| Revision as of 15:06, 29 December 2009 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Consolidation of inquiries← 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 = 250K | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 500k | |||
| |counter = 9 | |||
| | |
|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 = | |||
| ] (please use a header for each new discussion section here) | |||
| = Discussion of announcements = | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ''']''' <!-- ] (]) 06:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC) --> | |||
| ===Two points concerning my (non-)participation in the case=== | |||
| The name of "socionics" appeared again on the ], and I decided to take a look at the state of the thing. I was rather surprised to discover an Arbcom case in which my name had been invoked several times. Although I don't dispute the outcome of the case, I would have preferred to have been notified, as there are a few inaccuracies I would have liked to have cleared up. | |||
| Second, in looking back at ], I see it hasn't gotten any better since I ] in the summer. Indeed, it has gotten worse and fringier, and I'm still not convinced that there is anything there but one person's crank theory. As the previous AFD ended with no consensus, I would like to raise the issue again. I am concerned, however, that this would be considered to be disruptive so shortly after this case has closed. Could I get some Arbcom feedback? ] (]) 14:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I would consider it in no way disruptive for normal discussions, including deletion nominations, to take place. The problem was not mere disagreement over the topic, but a host of insulting and disruptive behavior. Attempts to reconsider the content issues on a community level now that the two principal disruptive editors have been removed from the area is anything but disruptive. On the contrary, it's part of what should happen in such circumstances as the editing environment normalizes. ] (]) 19:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with Vassyana. Community discussion about these articles was explicitly encouraged in the final decision (though the connection between socionics and information metabolism was not clear - from what I remember, there are several meanings for the term 'information metabolism'). I do have a list of diffs that I found while looking at this dispute, and I will post those to the talk page of the socionics article at some point. Mangoe, as the drafting arbitrator for that case, I apologise for not notifying you that you were mentioned in the proposed decision. At the time I thought it best to press on with the case, but notification is better. If you think anyone else should have known about the case, Mangoe, please feel free to contact them. Finally, I would be happy to discuss anything you feel was inaccurate about the case - either here on on my talk page. ] (]) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The one correction which I would like to pursue is that I am not and have never been an administrator: Rmcnew's account of how I got involved in the affair is essentially correct, but I didn't do anything which would have required administrator powers. Other than that there was an episode on my talk page involving Tcaudilllg which I probably would have brought before the committee; given the outcome it pretty much would be gilding the lily, to use a particularly inapt expression, to revisit that. ] (]) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think there is anything official in the case that said you are an administrator, is there? If you mean what Rmcnew said, we don't correct every inaccuracy that might be stated by a party to a case. Anyway, thanks for commenting, apologies again for not notifying you, and please do help encourage wider community discussion of the articles. ] (]) 03:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's quite OK. As I said, I don't have an issue with the outcome of the case, given my experience with the editors in question. ] (]) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| '''] | |||
| As unpopular as my opinion may be, i'm going to come out and say that I think the Committee's decision was too heavy-handed. Here, we have the classic case of the prolific content creator who has serious civility issues. Rather than banning him entirely, there were options available that would have allowed him to contribute while minimizing the disruption he causes. Mentorship was one. Restricting him to Article-space was one. Banning him from discussing other editors is one. Escalating Arbitration Enforcement blocks were another choice. These are all options that the Committee could have (and did, for some of them) considered, that would have been a more fine-tuned approach to the vested contributor problem. A screwdriver and a hammer will both remove a screw, but the screwdriver can do it without obliterating much of the surrounding wall. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 06:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I need to come out and echo the comments of The Wordsmith. I think that a year ban is much too heavy handed. Ottava may have issues with civility, but there are ways to deal with that and still be able to benefit from his incredible editing and article writing skills. Is there any way the Committee can revisit this? ] 07:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Mentorship had been tried and had failed, restricting him to article space would have stopped the collaboration necessary on the talk page and allowing use of the talk page would have left us with the same problems as were demonstrated in the case. Banning him from discussing other editors wouldn't have dealt with the bloody minded "Ottava is always right" problems that occurred over content, and nor would it have dealt with his novel interpretations of policy. Escalating blocks would still have left us