Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) m →Statement by Boing! said Zebedee: aargh |
NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
*Awaiting statements. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
*Awaiting statements. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Decline'''. Pratyeka will not be able to participate for three weeks and having looked into it, I see no reason to bypass RFC/U in this case. And if people are thinking of one, I would advise that they wait a few weeks until Pratyeka is back first. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 03:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Decline'''. Pratyeka will not be able to participate for three weeks and having looked into it, I see no reason to bypass RFC/U in this case. And if people are thinking of one, I would advise that they wait a few weeks until Pratyeka is back first. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 03:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:*[[WP:PITCHFORKS]] redirects to [[WP:ANI]] for a reason – regardless of how well-expressed comments are on that page, a fast-moving, inherently antagonistic page like ANI is not conducive to allowing administrators time to reflect on their actions. Requests for comment or simple talk page discussion are non-binding, but they allow for calmer discussion that is important to at least attempt before coming to us. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 06:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*Awaiting more statements, but inclined to accept, as the ANI comments are pretty much incompatible with being an admin. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
*Awaiting more statements, but inclined to accept, as the ANI comments are pretty much incompatible with being an admin. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Decline''' at this point. Pratyeka has stated that they will be away for several weeks. During that time, they may well reflect on the unequivocal rejection of their practice and cease undeleting inappropriately. If the situation recurs after having received such a significant rebuff from the community, including users with a wide range of experience, then I would be willing to accept a case. I have no doubt that there are now plenty of watchers who will be reviewing any undeletions that Pratyeka carries out. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 04:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Decline''' at this point. Pratyeka has stated that they will be away for several weeks. During that time, they may well reflect on the unequivocal rejection of their practice and cease undeleting inappropriately. If the situation recurs after having received such a significant rebuff from the community, including users with a wide range of experience, then I would be willing to accept a case. I have no doubt that there are now plenty of watchers who will be reviewing any undeletions that Pratyeka carries out. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 04:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:07, 26 January 2013
Requests for arbitration
Pratyeka
Initiated by GregJackP Boomer! at 00:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Involved parties
- GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Pratyeka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JDDJS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- GregJackP - filing party
- Pratyeka, [1]
- JDDJS, [2]
- Wtshymanski, [3]
- JamesBWatson, [4]
- Boing! said Zebedee, [5]
- Anthonyhcole, [6]
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Wtshymanski requested information from Pratyeka on Pratyeka's talk page [7]
- JamesBWatson requested information from Partyeka on Pratyeka's talk page [8]
- JDDJS notified Pratyeka of discussion at AN/I [9]
- Pratyeka responded on his talk page [10] and at AN/I [11], [12]
- Boing! said Zebedee, GregJackP, and Anthonyhcole contacted Pratyeka for clarification after his response at AN/I [13], [14], [15]
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pratyeka abusing admin power
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal that Pratyeka be banned from undeleting deleted articles
Statement by GregJackP
This is a matter of abuse of administrator tools by Pratyeka, and the failure of Pratyeka to abide by the consensus of the community. He has restored pages that have been deleted by the AfD process without going through DRV or another to establish consensus to restore the page. See Observe Hack Make (edit summary: "Very large/well known, serial, hacking event. Awaited for over 3/4 years. Not crystal ball/advertising."); and Nemerle (edit summary: "Clearly notable within the global computing community. Deletion misguided. Apologies.").
He has undeleted articles from PRODs, without improving the article, fixing the problem, or ensuring that it was notable. See OMAPI (edit summary: "Used by very popular software. I came looking for this background, it is certainly adequately notable."); Edgware Walker (edit summary: "Listed under 'http://www.4docs.org.uk/wiki/index.php/The_best_short_documentaries_ever_made'. I found the original article via google on Deletionpedia, and came here to rectify. Apologies to the original authors, this page is"); and Phantom Anonymity Protocol (1. Not an advert (Not a commercial project, not owned by any single person), 2. Important theoretical area of interest to the community (will be referenced, even if never implemented), 3. Presented in a leading public forum).
It also appears that he has used his admin tools to edit a protected article Bitcoin in which he was involved, without having another, uninvolved, admin approve or deny the edit. See edit history.
He also restored Coral Consortium, which had been deleted as a copyright violation, without eliminating the copyrighted material. This material stayed in the article from restoration on December 6, 2010 until it was discovered by another editor on January 20, 2011. See here [16].
