TrevelyanL85A2 (talk | contribs) →Involved parties: Added detail to case. |
TrevelyanL85A2 (talk | contribs) →Statement by {Party 1}: Adding my statement. |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
*[[User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#warning_logged_at_R.26I.3F]] |
*[[User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#warning_logged_at_R.26I.3F]] |
||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by TrevelyanL85A2 === |
||
I apologise for this late request. I requested arbitration on the mailing list on 12 June, following advice I was given at AE to do so, but ArbCom advised me (on 28 June) that I should make my request in public after my block expired. As ArbCom has seen my initial complaint, they know it can't be described without referring to some editors who were formerly involved in R&I. Therefore, I take ArbCom's instructions that I make the complaint in public to mean I should just summarise the dispute, without otherwise commenting on these editors. |
|||
Since May, MastCell has made several administrative actions defending Mathsci's interests in disputes related to Echigo Mole. These include deleting a pair of files that Jclemens protected as evidence for ArbCom, protecting my user talk to stop me restoring Echigo Mole's posts there, and blocking me for a month when Mathsci accused me of violating my topic ban (without giving me time to make a statement in the AE thread). This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute was privately requested by Mathsci: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=494747421] "Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request" Said request must have been made privately because it was not anywhere public. Collect raised a related complaint [[User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#warning_logged_at_R.26I.3F|here]] about Future Perfect. Jclemens suggested Collect's complaint be brought up for broader review, so I hope ArbCom can address both issues. |
|||
The basic problem affecting Collect and me is that an admin can be technically uninvolved, yet still use their powers to exclusively defend the interests of an editor or group of editors. MastCell has a long pattern of following Mathsci to disputes to defend him, both by arguing with Mathsci's opponents and using his admin tools. I'll present more examples if ArbCom accepts the case. |
|||
I'll summarise the other main aspects of this dispute because its complexity is one of the reasons I think it requires arbitration. |
|||
*The question of when it's permissible to restore edits by sockpuppets, as debated in the AN thread. Editors seem to be held to inconsistent standards. Collect and Nyttend were allowed to restore posts from Echigo Mole socks in their user talk, but when I did the same my user talk was protected to prevent it. |
|||
*The accusations by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMathsci&diff=494380069&oldid=493410399 SilkTork], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=496169886 Collect] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=prev&oldid=494797429 Jclemens] against one of the other parties. No comment on whether the accusations are true, but a summary of the dispute needs to mention them. |
|||
*The accusation [[User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Community_confidence|here]], [[User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Your_conduct|here]], [[User_talk:MastCell#Deleting_through_ArbCom_protection...|here]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FMathsci&diff=494582682&oldid=494575601 here] that Jclemens abused his authority as an arbitrator. No comment on this accusation either, but a few admins and other editors made it, so I think the committee should examine it. |
|||
In summary, four admins have been accused of misconduct in this dispute: Nyttend (in the AN thread), MastCell, Future Perfect and Jclemens. Therefore, I do not think this can be resolved in an RFC, and arbitration is the best option. |
|||
=== Statement by {Party 2} === |
=== Statement by {Party 2} === |
Revision as of 19:47, 8 July 2012
Requests for arbitration
Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets
Initiated by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) at 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Jclemens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff. 1
- Diff. 2
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mathsci/Archive#26_May_2012
- User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Community_confidence
- User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Your_conduct
- User_talk:MastCell#Deleting_through_ArbCom_protection...
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive236#Response_to_wikihounding
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive116#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_TrevelyanL85A2
- User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#warning_logged_at_R.26I.3F
Statement by TrevelyanL85A2
I apologise for this late request. I requested arbitration on the mailing list on 12 June, following advice I was given at AE to do so, but ArbCom advised me (on 28 June) that I should make my request in public after my block expired. As ArbCom has seen my initial complaint, they know it can't be described without referring to some editors who were formerly involved in R&I. Therefore, I take ArbCom's instructions that I make the complaint in public to mean I should just summarise the dispute, without otherwise commenting on these editors.
Since May, MastCell has made several administrative actions defending Mathsci's interests in disputes related to Echigo Mole. These include deleting a pair of files that Jclemens protected as evidence for ArbCom, protecting my user talk to stop me restoring Echigo Mole's posts there, and blocking me for a month when Mathsci accused me of violating my topic ban (without giving me time to make a statement in the AE thread). This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute was privately requested by Mathsci: [1] "Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request" Said request must have been made privately because it was not anywhere public. Collect raised a related complaint here about Future Perfect. Jclemens suggested Collect's complaint be brought up for broader review, so I hope ArbCom can address both issues.
The basic problem affecting Collect and me is that an admin can be technically uninvolved, yet still use their powers to exclusively defend the interests of an editor or group of editors. MastCell has a long pattern of following Mathsci to disputes to defend him, both by arguing with Mathsci's opponents and using his admin tools. I'll present more examples if ArbCom accepts the case.
I'll summarise the other main aspects of this dispute because its complexity is one of the reasons I think it requires arbitration.
- The question of when it's permissible to restore edits by sockpuppets, as debated in the AN thread. Editors seem to be held to inconsistent standards. Collect and Nyttend were allowed to restore posts from Echigo Mole socks in their user talk, but when I did the same my user talk was protected to prevent it.
- The accusations by SilkTork, Collect and Jclemens against one of the other parties. No comment on whether the accusations are true, but a summary of the dispute needs to mention them.
- The accusation here, here, here, and here that Jclemens abused his authority as an arbitrator. No comment on this accusation either, but a few admins and other editors made it, so I think the committee should examine it.
In summary, four admins have been accused of misconduct in this dispute: Nyttend (in the AN thread), MastCell, Future Perfect and Jclemens. Therefore, I do not think this can be resolved in an RFC, and arbitration is the best option.
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).