with a a wikilawyer with a steadfast refusal to admit/believe he might in any way might be wrong. That said, had Ottava shown even a hint of "getting it" he wouldn't be banned, but instead he was argumentative right up to the very end, displaying the exact same traits that got him the ban and showing absolutely no self awareness at all. ]] 07:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To the very end: ]] 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course he was being belligerent there. He has enough problems with civility as it is, and now he had the added feeling of betrayal (and probably paranoia as well). Note that that's not an excuse, but i'm not at all surprised to see that. Frankly: Ottava can be an ass, and he is one quite frequently. He knows it. We know it. Now, Arbcom had the chance to try several different options that may have been able to eliminate the asshattery while keeping his contributions. Mentorship might have worked, especially if the mentors were able to impose discretionary sanctions as needed. It might have succeeded and it might have failed (if it failed, the mentors would have been able to ban him at that point). However, on the offchance that it would have succeeded, it seems irresponsible not to try some alternative and flexible solutions first. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 08:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The problem is he doesn't know it. Sure, when he's blowing off at ] he is intending every word, no doubt of that. But when Ottava's evidence includes that he works very well with a specific editor, and that editor comes over to the RFAR and says very quietly that no, actually, he was a nightmare, then you know there's a problem. There was just so much evidence in that case that one came away with the impression that Ottava would argue with the ] if he(she? it? how do you address an angel?) wrote an article on ] and, if he did, he would certainly accuse the ] of being ], and file a report at ]. I don't know if the ban or the length will make any difference, but Misplaced Pages is kind of short of tools for generating self awareness. ] (]) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I realize that Ottava's civility issues surely caused his ban, but it's the length I am concerned about. I am a fan of starting small and working up, and that includes the ban in this case. I just think three months to begin with would have been a good starting point. More ban time could always be added. ] 08:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I thank the Arbitration Committee for this sensible decision, which I find encouraging in view of the problems posed by other longterm disruptive vested contributors. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :+1 ] (]) 08:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. And I second what Viridae says above. Ottava Rima was mentored, but obviously that failed to make a long term difference. ] (]) 09:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * When Socrates spoke at his trial he<br>did not so much woo nor beguile thee,<br>than make people mad<br>and glad that they had<br>a chance to vote "death" (<u>more</u> than "guilty"). <br> -- ] (]) 10:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'']''? I look forward to the 9 FAs, 40 GAs and 200 DYKs the AC is going to write to justify this ban and make up for the loss of this contributor. This is a net loss for the encyclopedia. ] 13:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I third both Viridae's post and Sandstein's. Ottava Rima's one-year ban is entirely appropriate. ]] 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Other options were considered, but they required Ottava's cooperation. They would not work without him at least recognizing the problem. While 1 year is a long time, he is allowed to come back after 6 months if he agrees to conditions. Content contributions in no way allow for continued long term disruption, we are a collaborative project. I suspect some of those criticizing the ruling and suggesting alternatives have not looked into the details of the case and saw that those alternatives were considered and that they were simply not feasible. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This was a sad vote for me to cast. I'm one of the last people to seek to ban virtually anyone, but after very careful deliberation and multiple attempts to talk through the issues, I saw little alternative in this instance. Those interested may wish to see my, and other arbitrators' comments on the proposed decision page and the workshop. Whether or not you agree with this decision, please be assured that it was not taken lightly. ] (]) 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *A block here was the only option; if anyone can think of one that would a) not involve him with the people he has disputes with (anyone who disagrees with him on content) and b) still let him edit, come out with it. No? Thought not. Ottava has demonstrated a stubbornness, an inability to listen to other peoples opinions and an inability to admit he's in the wrong. If the intention is, as has been suggested, to give Ottava a mandatory "time out" in which he can reflect on his behaviour and learn to better deal with the community, a three month ban is not going to do this, given that he's had far longer than that to reflect while editing and has failed to change his behaviour. I note that the terms of the ban allow him to petition the Committee after six months, so if he ''has'' changed and the Committee can see this in his request, the year-long ban isn't going to be a year. ] (]) 19:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Ottava Rima and Haiduc disagreed on content, but collaborated together to get an article to FA with compromises on both sides. He's capable of it. Am unsure why it works out in some interactions but not others. