| Revision as of 03:52, 20 August 2010 editSirFozzie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,149 edits →Ridiculous slow-motion train wreck← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:54, 20 August 2010 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →Ridiculous slow-motion train wreck: discussion takes place on the talk page - moving comment thereNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| Is ArbCom likely to look at, and respond to, the ridiculous mess / pissing contest that is going on at the moment at ]? WMC has been imposed with a sanction that is being interpreted in a preposterously literal way; unsurprisingly, he has responded provocatively and disappointingly several administrators (including a "recused" Arbitrator) aren't exercising good judgment and common sense. Please step in, declare that the incident will be resolved in the (hopefully) upcoming decision, and end this pissing contest before we get groups of admins fighting each other over an incident that should have been ignored in the first place. ] (]) 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br />PS and FYI: There wasn't a gigantic penis picture at the top of the ANI thread when I chose to use the phrase "pissing contest" in relation to this incident. ] (]) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) | Is ArbCom likely to look at, and respond to, the ridiculous mess / pissing contest that is going on at the moment at ]? WMC has been imposed with a sanction that is being interpreted in a preposterously literal way; unsurprisingly, he has responded provocatively and disappointingly several administrators (including a "recused" Arbitrator) aren't exercising good judgment and common sense. Please step in, declare that the incident will be resolved in the (hopefully) upcoming decision, and end this pissing contest before we get groups of admins fighting each other over an incident that should have been ignored in the first place. ] (]) 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br />PS and FYI: There wasn't a gigantic penis picture at the top of the ANI thread when I chose to use the phrase "pissing contest" in relation to this incident. ] (]) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::We are aware of the incident and the ANI discussion (though we may miss other discussions unless they are explicitly pointed out). We don't have any special powers to stop slow-motion train wrecks, though my initial thoughts are that stuff like this happening is likely to delay the posting of a proposed decision, so those still butting heads over issues like this might like to consider that the next time they ask why the posting of the proposed decision is delayed. If there are many more incidents like this, I may propose an injunction on all participants in the case for not just a topic ban, but a non-interaction restriction as well. ] (]) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | ::We are aware of the incident and the ANI discussion (though we may miss other discussions unless they are explicitly pointed out). We don't have any special powers to stop slow-motion train wrecks, though my initial thoughts are that stuff like this happening is likely to delay the posting of a proposed decision, so those still butting heads over issues like this might like to consider that the next time they ask why the posting of the proposed decision is delayed. If there are many more incidents like this, I may propose an injunction on all participants in the case for not just a topic ban, but a non-interaction restriction as well. ] (]) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::All WMC had to do was to say "yes, I'd be willing to hold off inserting my comments into other people's text while we get this reviewed", and this wouldn't have happened. In fact, if he said it now (no apologies, no mea culpas, etcetera), I'd be the first one in line to unblock him myself. While I cannot speak for any of the drafting arbitrators, if they can fit it in, perhaps we can explicitly review that specific climate change sanction as part of the PD? But the impetus in this slow motion train wreck was WMC's rejection of the sanction, and the affect it had on everyone else. I reduced the block and re-enabled his right to edit his talk page in hopes of defusing this, to snuff out the fuse. His decision was to re-light the fuse. ] (]) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :] | :] | ||
Revision as of 03:54, 20 August 2010
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk) |
Guidelines: This page is to be used to ask general questions about the case for arbitrators and clerks to answer. Please post the question you have below in a new section, but individual editors should not post a new question until their current question has been answered (i.e. one question per editor at a time). All discussion of the questions should go on the talk page. Arbitrators can also use this page to pose questions to those participating in this case. Please be civil when asking, discussing and answering questions. If you wish to retrieve a question from the archive of the proposed decision talk page, please do so and link back to the previous discussion(s). I will be aiming to visit this page once every 24 hours until the case closes, but please remember to keep the discussion here general. Discussion of the proposed decision should take place on the workshop page and proposed decision talk page, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Example question
- QUESTION
- Discuss this question
Remedies
So, which remedies are Arbitrators considering? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- All possible remedies are still being considered. Specific remedies can't be properly considered until the findings are clearer, and that involves going through a lot of evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Interim actions
Several interim motions, clarifying questions and requests for temporary injunctions have been made. Can we expect that these will be dealt with soon? ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If something very urgent comes up, yes, but it is more likely that time will be spent pushing the case forward rather than dealing with existing requests for motions and injunctions. You can look at previous cases to see when injunctions and motions were applied - they tend to be used rarely. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Discuss this question
Preparing PD discussion
What, if anything, should be done to prepare for discussion of the proposed decision? (This question is for clerks and arbitrators to answer here, though everyone needs to discuss this on the talk page at the link provided). Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous slow-motion train wreck
Is ArbCom likely to look at, and respond to, the ridiculous mess / pissing contest that is going on at the moment at ANI? WMC has been imposed with a sanction that is being interpreted in a preposterously literal way; unsurprisingly, he has responded provocatively and disappointingly several administrators (including a "recused" Arbitrator) aren't exercising good judgment and common sense. Please step in, declare that the incident will be resolved in the (hopefully) upcoming decision, and end this pissing contest before we get groups of admins fighting each other over an incident that should have been ignored in the first place. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
PS and FYI: There wasn't a gigantic penis picture at the top of the ANI thread when I chose to use the phrase "pissing contest" in relation to this incident. EdChem (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- We are aware of the incident and the ANI discussion (though we may miss other discussions unless they are explicitly pointed out). We don't have any special powers to stop slow-motion train wrecks, though my initial thoughts are that stuff like this happening is likely to delay the posting of a proposed decision, so those still butting heads over issues like this might like to consider that the next time they ask why the posting of the proposed decision is delayed. If there are many more incidents like this, I may propose an injunction on all participants in the case for not just a topic ban, but a non-interaction restriction as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Discuss this question