m →Statement by Mathsci: ce |
|||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
=== Statement by Mathsci === |
=== Statement by Mathsci === |
||
TrevelyanL85A2 has broken his topic ban in an extremely serious way hours after coming off a one month AE |
TrevelyanL85A2 has broken his topic ban in an extremely serious way hours after coming off a one month AE block for the same nonsense. I have reported him at [[WP:AE]]. At no stage recently has TrevelyanL852 shown even the slightest (= teensiest weensiest) sign that he is interested in building an encylopedia of any kind. On wikipedia at the moment his account appears to be "disruption-only". This request touches unfinished business involving proxy-editors. The long term abusers (Echigo mole and Mikemikev) are a different and unrelated issue: see [[WP:LTA]] . Administrators at [[WP:AE]] can handle this perfectly well without Ferahgo and Occam creating more havoc on wikipedia through their disengenuous intermediaries. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by Fut.Perf. === |
=== Statement by Fut.Perf. === |
Revision as of 20:48, 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
MastCell: [1] Future Perfect: [2] Jclemens: [3] Nyttend: [4] Mathsci: [5] Collect: [6] SightWatcher: [7]
- 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: [8] "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 Mathsci
TrevelyanL85A2 has broken his topic ban in an extremely serious way hours after coming off a one month AE block for the same nonsense. I have reported him at WP:AE. At no stage recently has TrevelyanL852 shown even the slightest (= teensiest weensiest) sign that he is interested in building an encylopedia of any kind. On wikipedia at the moment his account appears to be "disruption-only". This request touches unfinished business involving proxy-editors. The long term abusers (Echigo mole and Mikemikev) are a different and unrelated issue: see WP:LTA . Administrators at WP:AE can handle this perfectly well without Ferahgo and Occam creating more havoc on wikipedia through their disengenuous intermediaries. Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Fut.Perf.
I have no idea what this case is meant to achieve. Somebody broke his topic ban and got sanctioned for it. Pretty clear-cut case. He made an appeal against that sanction and had it declined. Pretty clear-cut case too. Somebody was accused of illicit use of alternate accounts, and that concern was turned down by a consensus of several admins at SPI. So what. Some admins disagreed about something and handed out fishes to each other. Big deal. Somebody made not-so-constructive posts in an AE thread and got a warning for it. So, where's the beef? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).