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::NYB asked him something along the lines of what needed to be done so that he could collaborate with others, but he declined to answer. Several editors urged him to think about this and answer the question, but he refused. I think if he could have shown some reflection here, things may have gone better for him.--] (]) 09:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Is Seddon's name supposed to be in the final decision on ]? --] 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I've fixed it. ] (]) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| In addition to the length, one other item I take issue with is the notion that he can't appeal for six months. Its possible that i'm wrong, but I don't recall any precedent for preventing an appeal. Has it been done before? What is the purpose of putting this into the decision? The worst that could happen without it is that Ottava appeals in a month and arbcom says "no, sorry, not yet." Or, its possible that he could redeem himself in that time, such as with contributions to other wikis, and then arbcom could allow him back. By denying him the ability to appeal, we're very much assuming bad faith. I know that AGF isn't a suicide pact, but in this case it would cause zero harm to overturn that particular part of the restriction. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Have you read the evidence page or the workshop? This isn't a case of "assume good faith or don't" (and with respect to BoP, referring to this as "civility issues" cloaks the point in passive language). I suspect the six month threshold was established to limit the kind of block ] which is common among blocks of long term vested contributors. Perhaps it was also added in so that we can discover in 6 months that the wiki will/will not implode without such a prolific content editor. Perhaps it was added in because the committee did not foresee that they would assent to an unblock request within six months and didn't want to waste OR's time. And what's to say you wouldn't chafe at a month's prohibition? Perhaps OR should appeal today? Twice today? Three times tomorrow? Etc. ] (]) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its similar in my mind to an unblock request. If their request is insincere or they are not likely to be reformed, then we can just deny the request. In the worst case, they abuse the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki>> template, and they can be prevented from filing more of them. Very seldom do we not allow them an initial opportunity to appeal. It may be that this sort of thing is done routinely in arbcom decisions, and i've never noticed it. Also, that month that I said was just an arbitrary example, not saying that he should or should not have been prohibited for a month, or that a month would/would not have been reasonable. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Part of the problem with all ArbCom cases, and in my opinion, internet communications on the whole, is the tendency to speak in hyperbole. Misplaced Pages will not collapse without Ottava Rima, or Protonk, or me for that matter. I think efforts should be made to allow Ottava Rima to return when he can handle disagreements without his trademark borderline tenacity and needless escalation of conflict. However that will be ascertained is another matter. I think there is value in discussing when an appeal might be made should Ottava Rima decide to participate in some self-discovery about why he reacts the way he does. --] (]) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well the analogy to {{tl|Unblock}} isn't a great one, because an unblock request would look more like ] (or the equivalent discussion at BASC). ] (]) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In my head, the process goes: User feels he has reformed → User requests to be unblocked/appeals his ban → An admin decides if he has truly reformed/Arbcom discusses whether he has truly reformed → User is either unblocked/unbanned or not. If Ottava were to appeal tomorrow and the Committee feels that the disruption would continue, then they can deny the appeal. If he abuses appeals, he can be prevented from making more at that time. I think the limit on when he may appeal is assuming that he will abuse it, or assuming that he truly can't be rehabilitated quickly. If he can come up with a viable solution before six months, or truly show the community that he has changed, then I don't see the harm. We would stand to gain much, and lose virtually nothing, by at least considering a (sincere) appeal earlier. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this ban is a proper decision. I do not take joy in seeing the decision made, but that does not mean that ArbCom, and ultimately the community's, hand was not forced here by Ottava Rima himself. We lost a good content contributor here, for an extended period and possibly for ever. We lost that content contributor, however, because of his own actions. It is not good for the community that Ottava Rima is not able to add content. It however was worse for the community to deal with the sort of problems his antisocial behavior generated. If this were an easy decision to make, he would have been indeffed by the community without any objection. It is NOT an easy decision to make, which is why ArbCom had to make it. I do not celebrate this outcome, but I commend ArbCom for making it; it was the only outcome that, given the circumstances, could be expected. Being a bitter pill to take does not mean that it isn't necessary. --]''''']''''' 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::All the editors who are bemoaning the loss of Ottava Rima's "content contributions" will more usefully employ their time by actually examining OR's more recent content contributions, for example, the DYKs and GAs submitted during the last few days of WikiCup 2009. I suggest that these editors find the references used and then compare what the authors have said with what OR has