| Revision as of 13:02, 14 September 2009 editRoux (talk | contribs)23,636 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley: re-archiving; RfA is down the hall. This is a dramabomb waiting to happen.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 52) (botTag: Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}} | <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}} | ||
| <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 500k | ||
| |counter = 6 | |||
| | |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(10d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| '''Behaviour on this page:''' This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:AC/N|WT:ACN}} | |||
| = Discussion of agenda = | |||
| ] | |||
| = Discussion of announcements = | |||
| == Temporary injunction regarding ] == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == Arbitration Committee motion regarding Locke Cole == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- ] (]) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == Arbitration Committee motion regarding Mythdon == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- ''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup>]</sup> 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118 == | |||
| ''']'''<!-- | |||
| ''']''' <sup>]</sup>|<sup>]</sup> 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *I disagree with WMC's desysop based on my own principles on what should lead to a desysop. Sure there was bad judgment outlined and the abd block was a very, very bad move - but I fail to see how a full removal of his adminship is of real benefit to the site. ] (]) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll save you from reading about 2 MB of mostly content-free text: The case was moving toward a do-nothing result until Abd tested the page ban and WMC blocked him. This pissed off arbcom, so they desysoped WMC. Arbcom planned to essentially ignore Abd's disruption until Risker proposed the three-month ban in the final days. The end. ] (]) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's too late, I read through pretty much all of it over the past month in anticipation of the case's end. Pretty much sums it right up, though. ] (]) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yet another seriously flawed decision. Just plain lazy on the part of ArbCom. I've applied page bans before. I've also applied page bans on articles in which WMC was helping me out. He's a well reasoned, and highly dedicated administrator. To revoke his mop is childish. Hey ArbCom; Restore his mop. Now. You do not craft policy by holding people retroactively responsible for violating non-existent policy. ] (]) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, William violated existing policy. He blocked Abd during the case, when he was clearly too involved to legitimately take action. One could perform a ] to figure out how things reached that point, much in the same way the ] attempts to reconstruct the chain of failures leading to a plane crash, but it would be a depressing and academic exercise. If there is a moral, it's that admins who fail to recognize goading, swallow their pride, and ignore it will not be admins forever. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What MastCell said. There has been several issues of questionable actions with the admin tools in the past, and blocking someone you were in an arbcase with (at the time the ArbCom case is going on) is pretty much not going to fly, ever. ] (]) 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WMC did violate policy - he responded to the deliberate provocation of an editor even ArbCom agrees is disruptive and tendentious. It would have been wiser for WMC to resist the temptation offered by the bait. More importantly - and much more disappointingly for Misplaced Pages - it would have been wiser for ArbCom to consider what was in the best interests of developing high-quality encyclopedic content rather to act on the afront it felt about WMC's unwise block. Unfortunately, the messages from this ArbCom case are (i) that ArbCom either cannot or will not control its own case pages; (ii) that the quality of the science content of the encyclopedia is not a priority of the Committee; and consequently, (iii) that the Committee will not offer any encouragement for adminisatrators to work in contentious areas but rather will continue pretending that science-literate uninvolved administrators (a highly endangered or extinct species) are in plentiful supply. The burnout and departure of science-literate editors is also apparently not a reason for concern. The Committee could have acted against WMC with a forced break and acted in a way that loudly reinforced their dedication to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I do not doubt the good intentions of the Arbitrators but the decisions their judgements and priorities in this case have been poor. ] (]) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Aye, it is very foolish to do such things while ArbCom is actively looking at you. It's not smart to do them in the first place, but during an arbitration is asking for trouble, sadly. Still, the main result was right: since his return from a block in 2008 Abd has been on a path of escalation to burnout. It's remarkable he's lasted as long as he has before being blocked for a long time especially given his tendency to scream "cabal" at every turn. After the last arbitration he seemed to believe that he'd been fully vindicated and carried on precisely as before (if not worse), which is one of the things that sent me on a long wikibreak. Life is too short for your hobbies to be dominated by obsessives with no goal in mind other than to hound you for failing to agree with ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have no problems with the eventual outcome, but I was alarmed at the degree to which attempts to demonize expert editors were successful. Just because somebody has expertise in a subject, does not mean he has a conflict of interest. We've seen on Misplaced Pages for some time now concerted efforts by the wilfully ignorant to set themselves up as somehow in opposition to expert editors and to attack their excellent work. Instead of dealing with those people for timewasting, there has been a tendency to treat them at their own evaluation--as somehow being engaged alongside those who have taken the trouble to study the subject in an endeavor to improve Misplaced Pages. That isn't the arbitration committee's job. It ''must'' recognise that some of these "disputes" are in fact political attacks, often openly orchestrated off-site, and intended to distort the facts and weaken the integrity of Misplaced Pages. --] 07:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' | |||
| ::{{{1}}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| }} <!-- from Template:discussion top--> | |||
| :What Skomorokh said. You want WMC to have the mop back, then write an RfA and get him to accept it. That or his appeal to the Committee are the only ways he'll get it back, and this is a waste of time and a drama-magnet. → ] ]<small> 13:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| This is neither the time or the place. WMC can seek community support for adminiship through RfA if he so chooses. ] 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Instead of trying to influence the discussion with "archive," collapse box, strikeout, or similar censorship technologies, let's apply the principle of good faith and move this to RFA. ] (]) 12:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley === | |||
| Wikipedians supporting the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley: | |||
| #'''Support''' ] (]) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| #I will not be referring to myself as a "Wikipedian" until this travesty is reversed. ] (]) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Opposing the restoration of the mop to William M. Connolley === | |||
| # WMC seems to show persistently poor judgement. In addition to blocking Abd during an Arbcom case involving Abd, WMC , with edit summary "Lets wind everyone up". On 25 June 2009 he indef blocked ChildofMidnight. When questioned about this, WMC responded - either that's a particularly tasteless joke or WMC is totally irresponsible. Either way WMC is unfit to use the powers of admins. --] (]) 07:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # No way in hell. This case was just the thin end of the wedge of WMC's failings as an admin. ] (]) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> | |||
| === Policy Discussion === | |||
| In regard to item 5 of the Arbcom decision: | |||
| {{bquote|5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| I have created a relevant discussion page at ]. ] (]) 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024
Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.