What is the worse part is his response at AN/I (diff above) where he states: "I am going to go further and state something slightly obvious, which is that the notion of 'consensus' for deleting an article in Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways. Given that it's imperfect, given that some of us have been around and proven we are net contributors in good faith, what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge (I have been involved in the 'hacker' community since ~1995) if you can't press the undelete button for a huge and well known event..." (emphasis added). Not only does he denigrate the idea of consensus (in another spot, he calls it "self-appointed '(temporary) ministry of truth' committees"), but he has indicated that he does not intend to change. Admins are given the tools based on the trust of the community, and that it is "no big deal." Pratyeka has violated that trust.
The current consensus at AN/I is to either a) refer the matter to ArbCom for desysoping, if necessary, or 2) topic ban Pratyeka from deletions/restorations. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Note. Pratyeka may be out of contact for a couple of weeks, based on his comments at AN/I, and I would request that the committee not take any action until he has definitely been contacted and can defend himself. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
@ SarekOfVulcan: I should have been more clear. These are the issues brought up in the AN/I, and while it was mentioned that the PRODs were technically correct, it appears from his response on restoring articles, he doesn't base it on policy, but on his own view of what should happen. The main issue that the community appears to have is that he disregards community consensus, especially on the AfDs, along with his response, quoted in part above. To a lesser degree, some expressed concern about the copyvio he restored without taking action on the copyrighted material. I'm mainly just following through on the AN/I and bringing it to ArbCom per the consensus there. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Further note. I have requested that NW recuse himself from this case due to our past history, he has declined to do so. If necessary, I am willing to provide further information on why he should not be hearing a case that involves me. GregJackP Boomer! 03:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
@ NE Ent. Your times are not correct. Wtshymanski posted the first question on Pratyeka's conduct at 8:27AM (UTC-6), Jan. 15. Pratyeka responded at 7:50PM, Jan. 16. The questions by JDDJS and JamesBWatson came nine days after Pratyeka had been initially questioned on issue, and after he had responded. GregJackP Boomer! 04:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Statement by JDDJS
I strongly support a removal of all admin rights of Prat. He initially became an admin back when it was very simple, and you did not have to display any knowledge of policy. Prat has openly admitted that he has not bothered to keep up with the changes in policy. His knowledge of current policy is basic at best. He is under the impression that because he is an admin and experienced editor, his opinion over rules everyone else's. Furthermore, several instants have been bought up where he either abused or stretched the limits of his admin power. However, no instances of him using his admin power in a particular good manor have not been bought up. He is also not a very active admin. Therefore, the community loses absolutely nothing removing his admin rights. While I agree that it would be wrong to make the final decision on the matter before Prat comes back, I will not believe him to be sincere if he apologizes. He had the chance to apologize for his actions at ANI. If he admitted that it was wrong for him to restore Observe Hack Make without any discussion, then I would have let this go. Instead, he said that the consensus was wrong, and that we at ANI were wrong to question his authority. Any attempt to apologize now would simply be a final act of desperation to keep his admin rights. If in the future, he shows himself to be more up to date on policy and more willing to work with consensus, then he can attempt to regain his admin status via RFA. JDDJS (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by peripherally-involved SarekOfVulcan
I'd consider myself uninvolved, except for the Nemerle deletion. I just wanted to point out that according to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting, If the article has already been deleted.... It will be undeleted automatically on request, so his PROD restorations were within policy, as far as I can tell.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Rschen7754
What concerns me overall is the pattern where he believes that he is above community consensus, more than any of his actions. To me, his position as an administrator is untenable because of this. --Rschen7754 02:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Further comment: perhaps a solution similar to Schuminweb, should inactivity be an issue? --Rschen7754 03:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent
Not harm came to Wikipedia due to the transient existence of Observe Hack Make.
Critical review of the diffs presented actually show other steps in dispute resolution have not been executed shipshape and Bristol fashion. JamesBWatson posted his concern at 1600. Before Pratyeka even had a chance to reply, JDDJS started the ANI thread a mere 46 minutes later at 1646 without having discussed the issue on Pratyeka's talk page as required by the ANI instructions. Pratyeka has been an admin for eight years and hasn't caused significant problems, and he indicated he'd be willing to discuss the issue more when he gets back online in a few weeks. Does he need to get onboard with the current deletion processes? Of course, but there's a reason WP:PITCHFORKS redirects to ANI -- this has all been overwrought.
While you're all here (and I'm hopefully < 500 words) it would be good to hear the committee's thought on the validity of an ANI "topic ban" from doing undeletions/deletions, which sounds like a mini-desysop to me, which is out of scope of community sanctions the way I understand things. NE Ent
Statement by Boing! said Zebedee
GregJackP has provided diffs, and it's all there in the ANI section, so I won't repeat any here. I'm really only "involved" in that I tried to talk to Pratyeka on his talk page, but I assume he had already gone away by then. What seriously concerns me is that he is using admin tools (when he uses them at all) to enforce his own opinions regarding content, and not to enforce policy/consensus - in fact, he uses admin tools to override consensus where he disagrees with it, undeleting articles deleted after unanimous AfD, deleting articles because his "expert" view says they shouldn't be there, editing articles he is involved in through protection, etc.