reported. Accuracy of synopsis (or paraphrasing), in my view, is a major issue in OR's contributions. I have seen enough examples of these issues in FAC review, where OR was subject to public scrutiny and where he had already prepped the articles, that I have no doubt that numerous errors await anyone willing to try. I believe, one reason why OR has not got into more "content" trouble is that many of his content contributions are relatively obscure, and, consequently, go unexamined. If OR were to attempt an article, say, on Barack Obama, these errors would become more manifest. I suspect too that OR's "successful" collaborations usually do not involve arguments about interpretation of sources. In other words, they are more likely to be ones in which there is no overlap of expertise: for example, OR adds the "content," and the other collaborator copyedits, etc. In fact, one reason why OR gets into bitter disputes at FAC review and other more public forums, is that the smaller, more manageable, disputes have not always occurred in the development stages of his collaborations, or if they have, the collaborators have allowed OR to ride roughshod over them. Many "successful" collaborators have admitted this later. ]] 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sorry, Fowler, I don't find your commentary in this context acceptable. This is in essence a bunch of unsubstantiated personal attacks against another user. He's banned, so please now lay off. ] (<small>]</small>) 06:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What F&f writes is not unsubstantiated - it is described in detail in his submission on the evidence page. It seems fairly pointless for people who did not make comments in the evidence and workshop to object now. (I myself only intervened there once to appeal to Ottava to reconsider an emotionally charged motion.) Ottava Rima was very good at collecting sources and raw material. Other editors like ] would help produce more polished prose and have understandably expressed their appreciation of and support for Ottava's work. ] (]) 06:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The decision having been made , it does seem both pointless and uncharitable to repeat the charges here. ''']''' (]) 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's not pointless at all. Match and F&F were attempting to shut the meme down that we are punishing a flawless content contributor for some minor indecorousness. ] (]) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No meme asserts him to be flawless; everyone acknowledges that problems exist. The dilemma is what to do with editors who are strong on content work but weak in other areas. That's a serious discussion with broader implications than just Ottava Rima. Ideally we can find a way to retain the positives while curtailing the negatives. It's an impediment to finding real solutions when individuals become too heated in their opinion of one specific instance of it. This website has other editors who fit a similar description. I hope we can find a way to minimize the disruption without long term bans upon them all. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Do we apply ] to this situation? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Not sure what turnips or that essay has to do with Ottava Rima, but again with the hyperbole: I have not seen anyone in this discussion refer to Ottava Rima as a "flawless content contributor". I hold out hope that he might be able one day to absorb his communication style to realize that it is not productive. For the moment, he has chosen not to do that and he has had to make a choice to readjust his demeanor or give up Misplaced Pages. I remain hopeful that he can one day welcome a spiritual visitation of the kind he seems to tout. It was poignantly sad to watch some of Misplaced Pages's most respected editors try to advise or intervene on his behalf, only to have him refuse and ignore such attempts. Truly, the student needs to be ready to receive the lesson. Should that happen before a year passes, I think Ottava Rima should be able to appeal the decision and return, ready to work cooperatively in this project. --] (]) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::@ Jehochman, that depends on there being a standard solution to a situation. Would you want to make this the standard for other strong content/weak elsewhere editors? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: I stopped following this case midway through, purposefully, because I had finished answering for my actions, and I did not want to inflame matters. Why has the Committee gotten so upset about Ottava's behavior? I'm not sure, but if they have come to the conclusion that he's not able to work collegially, for whatever reason, then yes, this is the standard solution. Being a good content contributor is a reason to go to great lengths to recover an editor, but there are limits and the editor in question needs to grasp the lifelines thrown. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::The only successful solution to this type of problem has been with ScienceApologist: a three month siteban with a specific exemption for a proxied improvement drive to the ] article. He did magnificent work for an important page and it seemed to bring out the best in him afterward. Other people who are less easily provoked are handling the fringe science problems now and he hasn't been blocked in months. If it's possible to replicate that, I'd far prefer it before resorting to long bans. