| Revision as of 06:19, 30 September 2009 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Current motion regarding Law: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:27, 12 August 2011 edit undoXeno (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,385 edits ←Redirected page to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests | ||
| (469 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| This talk page is for discussion related to motions currently being voted on. For discussion on requests for arbitration, see ]. | |||
| == User;Tajik == | |||
| ] was permabanned by Thatcher following ]. No and again Tajik surfaces with his sockpuppets that we have to block. Still all those sockpuppets appear to be productive users, who generate minimum disruptions. It appears that at least part of the abusive socks that caused Tajik to be permabanned were misattributed. ], tha main Tajik's opponent does not object to Tajik's return and even asked for this on Jimbo's talkpage. It is already more than 6 months since Tajik is permablocked and while he occasionally appeared onwiki using socks he seems to work as a productive and disciplined user. It seems to be a misuse of resources to block productive accounts only for being Tajik's socks. Is it possible to give him some sort of the last chance? ] (]) 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *He should go through the normal means of petitioning. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 15:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == A-A 2 == | |||
| Are we completely wiping the remedies from the first as well as the second case (meaning that the article probations are lifted)? - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The article probations are subsumed into this remedy; anything authorized by them is also authorized by this broader one. The individual editor sanctions of the first case remain, though, as do any already imposed under the second case. ] 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Comment, having a quick look at the enforcement block logs in this case, I think the proposed remedy as worded in ] would be better than what is proposed in this case, as it seems to strike the right balance. ] (]) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Geogre == | |||
| Where has the case been archived to? ] (]) 15:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :See the first two entries of ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == The ArbCom and RfA == | |||
| John, I'm concerned about that Aitias is indefinitely prohibited from standing for RfA. Leaving the particular case of Aitias aside, does the ArbCom have the right to tell the community whom it may elect? <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It is routine for desysop motions to dictate whether the ex-admin is required to seek resysop via the committee or the community. | |||
| :I have worded the motion so that the committee is not able to resysop him; their responsibility will be to decide whether this restriction can be lifted, which I expect would happen a long time before the community is ready to entrust the tools to Aitias again. | |||
| ::If you think about it for a minute, my motion is ''reducing'' the powers of the Arbcom as opposed to "increasing its powers" as appears to be your concern. | |||
| :Also, if you try and pull this motion out of the context of this specific case, all sorts of lovely questions can be asked, unnecessarily. | |||
| :Aitias was at RFAR just recently, and we were rather lenient in the hope that he would change his method and focus. As this has not happened, the community has asked this committee to desysop him. If enacted, motion 2 ensures that the community decision is not evaded by Aitias creating a new identity. | |||
| :<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 08:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thing is that it ''does'' try to expand the power of ArbCom, though I accept that's not your intention. It says, "{{user|Aitias}} is indefinitely restricted from seeking adminship via ] ..." That means you are saying no user may choose to nominate him and, if they do, the community is not allowed to elect him and, if they do, no bureaucrat will give him the tools and, if they do, the ArbCom will ... will do what? So you see it leads to all kinds of complicated scenarios. | |||
| ::Would it not make more sense to say that he must seek adminship via the normal route under his current user name? Given that an RfC has asked that he be desysopped, the chances of re-election are very slim. Also, no motion can stop someone from starting a new account and standing for RfA if they're determined to. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 08:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It does not try to expand the power of Arbcom. There are many instances of Arbcom preventing a desysoped person from reapplying. Here are four that I found quickly. | |||
| ::::* ] (April 2006) | |||
| ::::* ] (June 2006) | |||
| ::::* ] (November 2007) | |||
| ::::* And another case in early 2008 involving a vanished username | |||
| ::: As I expect you already know this SlimVirgin, I am quite keen to understand what you are driving at here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, I didn't know this had been done before, so thank you for finding those examples, and my apologies for the error. I still don't think it's a good idea, for the reason I outlined above, namely that it seems to remove from the community the power to decide whom it wants to elect, but you're entirely correct that you're not setting a precedent. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for your apology. I was really surprised that you did not know of at least one of those cases. | |||
| :::::It is also quite common that if an party does not participate in arbitration then their access is removed and they are not able to regain it until they explain themselves to the arbitration committee. i.e. they are desysoped and/or banned. This is because the most common method of avoiding arbitration is the "] vanishing". See for example ], and ] (November 2007), and ]. I can understand if a party wants a week or two away from the keyboard before arbitration starts, and we waited for Aitias the first time. However this is the second time. | |||
| ::::: <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 11:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, that's a fair point. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I havent done as much research into previous Arbcom decisions that restrict how many accounts a person may have. I briefly looked while preparing the date delinking decision, and found ] (September 2006) due to socking. A few "one account" remedies made it into the final decision of the date delinking case. I hope we see more of them in the future. | |||
| :::Your suggestion that "he must seek adminship via the normal route under his current user name" would also be acceptable to me in other circumstances, but it doesnt seem to be the most appropriate in this case. | |||
