Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:56, 26 May 2007

Comments

Contradictory? Unclear? Why are we having this discussion? Has the ArbCom started policing private channels of communication? This is plain ridiculous. Do I need to point out various instances where communication over IRC was rejected as any kind of evidence by the ArbCom? Please judge us solely on what we do here on Misplaced Pages. Note to clerks: Please do NOT remove this message. This needs to be read by each and every arbitrator. We're not a banana republic, and there has to be accountability on each and every function of the ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick 04:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're on the verge of closing without remedies for that very reason. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mackensen et al - I don't care what other stuff y'all decide on, you have to settle the question of whether the blocks were justified or not. Apart from the e-mail evidence, substantial on-wiki evidence has been provided over Bakasuprman, D-Boy and Sbhushan's disruptive activitis and tag-teaming with Hkelkar's socks. If you don't settle that question, you will not have answered the central issue that brought all this to ArbCom. If you don't, I am personally inclined to reinstate the blocks (which were removed only for this case) based on the evidence provided and the ANI consensus - and that is not gonna be devoid of controversy. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  Is some aspect of "the Committee is unable to determine whether the various allegations made regarding the involved parties are accurate" unclear? Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - it is "unclear" why "the Committee" is not giving its opinion on the on-wiki evidence presented to substantiate the case. There are more than 50 diffs presented regarded Baka, D-Boy and Sbhushan's disruptive editing and tag-teaming with Hkelkar's socks. I can understand if you don't want to deal with the question of e-mail evidence, but this is on-wiki evidence. And P.S. - Lokshin, lose the attitude, ok? You and your precious "Committee" had no hesitation in ignoring my request for guidance, which could have prevented this mess. What makes you think you have any right to lecture me now? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have some respect for all the hard work, tension and headache taken up by Baka, D-Boy, Sbhushan, Abecedare, myself, DaGizza and Sir Nick to present their cases to the best of their abilities. You and your pompous Committee have said nothing, done nothing to help resolve this issue, acted irresponsibly by ignoring my request for guidance and now you are telling us that hours of work digging up diffs and configuring e-mails and arguing on workshops and soul-searching about one's purpose on Misplaced Pages is for nothing? 1-2 cop-out proposals, 1-2 wise ass comments and we're done, eh? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And for God's sake, there is a bloody direct precedence with the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan and Hkelkar 1 - you can't even uphold your own line of judgment and decisions. The same parties have been involved in 3-4 ArbCom cases and other failed ArbCom requests - get ready for yet another case over exactly the same issues in a month's time. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is even a single diff of Sbhushan's tag-team with Hkelkar's sock? Here is a diff of Rama's Arrow's defending Hkelkar's sock ; Fowler has provide more evidence of RA with Hkelkar's sock. So who is meatpuppet of Hkelkar? On one point I agree with Rama's Arrow, don't leave us in limbo. Rama's Arrow should be held responsible for his mudslinging and abuse of admin power. On different note please resolve the dispute with Dbachmann. I have tried all options; spend six months trying to resolve this. After last rejection of ArbCom request, Dbachmann undid months of work and that is disruptive behavior. Dbachmann is creating this battleground on wikipedia. It is NOT a content dispute. Wishing the problem to go away, will not make it go away, it will just get worse.Sbhushan 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And the pissing contest that the workshop and evidence pages became -- "You suck! "no, you suck!" "no, you're an asshole!" "no, YOU'RE the asshole" -- is hardly making it better, and I've had trouble finding a single contributor to either that seems worth listening to for more than a paragraph. From what I can tell, every single one of you should be blocked for activities not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. --jpgordon 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Jp? :))) It will be fun to see you defend your decisions on ANI, and then ArbCom! LOL Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The fun thing is that I don't have to. --jpgordon 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be cool with getting blocked as long as Rama's Arrow and DaGizza receive the same penalties and are no longer admins.--D-Boy 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think arbcom is acting correctly. Rama can point us to unicorns, meatpuppetry, East Dakota whatever he wants. Whatever. As soon as my name is cleared of these opprobrious nonsense, I'm WP:VANISH.Bakaman 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Word.--D-Boy 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mediation remedy

Dbachmann refuses to try mediation. Please see the reason for rejection of the last effort. ]. On the talk page for this request Dbachmann had made comments that Misplaced Pages policies do not require him to participate in mediation. (I can not get access to his diff as the page was deleted, I am trying to get it undeleted.) Please see comments of Buddhipriya on evidence talk page ]. Again Dbachmann refused to participate in mediation.

The issues with Dbachmann are admin power abuse, disruptive behavior, indefensible incivility, page-owning, prejudice, and creating a battleground on wikipedia. Evidence is ] and ]. These are not content dispute issues.Sbhushan 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan is right - he has already attempted mediation with Dbachmann, who refused. Mediation would likely not have worked, since there is clear and ongoing evidence that Dbachmann has abused his admin responsibilities. Other aspects of this case will hopefully 'just go away' with no sanctions. I agree that this incident was unfortunate, and that generally it is best to leave well enough alone—no sanctions, blocking, desysopping—and for the main parties to forgive and move forward. But I don't believe that the Dbachmann problem will disappear and move forward without a clearer statement from the Arbitration Committee. Thank you for your work, ॐ Priyanath talk 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sbhushan - we are already at ArbCom - the final step in dispute resolution. Now you want us to go lower? What ArbCom has to decide is not who's guilty, who's not, but whether I, as an administrator, was justified in blocking the trio for the reasons and evidence I put forth - this ArbCom case arose over a debate at ANI where a few objected for the basis of the block. Arbitrators - you are not addressing the central questions. These individuals have been involved in more than 3 arbitration cases, and they will be back in a few month's time for the same reasons - delaying the problem by suggesting already failed remedies will hurt Misplaced Pages. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And I can accept criticism of e-mail evidence, that is not really the core issue. I gave you on-wiki evidence of Baka/Kelkar/D-Boy tag-teaming on Godhra Train Burning, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and other articles, to substantiate claims of meatpuppetry. Everyone knows how actively Baka and D-Boy have sought to defend Hkelkar's sockpuppets. Sbhushan's harassment of Dab continues at this very moment. E-mail evidence has been substantiated in every way. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)