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I think Durova has it right. We have not found a suitable general approach, I am not sure there is one, for much will depend on the individual personality. I am not at all sure an adequate effort was made here, though it does seem that the editor involved made it exceptionally difficult. But it is not a good result when someone comes here to get the conditions of a restriction lightened, and ends up being banned. To the extent that it was affected by actions during the case, the Committee and its clerks need a more active role in keeping things under control. To the extent it was caused by exasperation, I can understand the feeling, but the expression of it is inappropriate for a committee of last resort. To the extent it was caused by earlier frustrations and resentments, it might even seem vindictive. Not that I (or I think Durova) argue for infinite tolerance: there are going to be instances where we will have to choose between tolerating a very difficult editor and doing without important work. I think when it comes down to that, it may be more important to maintain a good editing environment, so as not to discourage other people capable of doing good work from staying or joining. ''']''' (]) 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"''No meme asserts him to be flawless; everyone acknowledges that problems exist. The dilemma is what to do with editors who are strong on content work but weak in other areas. ''" Arguably the use of the word "flawless" was wrong, but you are still using the passive voice where it isn't appropriate. The view (I'm sure well solidified in some quarters) of blocks or decisions like this one is that some content contributor par excellence is punished because various lesser mortals didn't have thick enough skins. Part of FnF's point is that OR's problems were rooted in content--when he didn't get his way he made life miserable for other editors. Those accusations aren't his alone, read (or re-read, more likely) the evidence page. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) ''No meme asserts him to be flawless; everyone acknowledges that problems exist.'' I'm afraid, his supporters, including Durova, don't acknowledge enough that there might have been problems in his content work in the first place. In addition, when defects were pointed out in his work, by collaborators and reviewers alike, as the evidence showed time and time again, he lashed out. That is the proper context to work with. I simply don't buy the argument that Ottava Rima's one-year ban is going to dissuade other editors from contributing. It might equally ''persuade'' others to contribute. It all depends on their mental make up. The Arbitration Committee does not practice the Wiki-justice version of ]. There is only so much pliability it can show in the face of complete inflexibility in a defendant. It is time to end this second-guessing of the verdict, especially by people who were no-shows at the actual trial. ]] 06:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Fowler, "time to end this second-guessing of the verdict" makes it sound as if you do not believe editors with just as much cause and whatever right you have do not themselves have the same cause or right to voice their opinions of this matter. Everyone's interactions with Ottava Rima are different, obviously, as individual as the people who make up each relationship with him. I have my own ambiguous opinions of Ottava Rima that are compounded by seeing that he conflicted often with others who were just as stubborn as he. Everywhere people seem desperate to need simple answers. Unfathomably, on this site that proves by the minute that there are rarely clear simple answers, if there appear to be none, editors try to force a situation to appearing that way. If people who are asking questions, or "second-guessing" as you say, would just shut up, it would be much easier to say that Ottava Rima was a plagiarizing (or whatever content problems you are alluding to) ass who fought frequently and made everyone's lives miserable. Well, he is not that simple, and neither are his interactions. He may be to you, but that does not make it so for everyone. Neither was the case decision simple. --] (]) 19:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Which is why this is a wiki, where instead of asking contributors to publish perfect content, we collaborate to improve articles we feel require attention. As evidenced by ], Ottava is willing and able to work with others towards improving the quality of his work, while your statements were pointed out by many others to be inappropriate. Your claims above are rather misleading. –''']''' | ] 19:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| A good decision, and long overdue. For too long, there's been an attitude in some areas that having a record of good content contributions allows someone to ignore the civility policy, or excuses them from violating it. I'm glad to see that ArbCom does not hold this view. Ottava Rima was a disruptive user, who serially violated our policies, and it is entirely right that he has been banned. ] (]) 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| :Please see . As far as the future conduct of Biophys and the proposed decision, the announcement is still apparently incomplete. ] (]) 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You can expect a response after the holidays. As I expected, these proceedings have been a ''touchstone'' by which to judge Misplaced Pages and its participants. My heartfelt thanks to those who, during these proceedings now completed, have privately wished me well and confirmed my assessment of the state of Misplaced Pages and the nature and purpose of the contributions of my detractors even while (wisely) taking care not to embroil themselves in the conflict. To those to whom I may have pointed out that private communication offers only moral support, I appreciate that support and regret that their remaining off the proverbial radar screen was, indeed, the appropriate choice. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> ] ►] </small> 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm confused by the wording. The announcement says "Digwuren is banned for one year" then it says "He is directed to edit Misplaced Pages from only a single user account". I'm assuming that the latter is supposed to apply after the one year ban, since he shouldn't be editing at all while banned? --] ] 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Obviously. --] (]) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or, if they are found to have evaded their ban with the use of more than one account at any one time then they are in <u>really serious</u> trouble... ] (]) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I request clarification on the following: "''directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public''"<p>Is this meant to say that I cannot comment <u>'''publicly'''</u> off-wiki on any on-wiki edits or disputes (aka "controversies") regarding Eastern Europe? <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> ] ►] </small> 21:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Consolidation of inquiries === | |||