| :::Your suggestion is essentially a Arbcom ruling that he says he is not allowed to vanish ''and then'' become an admin. It is still a ruling which dictates whether the community is allowed allowed to elect him as a sysop. i.e. almost identical to mine, except that your version entwines his ability to vanish into the ruling. | |||
| :::Also, please realise that he was making signs of vanishing before I put forward my motion. If he wants to vanish "Aitias" this time, that is fine, as my motion allows him to walk away now and come back later to be a sysop. | |||
| :::I hope that Arbcom will lift this restriction after two or three years, but it is indefinite as we dont yet know how it will play out. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 11:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I do have to ask, as I'm somewhat involved with this: what brought on the motion of Aitias being indefinitely banned from requesting adminship? I am hardly his greatest fan, but some explanation of why this is the case would be nice. I'd like to know why the usual "may apply through the usual method" wouldn't be acceptable. ''']''' ] 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe the shortest answer to this is that when you start something, you don't know where it will end up. And for the record, I've supported the "by usual means" bit. The history to this, is that there have been a fair few cases recently of reincarnations causing renewed trouble. Two examples spring to mind - Lightmouse / Bobblewik and Sam Blacketer / Fys. What we are probably seeing here is ArbCom trying to crack down on this, or at least having a big stick to wave if more cases are uncovered. Both those examples predate the motion that explicitly made clear that users under restrictions shouldn't just vanish and "try again" (which is not, as far as I know, being applied retrospectively). We may not be able to fully prevent abuse of the right to vanish, but where it is discovered (and further abuse or disruption has taken place), we can make clear that it will lead to severe sanctions, up to and including banning. People requesting, and being granted, the right to have a new account is another matter, and should be treated on a case-by-case basis. ] (]) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with what Carcharoth has said above, and I also don't mind the typical "via usual means" approach in motion 3(i); that would work for me. As NYB has said over on the motion, there is no private evidence here that demands a different approach be taken. However, due to reviewing the history of Aitias, I think it would be beneficial to try a different approach here. | |||
| :I tossed up Motion 2 because MZMcBride asked which methods Aitias was permitted to use in order to obtain sysop again, and I believe it is important that the committee should be evaluating various options. | |||
| :The right to vanish is a privilege of users in good standing, to be taken advantage of when necessary, and in my opinion Aitias has abused this right. As a result, I think it is appropriate that Arbcom ''tries'' to ensure it isnt abused again by the same person. | |||
| :My motion is the extreme view that repeatedly "vanishing" is not congruent with the level of trust required for sysops, and that, having been abused, it strongly suggests that the community will be looking at an RFA without realising who it is. These "new" admin have a history that they need to hide from, and they usually bring their old grudges with them, with the benefit that their "enemies" don't understand why the "new" admin is causing them grief. | |||
| :Motion 3(ii) was added afterward Motion 2, and covers similar territory. However 3(i) and 3(ii) combined do not give any indication of how the committee will make use of the knowledge that an RFA-candidate was previously Aitias. A possible problem for another day. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No opinion about Aitias that I wish to reveal, but this kind of procedure ''does'' expand the power of ArbCom by creep, by adding another precedent that transforms ArbCom from being a reactive resolver of disputes to an interventionist oligarchy. I complained about the use of motions last year, when the practice was still relatively uncommon. The recent opening of this page suggests that members do not intend it to be as uncommon in future as in the past. This page is power creep. Like it or loath it, that's what it is and people should know it. Maybe this can be styled "sensationalist", but if drawing attention to it means being "sensationalist" then that's what wikipedians should do. The Community wants ArbCom or any similar body to have its default powers (desyssoping, banning and so on), I want it to have those powers. But does the community want ArbCom to have a platform facilitating unlimited opportunity to exercise its powers whenever ''it'' chooses, or do they wish to force ArbCom to use its power only in certain cases where the community has brought a dispute and where the evidence has been considered? I don't think the community wish for the former; I don't. In this case, Arbcom is rushing into another consequential decision without spending due time on the matter. Not good, independent of whether this decision ''happens'' to be correct. ] (<small>]</small>) 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this had been filed as a request to amend the previous Aitias case, as I suggested, would that have met your concerns? ] (]) 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would meet my concerns if it was filed as Aitias 2 by a non-arb, voted on as accept or reject, and then analysed in the usual manner with time for all members to think over it. The time and process involved in an "Aitias 2" is a good safeguard against bad decisions and unfair process (Newyorkbrad's presence alone is not sufficient!). Amendments are also a kind of creep, as eventually more or less everything can be tied to one case or another, but they are better than motions initiated proactively by individual arbs. There are many good reasons judges in non-wiki land don't initiate/prosecute cases themselves, and why arbs in wiki land shouldn't. ] (<small>]</small>) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Current motion regarding Law == | |||
| Could we please get a clarification of the circumstances surrounding ] being an apparent ] of ]? What was undertow banned for (their talk page has been courtesy deleted, not a good thing for an active behavior case). Why need this be subject to a motion and why is the proposal not an indefinite ban? Establishing an admin account as a sockpuppet of a banned user is pernicious stuff, not an innocent violation. I'm concerned about the nexus between this and the apparent gamesmanship by Law that is the subject of Law's current Arbcom case. Keep in mind that most of the long-term disruptive editors on the Obama articles have turned out to be sockpuppets (I can provide diffs but the probation enforcement log for a start). There are likely more socks. ] (]) 06:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:27, 12 August 2011
Redirect to: