| Revision as of 21:24, 27 January 2013 view sourceBigBabyChips (talk | contribs)805 editsm →Statement by BigBabyChips← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:47, 28 January 2013 view source Razr Nation (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,891 edits →Pratyeka: DeclinedNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| *Awaiting further statements. While this may on the surface appear to be a content dispute, I cannot help noticing the fact that AnnerTown has had started off by making very negative assumptions of bad faith about BigBabyChips, including an admission that AnnerTown believed BigBabyChips was a gang member when BBC was disputing AnnerTown's earlier versions of the article. The same diff indicates that AnnerTown is aware that at least earlier versions of the article are not NPOV. I believe this can probably be addressed at the community level, but AnnerTown needs to be aware that dispute resolution (especially at the Arbitration Committee level) means that the actions of ''all'' parties will be examined. ] (]) 04:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | *Awaiting further statements. While this may on the surface appear to be a content dispute, I cannot help noticing the fact that AnnerTown has had started off by making very negative assumptions of bad faith about BigBabyChips, including an admission that AnnerTown believed BigBabyChips was a gang member when BBC was disputing AnnerTown's earlier versions of the article. The same diff indicates that AnnerTown is aware that at least earlier versions of the article are not NPOV. I believe this can probably be addressed at the community level, but AnnerTown needs to be aware that dispute resolution (especially at the Arbitration Committee level) means that the actions of ''all'' parties will be examined. ] (]) 04:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Pratyeka == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> '''at''' 00:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|GregJackP}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Pratyeka}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|JDDJS}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Wtshymanski}} | |||
| *{{admin|JamesBWatson}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Boing! said Zebedee}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Anthonyhcole}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| *GregJackP - filing party | |||
| *Pratyeka, | |||
| *JDDJS, | |||
| *Wtshymanski, | |||
| *JamesBWatson, | |||
| *Boing! said Zebedee, | |||
| *Anthonyhcole, | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *Wtshymanski requested information from Pratyeka on Pratyeka's talk page | |||
| *JamesBWatson requested information from Partyeka on Pratyeka's talk page | |||
| *JDDJS notified Pratyeka of discussion at AN/I | |||
| *Pratyeka responded on his talk page and at AN/I , | |||
| *Boing! said Zebedee, GregJackP, and Anthonyhcole contacted Pratyeka for clarification after his response at AN/I , , | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| === Statement by GregJackP === | |||
| This is a matter of abuse of administrator tools by Pratyeka, and the failure of Pratyeka to abide by the consensus of the community. He has restored pages that have been deleted by the AfD process without going through DRV or another to establish consensus to restore the page. See ] (edit summary: "Very large/well known, serial, hacking event. Awaited for over 3/4 years. Not crystal ball/advertising."); and ] (edit summary: "Clearly notable within the global computing community. Deletion misguided. Apologies."). | |||
| He has undeleted articles from PRODs, without improving the article, fixing the problem, or ensuring that it was notable. See ] (edit summary: "Used by very popular software. I came looking for this background, it is certainly adequately notable."); ] (edit summary: "Listed under 'http://www.4docs.org.uk/index.php/The_best_short_documentaries_ever_made'. I found the original article via google on Deletionpedia, and came here to rectify. Apologies to the original authors, this page is"); and ] (1. Not an advert (Not a commercial project, not owned by any single person), 2. Important theoretical area of interest to the community (will be referenced, even if never implemented), 3. Presented in a leading public forum). | |||
| It also appears that he has used his admin tools to edit a protected article ] in which he was involved, without having another, uninvolved, admin approve or deny the edit. See . | |||
| He also restored ], which had been deleted as a copyright violation, without eliminating the copyrighted material. This material stayed in the article from restoration on December 6, 2010 until it was discovered by another editor on January 20, 2011. See here . | |||
