Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:57, 5 December 2008

You're on the indef list; unless I missed something, please tell me. But for now, I've indef'd this account. I have this page watched, so feel free to berate me for my potential wrongdoings ;-) (email also an option) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi there Peter, sorry about the inconvenience when it looks like you were told in private that you were allowed to edit again. could you elaborate a little on who actually said that? I'm trying to find someone to vouch for this so we can get you unblocked, but I need to know who to email. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter has been in discussion with a number of people including me. The last message I sent him said that I was waiting for feedback from FloNight, I think he got a little excited and jumped the gun. Thatcher 23:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just emailing Jimbo to see what was going on. I still wish that he would comment on it - at the end of the day it was still a Jimbo ban and it would be good to hear it from either him or ArbCom that he's officially unblocked. When Peter was creating new accounts, we heard that they should be left unblocked per ArbCom directive, but nobody officially said anything about it. It's sort of unfair to leave the admins that take action and Peter in limbo - an official word on the matter would be good. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When his latest incarnation User:Americanlinguist was spotted, there was a quite funny thread at AN where admins refused to block him for a few days, until someone that had not read the thread blocked him. The only action taken until then had been WP:TROUTing him , see his post at WR lamenting that his strategy failed. Unfortunately, the search function sucks, and I can't locate the AN thread -.-

There is an informative post at WR , let's see if Jimbo makes a statement on-wiki. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded to an inquiry by Thatcher saying that I neither support nor oppose this. I should not be considered any obstacle in this situation. Apparently there is an agreement which resolves all the outstanding issues. I am hopeful for the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the respone - saves me an email! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The AN thread is here, retrieved from there. Cenarium (Talk) 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who gets to clean up after Xavexgoem on the ArbCom vote pages (asks an unpleased editor who was his first mentor, since I think caution should always be exercised before the block button is used, and I don't detect that there was any urgency here to block and delete Arb votes) ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned most of them up, so no problem. Bishonen and a few others took care of the rest before I could. I consider it my responsibility. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, X (perhaps my mentorship stuck after all :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But of course :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Could be caching problems on my end, but I still see a struck vote at least at Cool Hand Luke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what's the deal here? The fellow linked to a page that stated he was sitebanned per Jimbo Wales. So per WP:BAN I struck through. Totally in line with WP:BAN in that, and then Bishonen reverts me without discussion? Now it's well known that I'm perhaps the most vocal critic of Charles Matthews this site has had in the last year. Tell me what's up with this, because if it's per any sort of policy it's been very poorly handled. I'd like a straight answer. Because if one doesn't come quickly this is going to AN. Durova 23:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Goodness; Jimbo responded rather promptly above. Must everything be drama-mongered at AN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Drama has nothing to do with it, Sandy. Policy does. And I'd take this to the same noticeboard as any other undiscussed post restoration by a sitebanned editor, unless a clear and prompt explanation is forthcoming by the editor who reverted me. If she wanted to avoid 'drama' she could have communicated. I'm not hard to find. I know I was within policy. Was she? Durova 00:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When unnecessary drama hits, I unwatch. My concern was for X, since I mentored him when he was new and I was disappointed to see a block without consultation. I smell an unnecessary controversy and another rubbernecking incident at the Adminstrators' noticeboards. Adios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