| I would like some clarifications over the holidays, per some prior threads here and at the case: | |||
| # Per a response to Igny, I may not respond to Igny on any EE topic, certainly with regard to the area of contention (representation of Soviet acts and legacy in Eastern Europe) widely construed, indeed, that might be seen as baiting (on the part of Igny). Does that also include responses to general inquiries outside that subject area (say, biographical information)? Banned or not? | |||
| # Dougweller implied I can notify violations of conduct. Banned or not? | |||
| # Russia related topics outside Eastern Europe and the area of contention (let's say prior to the 20th century, not related to Eastern Europe if history; could also be literature or art) with regard to my mention of sources. Banned or not? | |||
| # Off-wiki public comments regarding the area of contention on English language Misplaced Pages. Current wording is problematic in that it implies even that is under sanction. Banned or not? | |||
| Thanks in advance. If there is a more appropriate location for followups, please let me know. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> ] ►] </small> 01:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As you are familiar with my own topic ban, you should be familiar with the terms of your own topic ban. | |||
| :1. Broadly construed means exactly that. Hence, anything related to Eastern Europe, whether that be geographical, political, biographical, etc is covered by the topic ban. For example, is in violation of the topic ban. | |||
| :2. You are unable to notify of violations of conduct on any Eastern Europe related articles, or in relation to Eastern Europe. | |||
| :3. Russia-related topics are completely out. Regardless of time frame, whether it be 15th century Russia or 21st century Russia. The entire subject is off limits. | |||
| :4. I'll leave that up to arbs to clarify. I believe I know what is meant by it though. | |||
| :That is how I interpret it all, and it is also how it has been interpreted by others in the past, and has also been clarified a few times already in relation to the case. The best way to think of it is that Eastern Europe, for the next 12 months for yourself, does not exist. It is a black hole on the map. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you for keeping up on my activities regarding pig jello, I was unaware ArbCom has assigned you to be my personal keeper. It's a question to ArbCom—are you presuming to answer for them? <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> ] ►] </small> 23:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The way this works, Vecrumba, is that comments in arbitration enforcement threads, arbitration clarification requests, and arbitration amendment requests directly about you (and, obviously, new cases) are fine, but such threads about other editors are not an invitation for you to join in. Arbitration enforcement is intended to allow enforcement, not a continuation of the battles. If you feel you must comment, my advice would be to start comments at such arbitration locations by asking if you are allowed to comment, and then wait for permission before doing so. In terms of general article editing and lower levels of dispute resolution, no, you are not allowed to participate there in this topic area, or leave notifications of edits that you think need correction. The whole point of the topic bans is that those topic-banned stay away from the area and from dispute resolution or discussion in that area, and the theory is that others (who are not topic banned) will correct any poor edits made in the absence of you and others. If you wish to make notes of edits that you see that are not getting corrected, and wish to then present this as evidence that the topic bans have imbalanced editing in this area (i.e. removing those with expert or specialist knowledge of the topic area), then I would suggest doing that separately, and e-mailing that evidence to ArbCom. Russavia, I would suggest not getting involved in this. Off-wiki comments we have no jurisdiction over, but if our attention is drawn to off-wiki comments that are followed by on-wiki edits, that would be something we would look at. Ultimately, though, the question of how the topic bans will work will become clearer at arbitration enforcement. If it turns out that things are not clear enough, only then would parties or admins come to ArbCom asking for clarification (and there is a clarifications page for that purpose). ] (]) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I resumed editing and installed my old email address. If anyone wants to tell something privately, please do. I made a couple of edits under a different account, but soon realized that hiding is not an option. Regardless to the events, I want to remain anonymous in this project. As about editing restrictions, one should actually read them. The restriction for Russavia prohibits him from editing anything ''related'' to Russia or Soviet union. This is a draconian restriction because everything can be related to everything. Others are prohibited from editing anything ''about'' Eastern Europe. Can they edit a biography of an artist, even if he visited one of EE countries? I think they can because that would be an article about a person and not an article about Eastern Europe... ] (]) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding GiacomoReturned == | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| The heading "Arbitration motion regarding GiacomoReturned" is misleading in the extreme, and should be altered to something relevant. The issue was Coren's egregious indef block of Giano and the undoing of it by John Vandenberg, and the broader issue was an AUSC report following an inappropriate oversighting of a comment from Giano following claims of outing by Rlevse. The motion passed is not about Giano at all. ] (]) 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The case was originally filed with this name, and since no arbitrator objected to it and the case was eventually rejected it is just left as that. I understand the possible sensitivity of matters, and so the archive remains a diff rather than filing them under a separate page. - ] 03:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| We'll be back there in a month or so. You guys are fooling yourself if you think that the latest admin to block giano was the real long term problem. ] (]) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd be interested in a policy citation from you that allows for indefinitely blocking someone for insulting arbitrators. ]] 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **And why would that be necessary? ] (]) 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **:Because you were tacitly defending Coren's ludicrous block with your last post. ]] 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ***:Well full marks for missing the point entirely. Here's the deal. Giano has a block log which includes blocks both proper and improper (some flagrantly so). He's also got (arguably) a much shorter block log that he would have if there weren't instant unblocks and general hand wringing about everything related to Giano. My point was, it's not as though it is the same admin. And it isn't as though they are some conspiracy to 'get' him. When do we step away from just shaking our heads at what is merely the most recent block of Giano and look at the '''only constant''' in each issue? ] (]) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: I've read the motion, and which it endorses. Where does either of them endorse any such action? --] 21:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::Who is the question addressed to? ] (]) 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::: It was addressed to ] above (the one with the cryptic signature). --] 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Your calling my sig "cryptic" is a ''bit'' ironic. ]] 22:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::A prize for the best anagram of the expanded versions of UA and TS combined! Bonus points for something that sounds like the name of a ''Culture'' ship. (And then maybe the thread should come back on topic?). ] (]) 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::"A wit? No. An uneasy oddity." --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: ]. --] 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It's like rain on your wedding day. It's a free ride, when you've already paid. --] (]) 22:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Am I right in thinking "Unitanode" isn't your first account? If so, are the previous account(s) publicly disclosed? --] (]) 22:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :First question, yes, you are; second question, what's it your business, MZMcBride? (Note: I've gathered that much, but I don't know what his/her previous account was.) Please don't pester people about their previous or alternative accounts, as long as there is no abuse of any account. ] | ] 22:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC). | |||
| ::Well, there are rumors flying around, so clarification would certainly help clear those up. Regardless of whether there's overlap between two accounts, I don't really see how it's possible to say that a returning user isn't harmfully avoiding scrutiny by starting a new account and not disclosing their previous account, especially if the account belonged to a longtime user (maybe even a former admin). I won't say it's my business to know, but I don't think there's too much harm in asking the question. Unitanode is free to not answer, but we'll wait to see if he or she does. --] (]) 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes (I'm a returned user), and yes (I've made it known to those who need to know). Everyone on the Committee knows my situation, and I'm not in any way avoiding scrutiny from any previous bad actions. I was in good standing then, and I still am. As Bishonen pointed out, what does this matter as to the situation at hand? ]] 22:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks for the quick reply. It might be nice to note something like this somewhere (a user subpage or something). *shrugs* --] (]) 22:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I've never edited like a new user. I don't mind if people speculate about who I was. But -- for reasons the committee knows -- I'll never confirm my previous identity to anyone other than the Committee. ]] 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict) One more point, that I think is important enough to warrant repeating here. People like Erik9/John254 and other similar situations have all discovered (and re-discovered) the exact same lessons. Starting a new account and quietly contributing to the encyclopedia isn't an issue. But where these accounts almost always run into trouble is when they get involved in wikipolitics and wikidrama. Nobody is saying you can't create a new account every day and edit different articles (and people do, for whatever reasons). But to show up in the