| Revision as of 23:02, 1 January 2017 editOpabinia regalis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators16,306 edits logged nowTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:03, 2 January 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Motion regarding North8000 == | |||
| <!-- ] (]) 19:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| :] | |||
| *Is the topic-ban from homophobia for one year as originally agreed or is it indefinite like the other two? <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big> · ] · ]</span> 20:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| **Indefinite. ] (]) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Where are the proceedings for this motion?- ]] 21:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *:Maybe you can hunt down the chapter and verse in the procedures, but I'm pretty sure ban appeals do not need public proceedings. --] (]) 22:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *::It would help, though, to clarify that there were indeed proceedings, even if they were private: something like "Following an appeal to the Committee..." would work fine. Without including background information, this notice has a bit of an arbitrary feel to it – but ultimately, this does not strike me as a big deal at all. ] (]) 22:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The unblock notation actually does say that it is following a successful appeal (and appeals of this sort are always done privately), so that's what this is. No big deal. --] (]) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Ah excellent. Thanks. ] (]) 00:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Yes, this is following an appeal by email. Although I kind of like the idea of just randomly unbanning a few people, as an experiment ;) ] (]) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I'm was not aware that block appeals ware done privately, nor do I understand why that would be the case considering I can't fart on this Wiki without their being an indelible record of it. Convenient though.- ]] 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Block appeals are often done privately, that's what UTRS is for. This was a site ban appeal however, and since site banned editors can't appeal other than by email, and we can't discuss private email in public, this was done by email as usual and according to policy at ]. ] ] 16:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::What provisions of that policy prevent ArbCom from disclosing appropriate portions of the appeal and allowing community comment? If it's simply because of the mechanics of the process, an exception to the "don't quote emails" rule could easily be made, with a provision to allow the quoted party notice and an opportunity to object. That would be far better than the "don't talk about Fight Club" process we have now. ] (]) 17:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{fbdb}} I was once randomly blocked by ArbCom. (No, I'm not trying to relitigate that. Please: no overreactions.) --] (]) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *what's the record for number of separate active topic bans by an editor who is not blocked? After 3 separate topic bans in different areas, you'd think someone would notice a pattern. --] (]) 22:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| **'''I've''' certainly noticed a pattern.--v/r - ]] 21:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm pleased to see this decision. Certainly, this is a complex case, and I can easily understand how Floq and others may wonder why I said that, but this seems to me to be a user who needs to stay away from several topics, but who can be a positive in other areas of the project. I've worked with North before, on topics completely unrelated to the bans, and found him to be good to work with. Given how disturbing the causes of the bans are, it's surprising, but people are complicated, so go figure. --] (]) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Oh look another editor topic banned for editing articles in a way that progressives didn't approve of. Since the "personal attacks" weren't personal attacks at all and were nearly all from the casepages and amounted to describing the behavior of others. Not surprised at all.--v/r - ]] 21:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :* Hardly. In both the Tea Party and Gun Control cases North8000 was topic banned along with a number of others on both sides of the dispute. ] 22:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::*You're mistaken on the Gun Control case. The editors on the other side of the dispute were only "reminded". The thing anti-gun control editors all received topic bans. Please rereview.--v/r - ]] 23:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Mm, you're right there - I misread Goethean as having been t-banned. Having said that, North's sanction was hardly unexpected given the socking. I remember being surprised at the time that it was extended to a site ban but the arbitrators, after the Tea Party case (and the Homophobia issue, which would probably have ended up at ArbCom had North not voluntarily topic-banned himself) were clearly of the opinion that it was repeated behaviour. But there's another point - in all 3 cases, North's issue was not ''what'' he was saying, but ''how'' he was doing it. Hopefully he can be a productive editor again now, however. ] 00:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I mean, I don't have to fall on the sword for North here. There are still 3 other users who received topic bans for first offenses and two users on the other side of the ideology that were given reminders for a repeat offense.--v/r - ]] 01:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|TParis}} Wasn't there also documentation of persistent socking, tendentious misrepresentation of sources, and other classic no-no's? Those are not partisan issues and I don't think we should suggest that Arbcom is a political kangaroo court biased against right-wing POV-pushers. ]] 22:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *I've looked at that material. The misrepresentation is sources is based on a personal opinion of certain editors that the source isn't talking about gun control and shouldn't be in a gun control article. However, it was talking about confiscation of guns and the measures leading up to that. Simply that it didn't flat out say "gun control" is merely a civil POV pushing tactic. Secondly, yes, they were editing as an IP. However, two other editors weren't and also received topic bans while all the parties on the other side of the issue were simply "reminded" not to engage in shitty behavior.--v/r - ]] 23:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I presume the reminder was effective, so that had the desired effect. But socking to join a contentious tail-chasing discussion is not best practices. ]] 02:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding ''Palestine-Israel articles 3'' == | == Arbitration motion regarding ''Palestine-Israel articles 3'' == | ||