← There was no indication that what I was doing was incorrect - it was mostly a decision I made over at -en-ace (watching the votes come in) and being informed he was on the indef block list. It just appeared that the un-ban was to allow communication of the block, but voting seemed unlikely (may be hearsay; apologies in that event, but a lot of this is hearsay). I have made it known that I consider this my responsibility... or had, at any rate (I've reverted all the actions by now). I agree: unnecessary drama gets an unwatch. Apologies for bringing this about... I just think we're all on different pages here (but merging on the same story, I hope... I blame a general lack of communication. Sorry!) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, Sandy. Stop throwing the word 'drama' at me. I crossed through a post per policy. Got reverted without discussion. And so far as I can tell, that reversion was totally against policy. I have as much right as anybody else to take that to the admin boards. And I'm attempting to reduce what you term 'drama' by discussing it here first. But as far as I've been able to determine after the fact, this editor received a very limited unblock which by no means permitted election votes. Now if somebody wants to tell me otherwise, fine. It ends there. I want a straight answer, not rhetoric. Durova 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Could someone post a simple notice of whether or not this editor has been unbanned, and if so why and by whom? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Presumptively, until his main user pages are noted as unbanned, he is banned. This is a macabre reincarnation of the points I raised against Charles Matthews at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII: the rest of the community is not bound to defer to the 'in crowd' (however defined) about inexplicable decisions performed without communication. I'm still waiting for an explanation. Durova 00:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing inappropriate about the block under the circumstances. Damian and I were discussing the matter and he got enthusiastic and jumped the gun. I am working on a formal statement but like everything else involving this user seems to be, it is complicated. Thatcher 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So Thatcher, does he have standing to vote or doesn't he? If he does, I would have preferred the courtesy of restoring the post myself. Durova 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you only stroke one of the eleven votes that he made, I supose that people trying to clean the "premature block" mess must have not noticed that they should have asked you. I'd blame it on enthusiasm and not on disrespect towards you. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that on good faith. Regarding that particular candidate my striking of an oppose vote should have been unambiguously above reproach. Still, it's less a matter of personalities than of policy. If a vote goes up against a candidate and that vote is obviously coming from a sitebanned editor, shouldn't it be the normal for any editor in good standing to remove that vote? And if the situation is somehow ambiguous and has been poorly communicated, doesn't fall it upon those who'd restore that person's standing to (1) specify that standing to edit exists in the first place, and (2) communicate with the editors who acted per policy in good faith rather than reverting without explanation? The last thing I sought was drama; I acted in full belief that the edit was uncontroversial. And I am not pleased that surrounding uncommunicated circumstances were such that a fellow editor of SandyGeorgia's experience could mistake that action for 'drama'. Whoever's handling this dearly needs to get their house in order. Preferably before unblocking. Durova 01:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care what you do with his votes. Who has more at stake in the Arbcom elections than a banned user seeking to be unbanned? Yet at the time he voted he was technically still banned, and see further the conditions I have imposed on remaining unblocked. I'm not a process wonk, do what you think the situation requires. Thatcher 02:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, recommending you work it out with the editor who reverted me without discussion. I have no intention of edit warring (certainly not over another oppose to a candidate I wholeheartedly oppose already). If I'd had any feasible way to determine that the vote might have been valid, I'd have held off. And if I'd been contacted I could have been persuaded to restore the vote myself. What you have now is called a 'situation'. And that siutuation was not of my making. I just read what was before me and acted within policy. And now I wonder what in heck was happening behind closed doors. Durova 02:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory welcome template

I have a letter for you:

Sehr geehrter Herr!
Sie sind, wie Sie wissen, in die herrschaftlichen Dienste aufgenommen. Ihr nächster Vorgesetzter ist der Gemeindevorsteher des Dorfes, der Ihnen auch alles Nähere über Ihre Arbeit und die Lohnbedingungen mitteilen wird und dem Sie auch Rechenschaft schuldig sein werden. Trotzdem werde aber auch ich Sie nicht aus den Augen verlieren. Barnabas, der Überbringer dieses Briefes, wird von Zeit zu Zeit bei Ihnen nachfragen, um Ihre Wünsche zu erfahren und mir mitzuteilen. Sie werden mich immer bereit finden, Ihnen soweit es möglich ist, gefällig zu sein. Es liegt mir daran zufriedene Arbeiter zu haben.

— ~~~~ Der Vorstand der X. Kanzlei

-- Barnabas 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Obscene trolling in German! --NE2 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock, explanation, conditions, and apology

This message is to the community and to Peter Damian to explain the unblock, the conditions attached, and why these conditions are different from the ones Damian expects.

Peter Damian and I have been discussing a possible unblock, with most emails cc'd to FT2, Jimbo and FloNight. I sent him a message 24 hours ago that said, in part, "Therefore I am strongly considering unblocking you on the "give him enough rope to hang himself" principle and see which way things turn out. I want to wait a bit longer to see if Jimbo has any reply to the email I sent last night...In the event I decide to unblock you, which account would you prefer to use going forward?" I sent a message 12 hours ago stating. " I was unable to find a developer who would reset the password to "Peter Damian". They tell me it was only rarely done in the past and is not done any more, that's what the email address is for. Sorry. FloNight has asked for an update so I have forwarded some correspondence and await her feedback." Damian jumped the gun and created this account and began editing before he was formally unblocked. The block by Xavexgoem was appropriate under the circumstances, but the result of an unfortunate miscommunication.

My intent in unblocking, and the conditions I intended to set, were expressed in an email to Damian yesterday,

I was going to advise Damian to avoid making posts on or off-wiki that had the effect or intent of harassing FT2 or any editor, and that if he disagreed with article content, to find ways of dealing with the content without making it personal against the editor. It is my feeling that if the oversight issue was what drove Damian to act out, here and on Misplaced Pages Review, that he might be able to drop it now that it is out in the open and edit without incident. If he returned to harassing FT2 in any way, he would be re-banned and it would be final since the oversight matter would not be clouding the block.

In the meantime, two editors have emailed me strongly advising me against unblocking Damian.