| What is the worse part is his response at AN/I (diff above) where he states: "I am going to go further and state something slightly obvious, which is that the notion of 'consensus' for deleting an article in Misplaced Pages is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways. Given that it's imperfect, given that some of us have been around and proven we are net contributors in good faith, <u>what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge</u> (I have been involved in the 'hacker' community since ~1995) <u>if you can't press the undelete button</u> for a huge and well known event..." (emphasis added). Not only does he denigrate the idea of consensus (in another spot, he calls it "self-appointed '(temporary) ministry of truth' committees"), but he has indicated that he does not intend to change. Admins are given the tools based on the trust of the community, and that it is "no big deal." Pratyeka has violated that trust. | |||
| The current consensus at AN/I is to either a) refer the matter to ArbCom for desysoping, if necessary, or 2) topic ban Pratyeka from deletions/restorations. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''Note'''. Pratyeka may be out of contact for a couple of weeks, based on his comments at AN/I, and I would request that the committee not take any action until he has definitely been contacted and can defend himself. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 01:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @ SarekOfVulcan: I should have been more clear. These are the issues brought up in the AN/I, and while it was mentioned that the PRODs were technically correct, it appears from his response on restoring articles, he doesn't base it on policy, but on his own view of what should happen. The main issue that the community appears to have is that he disregards community consensus, especially on the AfDs, along with his response, quoted in part above. To a lesser degree, some expressed concern about the copyvio he restored without taking action on the copyrighted material. I'm mainly just following through on the AN/I and bringing it to ArbCom per the consensus there. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 01:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Further note. I have requested that NW recuse himself from this case due to our past history, he has declined to do so. If necessary, I am willing to provide further information on why he should not be hearing a case that involves me. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 03:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @ NE Ent. Your times are not correct. Wtshymanski posted the first question on Pratyeka's conduct at (UTC-6), Jan. 15. Pratyeka responded at , Jan. 16. The questions by JDDJS and JamesBWatson came <u>nine days</u> after Pratyeka had been initially questioned on issue, and after he had responded. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 04:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @ Arbcom members. Given that this is likely to be declined, and the suggestions of various members to try and address this on his talk page, would it be appropriate to withdraw the case and proceed as per those suggestions? <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 00:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by JDDJS === | |||
| I strongly support a removal of all admin rights of Prat. He initially became an admin back when it was very simple, and you did not have to display any knowledge of policy. <u>Prat has openly admitted that he has not bothered to keep up with the changes in policy. His knowledge of current policy is basic at best.</u> He is under the <u>impression that because he is an admin and experienced editor, his opinion over rules everyone else's</u>. Furthermore, several instants have been bought up where he either abused or stretched the limits of his admin power. However, <u>'''no instances of him using his admin power in a particular good manor have not been bought up.'''</u> He is also not a very active admin. Therefore, the '''<u>community loses absolutely nothing removing his admin rights</u>'''. While I agree that it would be wrong to make the final decision on the matter before Prat comes back, I will not believe him to be sincere if he apologizes. He had the chance to apologize for his actions at ANI. If he admitted that it was wrong for him to restore Observe Hack Make without any discussion, then I would have let this go. Instead, he said that the consensus was wrong, and <u>'''that we at ANI were wrong to question his authority.'''</u> <u>Any attempt to apologize now would simply be a final act of desperation to keep his admin rights.</u> If in the future, he shows himself to be more up to date on policy and more willing to work with consensus, then he can attempt to regain his admin status via RFA. ] (]) 02:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @Jclemens. The notability of Observe Hack Make is not relevant to this discussion. The problem is that Prat restored based solely on his own opinion, which was against current consesus. He did not even try to fix the page after he restored. Considering that he claims to be part of the hacker community, there a conflict of interest in him editing it. Furthermore, JamesBWatson only restored the page because he was involved in a similar instance recently, and therefore he did not want to be the one to delete it, but he was okay with another admin making the call to delete it, which is why he did not remove the speedy deletion tag on it. ] (]) 16:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by peripherally-involved SarekOfVulcan === | |||
