| Revision as of 17:31, 9 April 2012 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Le beurre et l'argent du beurre (l'homilie du lundi pâques): new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:32, 21 April 2015 edit undoDumbBOT (talk | contribs)Bots292,832 edits removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info) | ||
| (585 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{NOINDEX}} | ||
| {{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. {{#ifeq:yes|yes|For the decision, click ]; the talkpage comments can be found in the .}} | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Change in voting for Finding of Fact on Mathsci== | |||
| == Le beurre et l'argent du beurre (l'homilie du lundi pâques) == | |||
| This finding did not pass when the case was closed, oversight of Courcelles or not. If it had been likely to pass, given the evidence provided, I would have insisted that it be rephrased, to remove the statement about ideological stance. ] (]) 07:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)<small>further refactoring - with more apologies to Roger Davies and other arbitrators ] (]) 22:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Which words in particular do you now find so objectionable? ] <sup>]</sup> 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :::I also see that two of the evidence sections were overwritten by mistake when I updated the evidence bit of this FoF. It should read: ], ], ]. I'll fix it later. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The words I object to are "whom he perceives as ideological opponents." It would be correct to write, "whom, in his perception, were attempting to game the system through proxy editing." The finding would then be an accurate overall statement, that would not need to be supported by individual diffs. In addition it would take into account the opinions expressed in the three oppose votes. The FoF was put there before arbitrators changed their view on proxy-editing and it would seem reasonable for the finding now to reflect that sea change. I have no objections at all to the first part of the phrase and you can choose some version of the ending which includes the words "proxy-editing" as you see fit. I hope this is agreeable and will help speed matters on. Regards, ] (]) 09:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's an interesting approach, and your grounds for wanting it may well prove persuasive. However, modifying the FOF so radically goes far beyond what we can reasonably do now that the case has closed. I suggest you leave it a day or two (for some of the shellshock to wear off), then request a brief, concise and routine amendment in the usual way. Do include the full current text and full proposed amendment for ease of reference. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Where is the amount of vote changing post the close allowed quantified, exactly? ] (]) 10:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::::::::Comments removed {with apologies to Roger]. Please see my response in the note below. ] (]) 17:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * Arbs have a difficult task, but would someone please review this result as it is unreasonable to make a finding against Mathsci without precise diffs that have been highlighted by Arbcom as showing unacceptable behavior ''under the circumstances''. Everyone knows that Mathsci has made pointed comments, but ''under the circumstances'', which of those comments warrant a negative finding? ] (]) 07:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*The usual approach is that misconduct by the other party is mitigation not exoneration. If every case had to pass on a guilty party/innocent party basis, nothing would ever pass. FoFs are a consensus view and while arbitrators may agree that broadly the FoF is correct it is only in the very clearest cases that there is unanimity on the diffs. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The usual approach is that once the case is closed the case is closed. Why should we pay attention to other usual approaches? ] (]) 10:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''': I wrote the following to Roger Davies in private some time prior to the case closing, "I don't particularly mind if I am admonished. What is true and which I openly admit is that I never dropped the matter of proxy editing, although I never pursued any measures actively. I agree that my persistence can be regarded as either a virtue or a vice, particularly when proxy editing is such a grey area. The procedures atarted by Shell Kinney of discussions between arbcom and those suspected of operating proxies have been further elaborated in this case. Those procedures could presumably be delegated to trusted administrators at SPI or AE." That was the view that I expressed when only the admonishment had passed and ''still applies''. That email predated the mix-up on voting on the FoF. I apologize to Roger for any misunderstanding that may have resulted. And yes, I fully agree with the admonishment and with the first half of the findings but not the statement about "ideological opponents". I could equally well have written that message on wiki and have done so now. Indeed most of it I've already said, unless I was expressing myself poorly. So apologies again, Roger. ] (]) 10:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:32, 21 April 2015
| This page has been blanked as a courtesy. For the decision, click here; the talkpage comments can be found in the page history. |
Change in voting for Finding of Fact on Mathsci
