Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 23 January 2013 (→BASC: Asgardian appeal: unblock with DS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Announcement

Interestingly enough, the 3 closers were all recent ArbCom candidates - 2 of them got over 50% support; the other is the non-admin Pgallert. Is there any reason for these 3 specific candidates, and not the others? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a coincidence. AGK's comment in the motion voting goes into more detail as to how they were chosen, but the short of it is that we simply tossed around names on the mailing list as to who we would feel comfortable with and the final list happened to be composed of candidates from ACE2012. I wouldn't be averse to trying a new system for this in the future, such as people nominating themselves to be called for the task well ahead of time, but that would be predicated on, well, people actually being willing to do so. NW (Talk) 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking personally and based on my experience over time, I believe that administrators and other editors who have actively demonstrated an interest in dispute resolution and/or the Arbitration Committee are a good fit for tasks such as this. It can also help those editors to decide if they are interested in taking a more active role in dispute resolution (as an arbitration enforcement administrator, a mediator or even an arbitrator). In the case of these three, they demonstrated their interest in the recent Arbcom elections. Risker (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a coincidence, but not a surprising one: when considering people who (a) have shown a desire and aptitude towards dispute resolution and (b) who hold a measure of community respect, people who have run for ArbCom will bubble up naturally. — Coren  13:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Some not all. NE Ent 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean, of course, that the profile of editors being considered aligns closely with the profile of editors who'd run for Arbcom; not that anyone who runs for Arbcom fits that profile. — Coren  02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New Trainee Clerks

Original Announcement

• Congratulations to our 2014 Arbs then! Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• My condolences to the new unpaid civil servants. Good luck with your work. MBisanz 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes in Advanced Permissions - 15 January 2013

Original Announcement

Extra appreciation here for the mini-biographies! – Philosopher  21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeals Subcommittee appointments

Announcement

BASC: Asgardian appeal

Original announcement

Two questions

1. Log says year banned was extended to indef by KnightLago (talk · contribs) -- was that via WP:AE? If not, what was the context of the extension?
2. Where does the committee want the discussion to take place? Here? WP:AN? NE Ent 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   As to question 1, I do not know, perhaps someone who was on the Committee then will remember. As to 2, here is usually where these things are done. Courcelles 23:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Per case, using a sock to evade the ban. Apteva (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Here will do (though who to notify of this discussion is not quite clear yet). It is worth making the point that this is a consultation, a solicitation of views, not the actual appeal itself. That is still being handled by ArbCom. But we want to get the views of others as well. Remember that most appeals are summarily declined (for various reasons), so only appeals that have a chance of success tend to get this far. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting here for the record (out of chronological order, but it should be near the top of the discussion) that SilkTork notified 14 editors of this discussion. I think that list is based on criteria related to the case (or some criteria involving edit-warring, per the notice left) and whether those editors are still active or not, but SilkTork will be able to clarify that. Whether others should also be notified is, as I said above, not clear. Ideally, a notice would be left on Asgardian's talk page, so anyone who has that watchlisted would become aware of this discussion related to Asgardian's appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basically the proposal of the BASC appears reasonable. A probation of three months was requested, BASC effectively extended that to a year, which is more realistic. Mandatory mentoring has not had a good track record, a voluntary mentor is basically what was suggested, and certainly could help. The subject area being edited is what I classify as the 99% of Misplaced Pages that is not useful, but obviously it is useful to others. Even one edit a week is better than none, if it is constructive and helpful. Most banned editors actually would make some constructive edits that are lost by banning them. Apteva (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• The proposed terms is potentially confusing. How long would restriction 1 be in force for? If the terms can be removed from the talk page after 1 year, does that mean any or all of the restrictions will no longer be in place after that? KTC (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• In Asgardian's appeal he made some comments regarding his attitude toward those he edit warred with over the four years he was active on Misplaced Pages. He has been asked to clarify those comments as the majority of those he edit warred with are still active on Misplaced Pages. He has not yet responded, and it might be worth asking him to respond directly here so the community, and in particular those he warred with, can assess his attitude today in comparison to that of 2006-2010. SilkTork 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think this is someone who can change. He'd argue nonstop with everyone, refusing to listen to consensus, no matter how many people disagreed with him on what should be or not be in an article. He edit warred on various comic book articles. Will he now be able to return to those same comic book articles and continue his same method of editing? Dream Focus 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The appeal has not yet been granted. It is still under discussion, as are the terms if the appeal is granted. A topic ban on comics might be worth considering. After reviewing his contributions, his block record, the two ArbCom cases, and that he persistently evaded restrictions and bans, I am not positive toward this user. However, people can change. I have some hesitations regarding his appeal request and have asked him for clarification on two points; however, I am alone in this - the other Committee members who have given an opinion, have accepted his appeal as a sign that he has changed his attitude. SilkTork 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Asgardian should not unblocked unless he is willing to participate in a discussion about his previous behavior, in which he is willing to give direct answers to critical questions regarding his serial violation of WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR and other policies, his ad hominem attacks upon his critics, and the deceptive manner in which he dismissed criticism of his behavior. If he is willing to do this, then I am willing to welcome him back into the community. If he is not, then the block should not be lifted. None of the three suggested restrictions would address the problem of his previous behavior if he continues to refuse acknowledge that he exhibited said behavior, or if he refuses to acknowledge specifics. Moreover, these suggestions are either redundant or irrelevant to the problems he created for the community. Being logged into his main account, for example, was never a salient issue. And compliance with policy is implicit in all editing by all editors, so if an editor is dead set on not doing so, or on not acknowledging that he has failed to do so, then stating that he will comply with policy is meaningless. Similarly, assigning a mentor to him would be ineffective if the mentor assigned is one of the editors who previously enabled him because they were not able to separate the wheat from the chaff, or not committed to opposing his behavior decisively. He should only be unblocked following an involved discussion in which he is willing to answer for his previous behavior. I want to make clear that this is not vindictiveness or a desire to punish on my part; Asgardian is capable of good writing and editing, but his narcissistic belief that he was the only editor capable of maintaining the articles in which he took an interest, and the disregard for the rest of the community with which this belief manifested itself, made it impossible to collaborate with him. If he is willing to not merely assert that he no longer harbors this belief, but acknowledge certain things about his past behavior and statement, then I would favor welcoming him back. Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't say lightly that his return would invite chaos. I tried many times to be encouraging to him and to support his better instincts, as did several other editors, and it invariably blew up in our faces. The amount of wasted time devoted to edit-war notifications, mediation, arbitration and — and this is something that particularly bothered me — disingenuous and actually dishonest discussion on his part was enormous. (See the reference immediately above to "the deceptive manner in which he dismissed criticism of his behavior.") It saddens me to say that some people, here and in the outside world, are recidivists, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I add my voice to those who oppose his reinstatement. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. But I would like to give him the opportunity to prove that suspicion wrong. Nothing to lose by offering that opportunity, and I would gratified if it were indeed proven wrong..Nightscream (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I.E. they would need to be unblocked so that they could discuss here? Apteva (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