| I'd consider myself uninvolved, except for the ] deletion. I just wanted to point out that according to ], {{xt|If the article has already been deleted.... It will be undeleted automatically on request}}, so his PROD restorations were within policy, as far as I can tell.--] 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Rschen7754=== | |||
| What concerns me overall is the pattern where he believes that he is above community consensus, more than any of his actions. To me, his position as an administrator is untenable because of this. --''']]]''' 02:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Further comment: perhaps a solution similar to Schuminweb, should inactivity be an issue? --''']]]''' 03:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by NE Ent === | |||
| Not harm came to Misplaced Pages due to the transient existence of ]. | |||
| Critical review of the diffs presented actually show other steps in dispute resolution have ''not'' been executed ]. JamesBWatson posted his concern at . Before Pratyeka even had a chance to reply, JDDJS started the ANI thread a mere 46 minutes later at without having discussed the issue on Pratyeka's talk page as required by the ]. Pratyeka has been an admin for ] and hasn't caused significant problems, and he indicated he'd be willing to more when he gets back online in a few weeks. Does he need to get onboard with the current deletion processes? Of course, but there's a reason ] redirects to ANI -- this has all been overwrought. | |||
| While you're all here (and I'm hopefully < 500 words) it would be good to hear the committee's thought on the validity of an ANI "topic ban" from doing undeletions/deletions, which sounds like a mini-] to me, which is out of scope of community sanctions the way I understand things. <small>]</small> | |||
| === Statement by Boing! said Zebedee === | |||
| GregJackP has provided diffs, and it's all there in the ANI section, so I won't repeat any here. I'm really only "involved" in that I tried to talk to Pratyeka on his talk page, but I assume he had already gone away by then. What seriously concerns me is that he is using admin tools (when he uses them at all) to enforce his own opinions regarding content, and not to enforce policy/consensus - in fact, he uses admin tools to override consensus where he disagrees with it, undeleting articles deleted after unanimous AfD, deleting articles because his "expert" view says they shouldn't be there, editing articles he is involved in through protection, etc.<p>I can understand if an "old school" admin is not familiar with the way things are done these days, and mistakes are fine - but admins must respond appropriately when challenged. And Pratyeka's arrogant insistence that there is absolutely nothing wrong with his using the tools to override consensus when according to his "expert" knowledge it is wrong is unacceptable. In my view, one of two things has to happen - he must agree to abide by the proper use of admin tools, or he must lose the ability to use them.<p>This case is complicated by Pratyeka's having gone away for a few weeks, but I don't see any problem in delaying things until he's back - he's obviously not going to abuse the tools while he's away.<p>What is the way forward? NW suggests we should go to RFC/U, but I see that as a waste of time. It's entirely voluntary, and if Pratyeka chooses not to abide by the community's requirements on him, then it is toothless. But if he does agree, then he can do so by replying here (or at ANI or on his talk page) without the need for RFC/U and it will all be over.<p>So my suggestion is to keep this pending until Pratyeka is back and see how he responds - if he responds positively, we can ditch this, but if not, an RFC/U would have been useless anyway and ArbCom should accept the case.<p>In the longer run, and to make a wider point, we really need to be able to deal with rogue admins without weeks and months of petty bureaucracy - we really should not need to jump through the hoops of RFC/U to deal with a blatant case of admin tool abuse. -- ] (]) 04:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)<p> | |||
| @GregJackP - As this case isn't actually about you (it didn't really matter who brought the case - it could have been any one out of dozens of us), I don't see that NW needs to recuse. -- ] (]) 04:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)<p> | |||
| @everyone. A few people here seem to think this is only about the undeletion. It isn't - GregJackP's statement describes a pattern of misuse of admin tools, as also does the ANI discussion -- ] (]) 11:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Anthonyhcole === | |||