This finding did not pass when the case was closed, oversight of Courcelles or not. If it had been likely to pass, given the evidence provided, I would have insisted that it be rephrased, to remove the statement about ideological stance. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)further refactoring - with more apologies to Roger Davies and other arbitrators Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Which words in particular do you now find so objectionable? Roger Davies 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also see that two of the evidence sections were overwritten by mistake when I updated the evidence bit of this FoF. It should read: Ferahgo's request statement, Ferahgo's supplementary request statement, New evidence by Ferahgo (April 27th). I'll fix it later. Roger Davies 08:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The words I object to are "whom he perceives as ideological opponents." It would be correct to write, "whom, in his perception, were attempting to game the system through proxy editing." The finding would then be an accurate overall statement, that would not need to be supported by individual diffs. In addition it would take into account the opinions expressed in the three oppose votes. The FoF was put there before arbitrators changed their view on proxy-editing and it would seem reasonable for the finding now to reflect that sea change. I have no objections at all to the first part of the phrase and you can choose some version of the ending which includes the words "proxy-editing" as you see fit. I hope this is agreeable and will help speed matters on. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's an interesting approach, and your grounds for wanting it may well prove persuasive. However, modifying the FOF so radically goes far beyond what we can reasonably do now that the case has closed. I suggest you leave it a day or two (for some of the shellshock to wear off), then request a brief, concise and routine amendment in the usual way. Do include the full current text and full proposed amendment for ease of reference. Roger Davies 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the amount of vote changing post the close allowed quantified, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments removed {with apologies to Roger]. Please see my response in the note below. Mathsci (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the amount of vote changing post the close allowed quantified, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's an interesting approach, and your grounds for wanting it may well prove persuasive. However, modifying the FOF so radically goes far beyond what we can reasonably do now that the case has closed. I suggest you leave it a day or two (for some of the shellshock to wear off), then request a brief, concise and routine amendment in the usual way. Do include the full current text and full proposed amendment for ease of reference. Roger Davies 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The words I object to are "whom he perceives as ideological opponents." It would be correct to write, "whom, in his perception, were attempting to game the system through proxy editing." The finding would then be an accurate overall statement, that would not need to be supported by individual diffs. In addition it would take into account the opinions expressed in the three oppose votes. The FoF was put there before arbitrators changed their view on proxy-editing and it would seem reasonable for the finding now to reflect that sea change. I have no objections at all to the first part of the phrase and you can choose some version of the ending which includes the words "proxy-editing" as you see fit. I hope this is agreeable and will help speed matters on. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Arbs have a difficult task, but would someone please review this result as it is unreasonable to make a finding against Mathsci without precise diffs that have been highlighted by Arbcom as showing unacceptable behavior under the circumstances. Everyone knows that Mathsci has made pointed comments, but under the circumstances, which of those comments warrant a negative finding? Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The usual approach is that misconduct by the other party is mitigation not exoneration. If every case had to pass on a guilty party/innocent party basis, nothing would ever pass. FoFs are a consensus view and while arbitrators may agree that broadly the FoF is correct it is only in the very clearest cases that there is unanimity on the diffs. Roger Davies 08:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The usual approach is that once the case is closed the case is closed. Why should we pay attention to other usual approaches? Hipocrite (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I wrote the following to Roger Davies in private some time prior to the case closing, "I don't particularly mind if I am admonished. What is true and which I openly admit is that I never dropped the matter of proxy editing, although I never pursued any measures actively. I agree that my persistence can be regarded as either a virtue or a vice, particularly when proxy editing is such a grey area. The procedures atarted by Shell Kinney of discussions between arbcom and those suspected of operating proxies have been further elaborated in this case. Those procedures could presumably be delegated to trusted administrators at SPI or AE." That was the view that I expressed when only the admonishment had passed and still applies. That email predated the mix-up on voting on the FoF. I apologize to Roger for any misunderstanding that may have resulted. And yes, I fully agree with the admonishment and with the first half of the findings but not the statement about "ideological opponents". I could equally well have written that message on wiki and have done so now. Indeed most of it I've already said, unless I was expressing myself poorly. So apologies again, Roger. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)