Revision as of 04:03, 2 January 2017
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. |
Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3
- Original announcement
- Could a committee member or clerk clarify the effect of this announcement, i.e. what's different from before? It doesn't look any different from what I remember about the previous state of things, so I'm wondering if it's basically just giving an authoritative interpretation and additional details about something that was unclear before. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: It provides (a) clarification on what to do with new articles (or rather that we don't have to delete them), and more importantly, (b) clarification that the restriction does not apply to talk pages. The previous wording technically was equivalent to a topic ban, including talk pages, user talk, etc. ~ Rob13 14:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the details. I just would appreciate it if the Committee would provide some sort of one- or two-sentence preamble: "Because there's been confusion about X in our original decision, here's a clarification" or "Because Y in our original decision seemingly isn't needed anymore, here's a change". Obviously this wouldn't always be appropriate, e.g. one of those announcements that says "Remedy 8.1 in the Alice v. Bob case is repealed", but it would be helpful in cases like these when there are a bunch of statements. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion. It would definitely be clearer for folks who have not been following along at ARCA but who see the notices here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- And more to my point (selfishly :-), clearer for folks like me who pay no attention to Arbcom matters until they reach WP:AN; aside from one to which I was a party, I can't remember ever looking at a case that's in progress. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, the point remains that more descriptive notices could be valuable. :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- And more to my point (selfishly :-), clearer for folks like me who pay no attention to Arbcom matters until they reach WP:AN; aside from one to which I was a party, I can't remember ever looking at a case that's in progress. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion. It would definitely be clearer for folks who have not been following along at ARCA but who see the notices here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the details. I just would appreciate it if the Committee would provide some sort of one- or two-sentence preamble: "Because there's been confusion about X in our original decision, here's a clarification" or "Because Y in our original decision seemingly isn't needed anymore, here's a change". Obviously this wouldn't always be appropriate, e.g. one of those announcements that says "Remedy 8.1 in the Alice v. Bob case is repealed", but it would be helpful in cases like these when there are a bunch of statements. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: It provides (a) clarification on what to do with new articles (or rather that we don't have to delete them), and more importantly, (b) clarification that the restriction does not apply to talk pages. The previous wording technically was equivalent to a topic ban, including talk pages, user talk, etc. ~ Rob13 14:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Could a committee member or clerk clarify the effect of this announcement, i.e. what's different from before? It doesn't look any different from what I remember about the previous state of things, so I'm wondering if it's basically just giving an authoritative interpretation and additional details about something that was unclear before. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles
Arbitration motion regarding Captain Occam
- Original announcement
- It occurred to me that someone might ask, so: this is a decision of the 2016 committee that just hadn't been actioned till now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I assume this appeal was heard privately, so there is no visible Arbcom discussion? Even so, I recommend the result be logged in WP:ARBR&I. Otherwise there is no place admins can go to look up status of this ban. Also, when you say 'unbanned' I guess you are saying that the site-ban was lifted. So the R&I topic ban stays in place with a bit of wordsmithing (plus some interaction bans) but otherwise Captain Occam can resume editing Misplaced Pages. There is also a ban entry for Captain Occam in WP:EDR which should probably be updated with a link to the new motion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done by L235: , . Usually the clerks do that paperwork; I for one would screw it up ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I assume this appeal was heard privately, so there is no visible Arbcom discussion? Even so, I recommend the result be logged in WP:ARBR&I. Otherwise there is no place admins can go to look up status of this ban. Also, when you say 'unbanned' I guess you are saying that the site-ban was lifted. So the R&I topic ban stays in place with a bit of wordsmithing (plus some interaction bans) but otherwise Captain Occam can resume editing Misplaced Pages. There is also a ban entry for Captain Occam in WP:EDR which should probably be updated with a link to the new motion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- It occurred to me that someone might ask, so: this is a decision of the 2016 committee that just hadn't been actioned till now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any reason WP:SHARE should not continue to apply to Occam & Ferahgo? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where I should be requesting this: could an admin please unprotect my userpage? It was fully protected while I was banned. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done - I guess it would have been nice to have an appeal open to the community, 'cause I think this decision of the committee is a rather bad one, and will not benefit Misplaced Pages. We shall see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)