| Pratyeka is travelling with uncertain internet access for the next few weeks. He appears to have lost touch with administrator behaviour norms. This all has clearly come as a surprise to him, and it will take a little time for him to get his head around the fairly simple but profound change in ethos with regard to consensus and admin action. He's clearly not dumb and there is no evidence he's incapable of adjusting to the current paradigm. I endorse the suggestion that we allow him these few weeks to absorb this event and get back to us once he has reliable internet access, to discuss the best way forward. Perhaps we could nominate an experienced and knowledgeable admin with fine people skills (looking at Dennis Brown or Casliber or someone else with their deft touch) who could explore with him his views, his current skill set and his readiness to conform to the current norms. They could then both report to ANI the results of that dialogue. --] (]) 06:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Coren's {{quotation|I'll not hide that I hold a fairly high measure of skepticism towards administrators whose life circumstances just happen to involve a long period of inactivity just as an AN or ANI thread is heading towards a likelihood of heading to ArbCom: I can recall about a half dozen such coincidences in the past two years alone. While I've no desire of looking at admin conduct in absentia and am entirely willing to extend good faith...}} is offensive and demonstrates very poor judgment. --] (]) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Both Dennis and Cas are willing to have the talk if their schedules permit, once Pratyeka is back online. --] (]) 10:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jclemens === | |||
| While I understand that the committee may see fit to decline the request, I would urge it to accept the request to examine the conduct of all parties. | |||
| :* ] was inappropriately closed as speedy deletion, even though G4 had already been by one editor in good standing, and then later self-reversed by JamesBWatson when he came to the same conclusion as noted in the deletion | |||
| :* JamesBWatson's deletion (later self-reversed) and JIP's currently standing deletion arguably each violate ], as no deletion discussion had actually considered the merits of the article. | |||
| :* Overall the penalties for an administrator applying ] in such a limited manner should not be more severe than those for those for administrators flagrantly violating the fourth. And yet, in two recent instances, the admins losing their cool are excused. Mind you, I'm not taking a stand on those outcomes--just noting that the remedy advocated in this case is so disproportionate that to enact it would be project-damaging. | |||
| :* And on a more meta-level, the deletion processes should not be allowed to morph into penalty-focused game. Deletion exists to exclude currently inappropriate content, and ''undeletion'' of content that's no longer as-inappropriate is a vital and necessary part of encyclopedic health, especially in cases like this. Indeed, in the short time that it was allowed to exist, someone a reference--albeit one that appears inadequate to remedy the objections in the first deletion discussion. The committee has an opportunity to reinforce the expectation that recreation of deleted material is a routine part of the encyclopedia, and, when done in good faith, should carry no more negative consequences than being "incorrect" in any other consensus-based discussion. | |||
| === Statement by Bwilkins === | |||
| As there are multiple instances of inappropriate admin behaviours surrounding ], including improper undeletion and editing through protection, PLUS their rather shocking responses to the community, '''and''' the fact that the community has very strongly requested review or desysop, I highly urge ArbCom to accept this. | |||
| I do understand that the primary party will be away - so perhaps acceptance, but hold until their return but with ]-type placeholders would be an appropriate way to show that ArbCom is seriously understanding the concerns raised by the community in ANI (]''']''']) 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Kurtis === | |||
| For me, the ultimate litmus test of whether or not someone should remain an administrator is, and has always been, community trust. Do Wikipedians in general feel confident that the user in question can use the sysop toolset responsibly? clearly demonstrates that Pratyeka does not have the backing of the community at this time. I'm no fan of witch hunts and I sure as hell won't be throwing a rotten tomato at someone strapped to the ], but I do feel as if it'd be best for all involved if Pratyeka no longer retained the sysop bit, at least not for the time being. | |||
| My opinion? Despite what his response may indicate to those of us who've followed this site's bureaucratic evolution, this is not an arrogant user who is "holier than thou art" and needs to get off his high horse; this is someone who has simply ''fallen out of touch'' with the present-day norms of Misplaced Pages. He comes from a time when there was less oversight among our administrators and people could undo any action they see fit without due process if they feel confident enough in their abilities to improve the original situation. I like to call that era the "Cowboy Days of Misplaced Pages" — or, if you'd prefer, "The Wild Wild Wiki". But times have changed. It's 2013, not 2003. Our administrators are held to a ''much'' higher standard than they were back then. For me to feel comfortable with Pratyeka regaining the sysop bit, he would have to demonstrate that he's gotten himself caught up on the policies of modern-day Misplaced Pages. For starters, consensus is not something we ignore. Unilateral admin actions are dramafests in the works. Process is positively pivotal. | |||
