur an indefinite block on the public account. We have had a user who insisted on setting the user password the same as the user name, and then complaining when the account was hijacked by others. They used a predictable series of account names. They failed to make friends in the Misplaced Pages community.-gadfium 08:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Form of /Proposed Decision

There are some questions about the form of the Proposed Decision as it is shaping up. (Although I am in disagreement with some of the substance of the findings and remedies that are passing, as discussed on Workshop and Workshop Talk, this post is primarily about the form.)

First, there is an enforcement provision (providing that the block may be extended if Konstable returns prematurely before one month is up), but no associated remedy that it would enforce (i.e., the idea of a one-month ban itself is being voted down). I think this ban is a terrible idea, but in any event, there needs to be consistency between the remedies and the enforcement.

Second, because different paragraphs of the proposed findings of fact were drafted by two different arbitrators at different times, they are not in a chronological or logical order. I suggest that when it becomes clear what is going to pass, one of the arbitrators rearrange things in order or authorize the Clerk to do so. Newyorkbrad 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think the header "Konstable formally desysopped" is not a good match for the contents of the paragraph? But my first concern above is the most important given that the decision is about to pass in this format. Newyorkbrad 11:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Fred Bauder's response to the Clerk's question under "implementation notes" resolves my main concern. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 13:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)