Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Picaroon (talk | contribs) at 01:16, 8 November 2007 (subst template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• Raul654

Inactive/away:

• Flcelloguy
• Mackensen
• Neutrality (Ben)
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Minor wording issue

Please may I suggest a minor word change for the remedy that states Alkiver is desysopped. I'm of personal belief that the words "stripped of his administrative privileges" is possibly a little heavy handed. How about something a little more neutral like "is to have his administrator privileges revoked". Just something for you to consider. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing even a smidgen of a difference in meaning between those two. Picaroon (t) 16:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a UK thing then, being stripped of something here is quite an abrupt term, I wouldn't exactly say incivil, just not the politest way to put something across. If you say that his tools are revoked, it sounds a little more official and a nicer way to convey it. There's no change in the actual meaning, just the way it is said. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stripped" doesn't have a negative connotation in the US... for example, it's actually the preferred term when an athlete loses a championship outside of the playing field. east.718 at 19:33, 10/25/2007

There are a couple of wordings used in prior ArbCom decisions that mean basically the same thing. Decisions before this year used to read "X is desysopped," which is still used in the heading, but arbitrator UninvitedCompany introduced the alternative wording "X's administrator privileges are revoked". (UninvitedCompany also writes "Y's editing privileges are suspended for 1 year" instead of "Y is banned from Misplaced Pages for 1 year", but that has not caught on.) I doubt that Kirill was consciously suggesting in this decision that the wording be changed again.

Personally, I don't care for "stripped," not so much because it is harsh but because it is incongruous in context. If a doctor is no longer allowed to practice medicine, the newspaper might report that he was "stripped of his license," but the regulatory decision certainly wouldn't put it that way.

We won't even get into the question of whether the wording should say "administrative privileges" or "administrator privileges." Newyorkbrad 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no deep meaning intended here; it was just the first wording to occur to me. Please feel free to reword it using better terminology. Kirill 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Logs

I'm not sure what wording would be appropriate so I won't suggest anything specific on the workshop, but I had a comment. 7 of the 14 links on the FoF about Alkivar's adminship link to logs; maybe a note about proper log entries should be included in the principles, either as a separate principle or under "Communication". Milto LOL pia 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:TURNIP

A new essay I started yesterday, intended in general terms but specifically inspired by the multiple leniency experiments that have been proposed in this case. Basically, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Extreme gestures of good faith and leniency aren't necessary when an editor shows no hint of remorse. Durova 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

after a cursory review of this case (the evidence, workshop, and talk pages), I think Durova's new essay should get some serious consideration by those who review and make decisions on this (and many other) arbcomm cases. --Rocksanddirt 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce

Kirill and Flo, don't you think a finding (and remedy, depending on the finding) should be part of the decision? See the workshop, he's certainly part of the dispute too. A finding one way or another regarding his status would be appreciated. Picaroon (t) 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The subsection title Burntsauce is sock of a banned user should probably have "sock" replaced with the word "puppet", since the text reads that he may be a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. This isn't important by any stretch, but it seems like something that should be done anyways. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian

Under the "Decorum" statement shouldn't the move to de-sysop and block Eyrian for incivility and sockpuppetry during the trivia edit war be added as a possible decision? –– Lid 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Flonight's comment in her oppose for Proposed remedy 1.1 suggests that there is private evidence supporting the decisions here. If this is indeed the case, could the final decision make it clear? This seems important, particularly if the Committee is indeed taking the unusual step of barring an RfA. Chick Bowen 03:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; clearly, private evidence should probably remain private, but a mention of the existence of such evidence would be important, especially given the No RFA provision. Ral315 » 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I provided private evidence. The bulk of that evidence I have also shared via e-mail with trusted Wikipedians. Roughly half a dozen people outside the Committee have examined it, and if it were wanting I'm sure someone would have objected. The main reason for privacy has been because of the persistence of JB196, whose actions relate to this case and who has created over 500 disruptive sockpuppets. Durova 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As it relates to Alkivar, Durova's evidence is basically a more extensive version of Lid's public evidence, showing that Alkivar was knowingly in contact with a banned user and acted on his requests. Thatcher131 12:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Close

I am not sure where best to post this, but it seems like it will be seen here. I just wanted to encourage the arbiters to close this case now (as they seem inclined to do) and take up the related Eyrian matter as a separate case. It is better to move forward with these remedies now; they have the clear support of the committee and can enter into force while sanctions (if necessary) on others ar considered. Eluchil404 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)