| So yes, I would prefer ArbCom to pass a motion desysopping Pratyeka at this time, with no prejudice against him requesting adminship again at a future date (although later than sooner is ever the better). That being said, do hold this one until he has more time to focus on what is happening; I don't think it's fair to go from soup to nuts without the man of the hour being given a chance to talk. ] ] 12:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved JohnCD === | |||
| The original incidents are not that important, but the unapologetic tone of Pratyeka's response at AN/I, dismissing consensus at AfD as "''your important bygone misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus' ''", seems to me to show an attitude so far out of line with current expectations of admin behaviour as to be unacceptable. It also suggests that an RFC/U would merely waste time and end up back here. If Pratyeka's absence means that this may take time to resolve, I suggest (as in previous cases) a request not to use admin tools in the meantime. ] (]) 12:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Alanscottwalker === | |||
| There has been insufficient reflective discussion and reasoning with the User prior to the AN/I, a board which often has difficulty in dealing with reflective discussion and reasoning, when it seems rather used to bring a User ''].'' In this case, more talking with each other, instead of charges, would be a better step before here. It does not seem that talk pages have reached an irretrievable ending, so arbitration of these issues is not ''now'' required. ] (]) 12:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Notes to Arbitrators from TenOfAllTrades === | |||
| '''@Coren''', I'm disappointed. You say, "''I'll not hide that I hold a fairly high measure of skepticism towards administrators whose life circumstances ''just happen'' to involve a long period of inactivity just as an AN or ANI thread is heading towards a likelihood of heading to ArbCom: I can recall about a half dozen such coincidences in the past two years alone.''" Well, so? Do you have particular reason to suspect that the party is lying in ''this'' case, or are you just baselessly attacking their credibility at a time when they aren't available to respond? Looking at ], in the three weeks preceding the AN/I report he made just ''three'' edits (one deleted), the last of which was six days earlier. This isn't an instance where a highly-active editor suddenly and conveniently dropped off the map. | |||
| Speaking from my own experience, in any given year there will be a anywhere from one to three contiguous weeks when I am essentially unavailable for Misplaced Pages purposes due to vacation/family commitments, and at least a couple of one-to-three-week periods where workplace obligations/travel preclude the sort of concentrated attention/participation that an ArbCom case would demand. In other words, throw an Arbitration case or AN/I discussion at me at random, and there's at least a 1 in 10 chance that you're going to hit a period where I would be inclined – and reasonably entitled – to ask for a postponement. Given that AN/I alone sees about ten new threads per day, is it really so implausible that such "coincidences" might arise genuinely ''coincidentally'' a few times a year? | |||
| <s>I know you're new to the responsibilities of ArbCom, but try to remember that your off-the-cuff pronouncements carry a lot more weight in your role as Arbitrator. </s> Misplaced Pages editors are real people, some of whom have real-world obligations outside this project. ](]) 17:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Correction, this isn't Coren's first term. ](]) 18:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Coren, I'm not on your part; I'm criticising what looked like a pretty clear intimation by you of bad faith on Pratyeka's part. When you said that you "hold a fairly high measure of skepticism towards administrators whose life circumstances ''just happen'' to involve a long period of inactivity just as an AN or ANI thread is heading towards a likelihood of heading to ArbCom", to whom should the other editors on this page presume you might refer, if not to the party to ''this'' case? Like it or not, your comment tarred all administrators in Pratyeka's purported circumstances, honest or otherwise, with the same broad brush. | |||
| ::To be clear, are you saying that your comments about contrived delays were irrelevant to ''this'' case, and that Pratyeka has given you no reason to be skeptical of his honesty regarding his circumstances? | |||
| ::For what it's worth, I agree with you about the problem of a perverse incentive. I urge you to reexamine my comment, and note that I did not anywhere disagree with your vote, or suggest that an individual being busy should grant them a free pass. Your argument would have been just as strong (and more concise) without bringing in any suggestion that Pratyeka's absence was contrived. ](]) 03:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Jehochman=== | |||
