PhilKnight (talk | contribs) |
→Statement by other user: comment |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=454450629&oldid=454439691 this comment] of mine at an AE thread for the case that motivated this request, although this request is not limited to the particular editor. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=454450629&oldid=454439691 this comment] of mine at an AE thread for the case that motivated this request, although this request is not limited to the particular editor. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by other user === |
|||
As I said at the AE, and I will say again here. Let's "try again"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=prev&oldid=387776110][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism&diff=prev&oldid=432890350], because as it stands now, we are dealing with an obvious sockpuppet, and the inability for anyone to give a straight answer is allowing this sockpuppet to "take the piss" out of the community?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marknutley&diff=prev&oldid=388736342][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IAMNOTWHOUFINKSUM&oldid=433082397] |
|||
What we have a case of here is the Arbcom overstepping its bounds by totally disregarding behavioural evidence, and the knowledge of editors and admins who have dealt with these sockpuppets in the past. There is not a single admin out there who has dealt with Marknutley sockpuppets that does not believe that TLAM is not a sock of Nutley. This is based on behavioural evidence and obvious editing traits. I provided one such trait to the Committee, and it stuck out like dogs balls when I saw it, and the more one delves into the evidence, the more and more [[WP:DUCK]] evolves that it is quite obvious this is a sockpuppet. And I am told by the Committee "we are not convinced". |
|||
As I said in the AE, we have the opportunity to right a major wrong here...and it is a wrong, given that this sockpuppets disruptive behaviour has somewhat led to a long-term editor in good-standing being topic banned for 6 months, whilst the obvious sockpuppet gets a 3 month topic ban...go figure. So without blame and without shame, the following needs to be very clearly answered for the community. |
|||
Who made the decision to unleash this sockpuppet on the community? Those Arbs who reached this decision need to explain to the Community a few things, such as: Upon what basis was this decision reached? Why was this done in secret, and why was the community not involved in this process? Given that it is the community that has dealt with this disruptive user in the past, and there is not a single admin who has even so much as considered unblocking this sockpuppet. Did those who looked at this appeal totally disregard behavioural evidence, and concentrated only on technical evidence? Such as IP addresses? One can easily change their IP and ISP, but behaviour is much harder to change. |
|||
Is the Committee willing to turn this issue back over to the community to deal with? And without further involvement from the committee? The fact that there are many admins who are of the opinion that this is a sockpuppet, and yet none will do anything about it, for fear of the Committee, is quite daunting. No-one should be fearful of the Committee, it is the Committee that should be fearful of us. There has to come a time when someone will stand up, say straight that the Committee has ballsed up, ballsed up in good faith, but ballsed up all the same, and correct the mistake that has been made. This is even moreso needed as the Committee itself doesn't seem to know what to do, so it will likely be up to an admin out there with some spine to make a relatively easy decision of right over wrong. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Let's dialogue]]</sup> 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by other user === |
=== Statement by other user === |
Revision as of 17:53, 8 October 2011
Requests for clarification
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: Arbcom-unblocked editors
Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Statement by Timotheus Canens
Under what circumstances may an individual administrator block an editor previously unblocked by arbcom?
In particular, if an account X is first blocked as a sockpuppet, then unblocked by arbcom, and then new evidence of sockpuppetry is alleged, what action, if any, should be taken by an individual administrator? Can the admin take action on the request alone, or must the matter be referred to the committee? If individual admin block is permitted, how is the admin supposed to weigh the evidence? What weight should be accorded to the previous unblock by the committee? Is there any way for the admin to ascertain the evidence considered by the committee in reaching the decision to unblock? If not (because committee deliberations are private) how is the admin supposed to reach an informed decision?
See this comment of mine at an AE thread for the case that motivated this request, although this request is not limited to the particular editor. T. Canens (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by other user
As I said at the AE, and I will say again here. Let's "try again"[1][2], because as it stands now, we are dealing with an obvious sockpuppet, and the inability for anyone to give a straight answer is allowing this sockpuppet to "take the piss" out of the community?[3][4]
What we have a case of here is the Arbcom overstepping its bounds by totally disregarding behavioural evidence, and the knowledge of editors and admins who have dealt with these sockpuppets in the past. There is not a single admin out there who has dealt with Marknutley sockpuppets that does not believe that TLAM is not a sock of Nutley. This is based on behavioural evidence and obvious editing traits. I provided one such trait to the Committee, and it stuck out like dogs balls when I saw it, and the more one delves into the evidence, the more and more WP:DUCK evolves that it is quite obvious this is a sockpuppet. And I am told by the Committee "we are not convinced".
As I said in the AE, we have the opportunity to right a major wrong here...and it is a wrong, given that this sockpuppets disruptive behaviour has somewhat led to a long-term editor in good-standing being topic banned for 6 months, whilst the obvious sockpuppet gets a 3 month topic ban...go figure. So without blame and without shame, the following needs to be very clearly answered for the community.
Who made the decision to unleash this sockpuppet on the community? Those Arbs who reached this decision need to explain to the Community a few things, such as: Upon what basis was this decision reached? Why was this done in secret, and why was the community not involved in this process? Given that it is the community that has dealt with this disruptive user in the past, and there is not a single admin who has even so much as considered unblocking this sockpuppet. Did those who looked at this appeal totally disregard behavioural evidence, and concentrated only on technical evidence? Such as IP addresses? One can easily change their IP and ISP, but behaviour is much harder to change.
Is the Committee willing to turn this issue back over to the community to deal with? And without further involvement from the committee? The fact that there are many admins who are of the opinion that this is a sockpuppet, and yet none will do anything about it, for fear of the Committee, is quite daunting. No-one should be fearful of the Committee, it is the Committee that should be fearful of us. There has to come a time when someone will stand up, say straight that the Committee has ballsed up, ballsed up in good faith, but ballsed up all the same, and correct the mistake that has been made. This is even moreso needed as the Committee itself doesn't seem to know what to do, so it will likely be up to an admin out there with some spine to make a relatively easy decision of right over wrong. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I dont think there is an easy answer for this one. The successful ban appeals are sometimes announced with wording that gives an administrator a clear picture, and other times they are not. Also, the situation after the unblock may be different than at the time of the unblock. For example, the arbitration committee may have been monitoring the unblocked user, and may have received new information after the unblock. The simplest solution is for an admin to notify arbcom (via arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) of an ongoing discussion if they feel that the user should be reblocked, and arbitrators should comment onwiki if they believe the reblock would be inappropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- In general, I agree with John's comment, that is under those circumstances, it would be prudent to inform ArbCom of an ongoing discussion about a possible re-block. I also agree that arbitrators who took the decision to unblock should, after being notified about the discussion, comment onwiki. This particular unblock was handled by the Ban Appeal Subcommittee, so I think somebody from the subcommittee should comment in regard to the ongoing discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)