Furthermore, FT2 strongly objects to unblocking under those conditions. He wishes to lay out for the community a narrative and timeline (with diffs and emails) justifying the original block. He proposes that Damian be allowed to contribute to that discussion but to nothing else, at least at first. He has also suggested a series of additional conditions if Damian were to be generally unblocked. I do not agree with these conditions. However, I recognize that Damian was responsible for and/or participated in conduct that was deeply hurtful to FT2 and that as the aggrieved party he naturally seeks closure on terms that he is willing to accept. FT2 has also pointed out, again as a party, not as an Arbitrator, that Peter Damian's block says Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom and that since Jimbo here has expressed no opinion either way, the matter must be decided by Arbcom.

I am placed in the most difficult position of my administrative career. I have sympathy for FT2 and I agree with on some points although I disagree on others. I also believe that Peter Damian was wronged in some measure by having edits he wished to link to oversighted just when he was being asked to produce them, and further harmed by the failure of those who knew about the oversight issue to deal with it sooner and more transparently. On the other hand, Damian forced my hand by starting this account before he was unblocked. I also can not ignore the wisdom of my (unnamed) email correspondents who argued against unblocking. It is possible that my own administrative judgement is seriously flawed in this instance. At this moment I can either

1. Unblock on my original conditions, causing great hurt and possible injustice to FT2, or
2. Unblock on FT2's conditions, with which I do not agree, or
3. Reblock and punt to Arbcom or
4. Leave unblocked and punt to Arbcom.

So I am punting to Arbcom. Peter Damian is unblocked subject to the following conditions:

1. He may edit within his own user space.
2. He may edit WP:RFAR and any associated pages (including arbitrators' talk pages, if appropriate) for the specific and limited purpose of appealing his ban and requesting an unconditional (or less conditional) unblock.
3. He may contribute to and offer comments on FT2's discussion of "the situation" (Damian's edits to the Arbcom 2007 election, subsequent block, oversight, etc) at whatever page FT2 designates.
4. He may not edit other pages without permission of Arbcom.
5. Any harassment or wikihounding of FT2 shall be grounds for reimposition of the indefinite ban.
6. Any admin may re-impose Jimbo's block for violation of these conditions.
7. These conditions will remain in force until vacated by Arbcom.

I apologize to all but especially to Peter Damian for my inability to deal with the matter in a manner I consider satisfactory. Thatcher 02:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I respect the difficulty of your position. Please understand mine. A day ago, serious allegations came up at AN regarding the John Vandenberg candidacy. Now I don't really care which person winds up with the seventh place spot; I've voted in favor of just about everyone who has a shot at it. But I do care very much about the integrity of our ArbCom election process. Whatever there is to come out regarding Peter Damian's allegations regarding FT2, I'd like to get to the bottom of that as much as anybody. And if a limited unblock is the way to do it, so much the better. WR was right about Mantanmoreland. Maybe they'll be right about this too. Let's get all the evidence and see. If only there had been a way to see what was going on--but I don't have ESP. Best regards. Durova 02:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the above, with one exception. Not so much "justifying the original block" (I am not vindictive, if Damian acts well, it's history) but more, "Explaining the original situation and seeking questions from the community if there are still any concerns".

I advocated at arbcom election for highest standards, openness, and integrity. If there are any concerns (ie, requests for evidence and explanation, not just presumptions and rhetoric) then I would wish to address those, and as I said last week, I'll be doing so. In full. As best I'm able, without holding back or hesitation. I have posted a summary of some points already, and will dig up the diffs and other evidence to post a fuller version for the community. I needed help to do this, namely Damian's permission to cite evidence from emails and his old account, to allow a complete and evidenced explanation to be possible, and he has given it. In return I have likewise given him my permission to cite from any emails I have sent him, if he wishes (and does so in context).

More in a few days. And Thatcher, no idea it was this big a headache. You didn't deserve it. FT2  03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't pretend this was not a straw but it certainly wasn't the only straw. And you certainly are entitled to offer your narration and timeline of events, both to Damian and to the community. I hope it works out. For now I reiterate my apology to Damian that I was not able to do a better job of working things out for you. Good luck. Thatcher 04:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What does "So I am punting to Arbcom." mean? Why should PD be prevented from working on articles? This is just insane. How about just #5 and #7 --Duk 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

It would seem that this may have been the straw which broke Thatcher's back, and he has stepped away from the wiki for a while - hopefully for a good break :-) - I can't really tell what the devil's going on, but additionally for what it's worth, I am glad that PD has been unblocked, and I hope he can expediently be encouraged to head back to the edit windows unencumbered to help wikipedia along :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

@Everyking on wikipedia review; obviously Damian is a good content contributor when he wants to be, that's why I have been trying to get him unblocked to give him one last chance to show that he can edit without harassing other users. Sorry I left it out of my statement above. But that alone does not justify ignoring everything else that has happened. Thatcher 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Votes

I'm sorry, but your unblock conditions do not allow you to vote this year, and those votes have been indented for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)