| Even if an absence is contrived, it does no harm to let everybody calm down for a while. The issues should be spelled out concisely at the administrator's talk page and then wait for him to respond. There's no deadline. As long as the admin is inactive, they are not causing any harm that would need immediate attention. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Pratyeka: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/7/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Pratyeka: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *Awaiting statements. ] (]) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline'''. ] (]) 19:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Pratyeka will not be able to participate for three weeks and having looked into it, I see no reason to bypass RFC/U in this case. And if people are thinking of one, I would advise that they wait a few weeks until Pratyeka is back first. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :*] redirects to ] for a reason – regardless of how well-expressed comments are on that page, a fast-moving, inherently antagonistic page like ANI is not conducive to allowing administrators time to reflect on their actions. Requests for comment or simple talk page discussion are non-binding, but they allow for calmer discussion that is important to at least attempt before coming to us. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 06:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting more statements, but inclined to accept, as the ANI comments are pretty much incompatible with being an admin. ] 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Accept''' ] 19:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' at this point. Pratyeka has stated that they will be away for several weeks. During that time, they may well reflect on the unequivocal rejection of their practice and cease undeleting inappropriately. If the situation recurs after having received such a significant rebuff from the community, including users with a wide range of experience, then I would be willing to accept a case. I have no doubt that there are now plenty of watchers who will be reviewing any undeletions that Pratyeka carries out. ] (]) 04:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Pratyeka's actions were inappropriate, and his response is not entirely satisfactory; however, there doesn't appear to be a pattern of misuse of the tools, and he did provide a rationale when asked. I'd be interested in hearing more from Pratyeka when he returns from China, with either a more convincing comment that he understands why the community are concerned, and to promise that he won't be making those actions again; or that he is willing to submit to a reconfirmation RfA. I think it would be helpful if any admin who has not had the trust of the community confirmed by any election process such as RfB or ArbCom for 3 years or more, would voluntarily put themselves forward for a reconfirmation RfA. We could put this case request on hold until Pratyeka returns, and then see if he continues to assert he is within his rights to subvert consensus process merely because he's been around a while and knows better than anyone else. As regards the notability of the article that he undeleted - that is not within the scope of the Committee to judge; we will just note that in undeleting he ignored consensus, and didn't follow the appropriate procedure. Such actions are harmful to the smooth running of this project, and so don't fall under IAR. ''']''' ''']''' 11:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline'''. Rather than putting this on hold, and have it hanging over Pratyeka's head when he returns; it might be more appropriate for the community to discuss matters with him on his return, either quietly on his talkpage, or by a more open RfC, and if the discussion is not productive or the outcome is indecisive, then start a new ArbCom request. ''']''' ''']''' 15:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *A couple of random thoughts on the issue. First of all, the community can restrict and sanction editors; it cannot, however, desysop administrators. This is an exception to the rule and, therefore, should be strictly construed. For that, in my opinion, the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him {{endash}} which means that a ban from using the "undelete" button is OK, but a ban from (un)deleting, (un)blocking and (un)protecting would not be acceptable. As it happens, it's something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Then, while ] is a necessary part of this website and an admin invoking it should generally not be sanctioned (although, of course, his actions may be reversed, if a consensus emerges that he was wrong), it should not give admins a sense of entitlement, the idea that their personal opinions overrule the consensus of the community. Admins are not exempt from following proper process. That said, I personally don't like this rush to ArbCom. We are the '''final''' step in dispute resolution; starting an ANI thread and, then, running here, before it even gets archived, gives me a sense of antagonism that I find incompatible with Misplaced Pages's nature. There are other steps which are more collaborative and less antagonistic, ]s, for instance, that should be tried before dragging an editor before us. For that reason, I believe this case should be '''declined'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''; and hold in abeyance until Pratyeka's return. The concerns expressed on the ANI are serious enough and the alleged misconduct severe enough that they should definitely not return to editing without those concerns having been addressed. I'll not hide that I hold a fairly high measure of skepticism towards administrators whose life circumstances ''just happen'' to involve a long period of inactivity just as an AN or ANI thread is heading towards a likelihood of heading to ArbCom: I can recall about a half dozen such coincidences in the past two years alone.