Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:20, 24 March 2010

Archives

1, 2

For discussion on requests for arbitration, see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration.

ADHD

I need to ask have any of the arbcom staff who have voted have actually taken the time to read my efforts to work things out with scuro on my talk page?User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise It seems I am being punished for a failed mentorship which had nothing to do with me. This is wrong and very unfair and I am perplexed the staff here appear to be not assessing or asking for evidence and just voting, some even before any evidence was presented at all. I am willing to self impose a voluntary topic ban but this involuntary topic ban seems like an injustice to me which I cannot accept. :-(--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Scuro himself said just a few minutes ago I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me..--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators needed to help out at DYK

Since Arbcom "helped" the project by banning an editor/ administrator who did a lot of work at DYK, I think it's only fair that the arbitrators step up to ease the backlog and make sure that the updates are done on time. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Viridae

Re: "blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge" - shouldn't that read "editor" instead of "administrator"? Or is Arbcom explicitly stating that non-admins do not deserve the same consideration that is expected for Admins? DuncanHill (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "not the same consideration" so much as the simple fact that an administrator can be reasonably presumed to be an established editor (and the fact that Viridae wasn't even aware that the editor was an administrator is symptomatic of how blindly reactive the block was). — Coren  11:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way it reads though. Clearly regular editors are not given the same consideration as administrators, no matter how "established" they are. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't make any difference to the decision to block whether or not the blockee is an admin - so Viridae's ignorance of the editor's status is immaterial. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty common knowledge that many Admins stick together and give each other preferential treatment. The Arbcom have always known this and endorse it - or at least do nothing to stop it. So it's pretty refreshing to see that some are prepeared to block a fellow Admin. However, Coren talks of presumptions - That an Admin can be "reasonably presumed to be an established editor" is incorrect - anyone whose been here 5 minutes and chats on IRC can be an Admin - some Admins are even so green they don't even know what copy-vio is when elected by their mates to rule over us. So let's not have all this whitewash given to us please. Impose this stuff on us - if you must, but don't insult our intelligence in the process.  Giano  13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Giano, "anyone whose been here 5 minutes and chats on IRC can be an Admin" is an outright lie unwarranted hyperbole and you know it. — Coren  14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I know there's a history here, but I wonder if it's helpful to label hyperbole as lying.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It looked like a statement meant to be taken at face value to me rather than a rhetorical device, but I admit that I might have misconstrued the tone. One of the risks of online text-based communication is that much of the subtle tones necessary to properly convey sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek statements and hyperbole are impossible to render (which is why I avoid such devices when I can). — Coren  14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• If it humours you to think it is a lie - then sobeit Coren. However, are you too suggesting that "some Admins are even so green they don't even know what copy-vio is when elected by their mates to rule over us." is a lie too, or an I imagining that. A simple yes or no - will do. We don't want to digress off subject do we?  Giano  17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why it's worse to block an admin without attempting to communicate than it is to block a non-admin in that way. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not. What's bad is to have studied the context so little before a block (if at all) that the fact that the blocked editor was an admin went unnoticed entirely. Or that the editing history did not match the allegations. — Coren  17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience of being blocked admins do not normally make any attempt to communicate with the blockee beforehand or to establish the background. I am still concerned that the motion as it is worded implies very strongly that blocking an admin is regarded as more serious than blocking non-admins. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is more serious for one thing, mind you: the distinctly higher probability of wheel warring. That being said, the motion could (and possibly should) have used "editor" rather than "administrator" in its wording if only to avoid the unfortunate (and incorrect) implication that the block would have been any more acceptable if it didn't implicate an admin. It's a minor point, however, and not worth the quibble. — Coren  01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly a minor point to you, as an administrator, but that doesn't make it a minor point except in your head. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's quibbling - we've now established that you see admins as more important than non-admins, and you allow that to affect your arbcom work. DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Brews motions

(editor voted in oppose section of motions, moving here)