He has done many condensing to some of the media appearances of specific Marvel Comics characters which he edit warred with me. When he was blocked, I was able to undo the condensing that he caused. Maybe we should allow him another chance to see things that we have been doing the Marvel Comics characters that he had condensed. I say that one of you should notify him and have him take part in this discussion. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:05, January 22 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with everything Tenebrae said and oppose reinstating Asgardian. He was given more chances to fix his behavior than I thought he deserved, and he continually showed that he would cause problems. Spidey104 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this whole-heartedly. It's both sad and hilarious that this proposal takes an indef blocked editor and gives them five (5) more chances before an indef block has to be applied again. For the hard-working volunteers who were the victims of what led to his 13+ legit blocks, what are we supposed to tell them? If he wants to contribute, let him suggest changes on his talk page for six months. Dayewalker (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't edit anymore. But, if you bring him back, he'll do the same things he always did. He was one of the most relentless editors I've ever seen. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• comment from Youreallycan - User:SilkTork nudged by to see if I want to comment as someone that was involved in some disputes with the user - I have had a little look through the Users contribution history and block record to remind me - specifically I remember - User:Nightscream/Editor_experience_list#February_2010_Asgardian-Off2riorob_Edit_Warring_on_Beyonce_Knowles - I wasn't blocked and neither was he for the editing. He was/could be relentless; as Peregrine states. He was a bit disruptive at lots of locations as I remember and finally support was for a one year ban at Arbitration - Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian - this was two years ago, people can and do change in such a period, grow up, perhaps. I can support allowing him another attempt to be a constructive contributor, under the restrictive conditions in the suggested conditions - I would also suggest adding a condition he accepts WP:Adoption with the committee naming the adopter, one of the users that have a good set up for learning the basic WP:Policy and guidelines ropes - this will give him good grounding to return to contributing . Youreallycan 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't remember this editor at all. That said, his proposed conditions seem a bit self-serving. I would support this with the condition of an immediate, infinite block in the event of sockpuppeting, and the third block becoming indefinite, not the fifth. It's rare that anyone that started out with a clean slate gets five blocks before being shown the door, much less someone returning from a ban.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I could support a little less rope as well as per Kww - Youreallycan 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Well, the ArbCom ban was for a year, the last socking was a couple years ago. I'm not a huge fan of unblocking with custom truth tables which then provide fodder for haggling over later... unblock with Discretionary sanctions for six months, to wit, if they start making a ruckus on an article or topic area uninvolved admin can just ban them from that until the end of probation. NE Ent 03:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)