<p>While I've no desire of looking at admin conduct in absentia and am entirely willing to extend good faith that the leave of absence is entirely coincidental, I also want to make certain that it is very clear that it does not give a free pass to answering community concerns. Since I have no doubt that I would have accepted the case had Pratyeka been available, I see no reason to not do so and simply delay it until their return. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:@TenOfAllTrades: ''" is it really so implausible that such "coincidences" might arise genuinely coincidentally a few times a year"''; no, it isn't, which is why I'm entirely willing to extent the presumption that this is indeed coincidental (as I've explicitly said just a few lines above). That said, there are considerably more such coincidences than can be explained by chance alone in the past – hence my scepticism.<p>I think that declining cases (as opposed to simply placing them on hold) because a participant becomes unavailable as a case appears likely ''does'' creates a very bad ] for such circumstances to occur. I would have voted in exactly the same way in all of those previous cases as well – not because I believe it likely than any ''specific'' party has contrived the circumstances – but because doing otherwise rewards those few who ''do'' abuse the possibility. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:@TenOfAllTrades: I'm saying that it is not possible to make a determination in ''any'' case (this one included) and that the proper thing to do is to open the case and hold it until the administrator returns; this is fair on those whose absence is coincidental yet does not encourage ''strategic'' absences.<p>This comment ended up on the Pratyeka request simply because it happens to be the ''first'' such case of the term, not because of Pratyeka was any more likely than anyone else to have abused the process. — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline at this stage''', per other decline comments above, particularly Risker's and SilkTork's. ] (]) 17:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per much of the above. It would be more logical to use the three-week absence to create a draft summary in someone's userspace or other appropriate location, of the concerns, for people to civilly and calmly discuss there, and to present that to Pratyeka on their return (the same courtesy should be extended to any good-faith editor). If when Pratyeka returns and discussions resume (calmly, don't rush to restart discussions), then it can either get resolved at that point, or moved to a formal RFC/U (request for comment on user conduct). In passing, I agree absolutely with the comments from TenOfAllTrades. ] (]) 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' to examine Pratyeka's administrator actions. Like Coren, I would suspend the case until Pratyeka's return. ] ]] 00:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:47, 28 January 2013
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| BigBabyChips NPOV and Juggalos | 27 January 2013 | {{{votes}}} |
| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
BigBabyChips NPOV and Juggalos
Initiated by AnnerTown (talk) at 01:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Involved parties
- AnnerTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- BigBabyChips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by AnnerTown
I wrote an article called "Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos", which offended BigBabyChips, an apparent Juggalo. I looked it over and agreed that some of the sources were biased, so it was deleted and completely rewritten, with much care taken to ensure that only reliable sources were put into the article. Despite this, he repeatedly removes the content that he doesn't agree with, reliable source or not. I've tried compromising with him, but he keeps removing content he doesn't like and changing things like "gang sets" to "alleged gang sets" when the presence of said gang sets have been reported by numerous reliable sources including the FBI, the National Gang Intelligence Center, and news reports all across the country.
I've bent over backwards to accommodate his demands and ensure that Juggalo music fans are not lumped in with Juggalo gang members, but it's to the point where he is completely unwilling to compromise; there is simply no way he is going to allow reliable sources into the article that disagree with his point of view. He has even accused me of malicious editing against Juggalos despite my doing everything possible to ensure the neutrality of the article. I'm at my wit's end with this.