I find this motion to be very funny, this is passed around as a way to help Brews. If there wasn't Tombe, myself or the other supporters there would be no motion to end sanctions on Brews, by this time he would have ben site banned. I do appplaud the fact that there is movement to progress, I ask myself though at what cost? Arbcom is starting to rectify a error that should never happen so they modify policy, they then promptly desysop the admin who unblocks brews. Next after a request for a review by Jimbo, they say ok we are willing to back down a bit but we will be silencing the opposition with a proposal that not cools down the situation where there was one loud sets of voices there will be 4 for this travesty. How is this rectifying the situation? Do you believe us to be any quieter over our own treatment then we were over brews? C'mon folks you're taking one step forward and two back with this motion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...by — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I forsee problems with the restriction after Brews topic ban expires. If Brews and me are both editing an article then I would not be allowed to comment on edits that Brews made. Note that comments in such cases will typically be criticisms (e.g. you spot what you think is an error and then want to discuss that). Other types of comments could well be similar to what I wrote to Likebox recently on the black hole page:

While I agree that all this is not really OR, I do think that a FA article on Black Hole cannot contain too much detail about all these subject (and bringing this article to FA status is the goal behind the recent editing drive). I think the removed detailed explanations can be moved to the more specialized articles for further reading. You could try to keep a summary of the most important points for the general reader here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That after Jehochman complained on AN about Likebox (I actually first posted that before I saw Jehochman's complaint). As you can read here, this was welcomed by Jehochman, it helped to diffuse a conflict.

I think David can testify that around the time that the ArbCom case was ending I removed some comments by him that I thought were disruptive (exactly in the sense that the AbCom case was addressing). David was furious with me about my action. So, the whole idea that there exists a group of editors that are fans of each other who will always defend each other is simply not true, especially not if the main subject of discussion is physics. That combined with the fact that Brews may be more receptive to constructive criticism from me or Likebox than from someone who Brews clashed with during his topic ban, makes this a very bad idea. Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Count is capable of polite and constructive editing. I think you arbitrators ought to vote on the sanctions separately, per individual, as a matter of fairness. Otherwise, I have no opinion. It's probably not helpful for me to comment further. Jehochman 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than worrying about "if scenarios", probably better to just appeal it after the restriction from motion 1 expires. I think these proposals gives all involved a good opportunity to demonstrate whether they can address their problems without further restrictive measures. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Once the Brews sanctions expire, any or all of the four named editors can apply to have these restrictions lifted. I will likely support that, though if a return to similar conduct is observed and considered disruptive (this would tend to be where comments overwhelm a discussion) then the sanctions could simply be reimposed, or a motion passed allowing administrators to re-impose the sanctions as needed (though that would be individually, not for all four editors). Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Brews ohare

Whatever the ruling regarding my own restrictions, limitations upon people's rights to express themselves in the future are not acceptable. This simply is stifling support before any argument has been engaged. In the event that, for example, Headbomb decides to implement an AN/I action against me on some thin pretext, why should all advocacy against that action be suppressed in advance? Doesn't such a situation simply invite abusive actions? Such censorship is contrary to good practice and contrary to WP's principles.

The notion that advocacy is so strident that administrators cannot sift through it to discover the "facts" of an action is equivalent to the statement that said administrators simply are incompetent to make judgments. Or, more probably, they are unwilling to sift through various arguments and prefer instead a black and white situation dominated by those they have already anointed as "reasonable".

The claim that the named parties are continually re-fighting old battles cannot be substantiated. In this appeal they have made arguments directly about this appeal. If this blank claim is asserted, it must be backed up with actual evidence, which IMO does not exist.

I also object to the wording allowing any "uninvolved" administrator to take action. As we have recently witnessed, "uninvolved" does not mean clear-headed, and once done such an action cannot be reversed without an extensive hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Likebox

Remember when I suggested that you don't pass motions restricting users that haven't broken any rules? This is an example of where you should take this advice. It's just silliness to expect that anyone will comment on Brews ohare once his sanctions are modified/lifted.Likebox (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)