same forums and post under new identities (without so much as a hint that on the person's user page that this isn't their first time on the horse track)? Something about that causes people to just start digging because it's pretty agreed upon that it's just not right. --] (]) 22:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was never a wikipolitician before, and I'm not now. I wasn't a regular on the arb pages then, and I'm not now. ]] 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Some of the surrounding facts behind this have become clearer to me, pushing me to make a clarification here: I really don't have any dog in this fight—I don't know you from Adam and quite simply I can't be bothered to care about most of this wikidrama. However, looking at the surrounding history, the statement that you were "never a wikipolitician" is complete bullshit and I would appreciate it if you struck it. --] (]) 06:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *MZMcBride should know better than to use this page to start rumours against another wikipedian. I would like an arb or a clerk to blank his speculations. ] (]) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** What speculation? --] (]) 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This page is ridiculous. Only here can people create drama about a motion that says there has been too much drama. Is there anyone fluent in reverse psychology? If the motion said there wasn't enough drama, would that stop the drama?! <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">] ]</span> 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :How about a motion that says that normal drama is interrupted to announce that an alien spacecraft has just landed in ]. Wikipedians are to remain in their userpages and make no edits to Misplaced Pages space.] (]) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope that spaceship didn't land on the ] in Central Park, because they spent hella time fixing that thing up back in the 90s, and I would not want those damn alien rocket thrusters (you know the things I mean) scorching the earth and ruining the lawn for tanning and frisbee tossing and the like come the spring thaw. Everyone should look into this issue immediately! --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Ban Appeal: User:DollyD == | |||
| :] | |||
| I'm not seeing a reason to grant this. Interestingly, ] was the name of one of the accounts. ] (]) 18:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The announcement looks flawed: neither of the two redlinked sock accounts show any edits. Large sockfarm. Bottom line: has this user stopped socking for six months, does s/he promise to stop the previous problems, and if the answers to those two questions are yes then is there any exceptional objection? See ]. To answer Ncmvocalist, there should be an incentive for potential reformers to reform. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fixed link. ] and ]. The latter has deleted contributions. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought there was no certainty over the answers to at least one of those questions, hence the omission of those details in the announcement. ] (]) 19:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the socking has stopped for over half a year and he's promised not to start that again, then the remaining question is whether anything more serious happened. For example, if someone emailed physical threats then it's very unlikely they'd ever be welcome back. But it would be reasonable to offer another chance if the problems were the type that increasing maturity could resolve. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I would further ask if a new CU has been performed, and whether it has been determined (if possible) whether the ip or physical location has changed - or indeed if some claim that the previous circumstances have been changed. As well as the Standard Offer terms noted by Durova, what indications have there been given that the "friendly sibling" no longer has access to the computer? If there is nothing to indicate a change in circumstances I would suggest that extra scrutiny of possible puppetry is performed before contemplating allowing a return to editing. ] (]) 01:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The sheer number of socks here (see ]) is a matter of concern. I find it hard to believe that an editor who used so many accounts, most of which have offensive names, is ever going to be genuinely interested in productive and drama-free editing. If they're unblocked it should be made conditional on regular CUs and subject to very strict probation requirements, and even then I think that it would end badly. ] (]) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::], ], ], block log: it's possible. That editor had about six times as many sockpuppets than the editor currently under consideration, yet has returned successfully. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::One of the reasons I requested whether their personal circumstances has changed is because it is possible that they have moved from an environment which supported (or even promoted) inappropriate activity to somewhere else which may not - like from an education faculty to a private address - or may denote a change in status - student and prankishness with friends to wage earning. If there is no real change in their circumstances then it may be more difficult to accept that disruption is a thing of the past (but not impossible, of course). ] (]) 22:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Unless he hasn't created any recent socks (within the past 6 months sounds reasonable) and agrees to a broad and indefinite topic ban from ], ], and ], this should not be entertained. –] 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration clerks seeking interested users == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ] | |||
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.