As his username is derived from an Insane Clown Posse movie, he works almost exclusively on Psychopathic Records-related articles, and he removes any reliable sources that put Juggalos (gang-related or not) in a negative light, I think that it's safe to say that a NPOV violation is occurring.
Also note that he has not once replied to any of attempts to contact him on his talk page, he just keeps making unconstructive edits. I wholeheartedly encourage the arbitration committee to look over the sources cited in the Juggalos (gang) article as well as the relevant section of the Juggalo article.
Very true, and I apologize for that and fully admit that I made bad faith assumptions about BigBabyChips and the Juggalo subculture in general. I've tried to right this by rewriting the article with purely neutral sources, but he removes these regardless. For example, he'll remove references to the Aryan Brotherhood but not to the Bloods or Crips despite being in the exact same source mentioned in exactly the same way, seemingly because he believes that some Juggalo gang sets being aligned with the Aryan Brotherhood automatically makes Juggalos racist (never mind that AB also has ties to the Mexican Mafia and even some black gangs). I just don't like him removing something that's in a reliable source purely because he doesn't agree with it.
I do understand that I'll need to be investigated, too, and if there's anything I can do to help that, please let me know. Either way, I'd once again encourage the arbitrators to take a look at the sources in question, because I think that that will prove my case more than anything.
Statement by BigBabyChips
This is all very interesting from a behavioral response. I haven't nominated Juggalos (gang) for deletion, though I've expressed concern about stating that there is such a thing as a "Juggalo gang". Insane Clown Posse filed lawsuit against the FBI because they asked for the government organization's evidence for classifying "Juggalos" as a gang, and the FBI refused to provide it. I also pointed out that because popular culture often appears to glorify gang/criminal lifestyle (via gangsta rap), many young people who want to appear tough may claim to be "gangstas" and commit disorganized crime. I remember seeing a movie where mafia members mocked rappers for claiming to be gangsters, that falls in line with this subject. But regardless of debate over what constitutes a "gangster", I don't see any evidence of an organized "Juggalo crime syndicate".
The FBI report claims Juggalos as being "disorganized criminal activity", without providing evidence that there is a "disorganized criminal organization", if such a thing is possible. Another strange part of the report is where Juggalos are noted for being individualistic, which is not connected to criminal activity, and is almost as strange as Barack Obama making a special criticism of Paul Ryan for being an Ayn Rand reader, which doesn't relate to Ryan's policies.
I haven't attacked AnnerTown or anyone else for any edits, so I'm not sure what accusing me of being a gang member is supposed to accomplish. My concerns were about issues relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. To bring up another point, Ice-T refers to his Twitter followers as members of the "Final Level Twitter Gang" - does this qualify Ice-T fans as a gang? Wiz Khalifa similarly refers to his fans as the "Taylor Gang". Are Khalifa fans, thusly, gang members? It would be reasonable to assume that calling yourself a gang member does not automatically make you a gang member.
Also, I'm not sure why AnnerTown made a specific point to open up an arbitration case on a user, not an issue, as if to imply that I am somehow the problem, and not the issue of classifying Juggalos as a gang. Doesn't sound much like good faith to me. Hmmm.... BigBabyChips (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Please keep all statements in your original section - no need for a new section each time you make an edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
BigBabyChips NPOV and Juggalos: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/1>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Awaiting further statements. While this may on the surface appear to be a content dispute, I cannot help noticing the fact that AnnerTown has had started off by making very negative assumptions of bad faith about BigBabyChips, including an admission that AnnerTown believed BigBabyChips was a gang member when BBC was disputing AnnerTown's earlier versions of the article. The same diff indicates that AnnerTown is aware that at least earlier versions of the article are not NPOV. I believe this can probably be addressed at the community level, but AnnerTown needs to be aware that dispute resolution (especially at the Arbitration Committee level) means that the actions of all parties will be examined. Risker (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)