I can understand if an "old school" admin is not familiar with the way things are done these days, and mistakes are fine - but admins must respond appropriately when challenged. And Pratyeka's arrogant insistence that there is absolutely nothing wrong with his using the tools to override consensus when according to his "expert" knowledge it is wrong is unacceptable. In my view, one of two things has to happen - he must agree to abide by the proper use of admin tools, or he must lose the ability to use them.
This case is complicated by Pratyeka's having gone away for a few weeks, but I don't see any problem in delaying things until he's back - he's obviously not going to abuse the tools while he's away.
What is the way forward? NW suggests we should go to RFC/U, but I see that as a waste of time. It's entirely voluntary, and if Pratyeka chooses not to abide by the community's requirements on him, then it is toothless. But if he does agree, then he can do so by replying here (or at ANI or on his talk page) without the need for RFC/U and it will all be over.
So my suggestion is to keep this pending until Pratyeka is back and see how he responds - if he responds positively, we can ditch this, but if not, an RFC/U would have been useless anyway and ArbCom should accept the case.
In the longer run, and to make a wider point, we really need to be able to deal with rogue admins without weeks and months of petty bureaucracy - we really should not need to jump through the hoops of RFC/U to deal with a blatant case of admin tool abuse. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
@GregJackP - As this case isn't actually about you (it didn't really matter who brought the case - it could have been any one out of dozens of us), I don't see that NW needs to recuse. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Statement by {Party x}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Pratyeka: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/2>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Awaiting statements. T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Decline. Pratyeka will not be able to participate for three weeks and having looked into it, I see no reason to bypass RFC/U in this case. And if people are thinking of one, I would advise that they wait a few weeks until Pratyeka is back first. NW (Talk) 03:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:PITCHFORKS redirects to WP:ANI for a reason – regardless of how well-expressed comments are on that page, a fast-moving, inherently antagonistic page like ANI is not conducive to allowing administrators time to reflect on their actions. Requests for comment or simple talk page discussion are non-binding, but they allow for calmer discussion that is important to at least attempt before coming to us. NW (Talk) 06:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Awaiting more statements, but inclined to accept, as the ANI comments are pretty much incompatible with being an admin. Courcelles 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Decline at this point. Pratyeka has stated that they will be away for several weeks. During that time, they may well reflect on the unequivocal rejection of their practice and cease undeleting inappropriately. If the situation recurs after having received such a significant rebuff from the community, including users with a wide range of experience, then I would be willing to accept a case. I have no doubt that there are now plenty of watchers who will be reviewing any undeletions that Pratyeka carries out. Risker (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorianopaolo
Initiated by RafaelPPascual (talk) at 06:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Involved parties
- RafaelPPascual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Sorianopaolo (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
- Link 1 (FIXTHEPROBLEM)
- Link 2 (Discussion)
Statement by RafaelPPascual
To all the Wikipedians:
I filed this case not to put another person down, I want to preserve Wikipedia's integrity.
I created an article titled "Navotas local elections, 2013" last January 4, 2013. The article is about the coming local election in the Filipino city of Navotas. ((link))
Last January 23, user Sorianopaolo suddenly edited the candidates section of the article being disputed here, deleting the sections for all candidates excluding those of the Liberal Party. ((link)) That was a sign of his conflict of interest and lack of neutral point of view.
Furthermore, you may also look at his user page. ((link))
I hope that you will make a fair decision in this case. Thank you in advance.
With regards, RafaelPPascual
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Statement by Thryduulf
This looks to be the most premature request I've ever seen here. RafaelPPascual left a message was on Sorianopaolo's talk page asking about this and then jumped straight to arbitration about 35 minutes later. Sorianpaolo has not made any contributions since the 23rd (so far their first and only day on Wikipedia) and so has not had a chance to respond.
The removal of all statements except for one party is wrong, but it looks like common or garden biased editing and can be dealt with by a simple revert, as has been done. It does not appear there is a dispute to resolve here, let alone one that the community can't deal with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Sorianopaolo: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Usually, I try to wait for more statements, before expressing my opinion, but this case is incredibly premature; please, RafaelPPascual, try the other forms of dispute resolution, before seizing ArbCom. Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- It can be difficult to find the right way to settle disputes, and perhaps we need to look into how we can further guide people into the right method. This dispute is not suitable for ArbCom. Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Decline as premature. T. Canens (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Decline, with the hope that a more experienced editor might assist RafaelPPascual in figuring out next steps here. Risker (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)