→JzG desysopped: ah, no |
|||
Line 436: | Line 436: | ||
::Proposed. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
::Proposed. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::'''Support''' The evidence provided by Mackan79 and the attacks on Shii were completely uncalled for. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080">'''Kwsn'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080 ">(Ni!)</span>]]</small></font> 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
::'''Support''' The evidence provided by Mackan79 and the attacks on Shii were completely uncalled for. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080">'''Kwsn'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="color: #000080 ">(Ni!)</span>]]</small></font> 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Ridiculous.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
====SlimVirgin placed on civility parole==== |
====SlimVirgin placed on civility parole==== |
Revision as of 02:58, 22 May 2008
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
Previous ArbCom discussion?
1) On her blog last year, ex-arb Kelly Martin remarked about the current arbs that, "rumor has it that they've traded over 600 emails to date on their internal mailing list discussing what to do about SlimVirgin and Jayjg, without coming to any decision or conclusion." [1]. If so, this might be relevant for this case. I guess the easiest way to confirm whether Kelly's statement is true or not is simply to ask directly. I'll phrase it as a yes or no question. Has the ArbCom, within the past year or so, held any discussions addressing concerns about SlimVirgin's and/or Jayjg's editing or administrative actions in Wikipedia or other Wikimedia project? Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- JP, you can't even say yes or no, even if it might pertain to this case? Cla68 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- my view is that it would be inappropriate for jpgordon to comment further. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oversighted SlimVirgin userspace page?
2) Request confirmation from an arbitrator on if this page from SlimVirgin's userspace has been oversighted User:SlimVirgin/GNT [2] [3]. Cla68 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rephrase question for the arbs, if the quote below is accurate, was the page oversighted from SV's userspace because it was, in fact, being used as described by Gnetwerker? Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- [Response to B] If the page was just used to draft some changes for her userpage then why was it oversighted? If it was used to draft content for a BLP, content that was later determined to be in violation of the BLP policy, then I can understand it being oversighted. If an arbitrator could clear up the issue here, if any, that would put this question to rest. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
“ | Please stop harassing me:
You accusations of sockpuppetry against me have gone way overboard. It appears that you have embarked on a mission to label every anonymous IP or single-use account that has edited any page I have ever touched to be one of my sockpuppets, as well as labelling anyone with the temerity to challenge you publically as such. You have little (in many cases no) evidence to support these claims, other than a spurious "Contributions" link. It would appear from Wikipedia and various other public forums that you have many enemies, but blaming me for every nasty thing that happens on Wikipedia is unwise and unreasonable. It is unwise as it conveniantly blames one person (me) for everything you don't like, rather than the multitude who you have offended; and it is unreasonable, as the accounts/IPs you label as sockpuppets have, in many cases, made numerous contributions to articles with which I have no history, and in most other cases have done nothing offensive whatsoever. I have no doubt that, as an administrator and immune from scrutiny, that you will change your behaviour, but I will say this:
The situation with User:Anomicene was unfortunate (and I won't explain it because you wouldn't believe me anyway), but you more than anyone, are now in danger of fostering a permanent state of ill-will, and I suggest that, as you have counselled others so often, just move on, or failing that, please apply more diligence to finding your perpetrator(s), as it is not I. -- Gnetwerker 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
” |
- Comment by others:
- I'm not an arb, but the lack of any revisions seems to me like it has been. My question now is why? Kwsn (Ni!) 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur, but what does this have to do with the case? Nobody involved in this case has oversight permission, so if oversight policy were violated (I don't see how it could have been, but if it were) it's outside the scope of this case. --B (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I googled it and found http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=9671&st=0&p=34156&#entry34156 - this falls into the "who cares" category unless there's something more here. --B (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at that thread, it's basically SV using a subpage to track someone else, something she cuts down Cla68 for in the evidence section. I'm curious now as to what the actual contents are, and why it had to be oversighted if it was just a page with evidence of wrong doings. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The scope of this case should not be considered limited to the initially named parties, and any actions by checkusers and oversighters that relates to the named parties would certainly fall within the scope of this case. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I googled it and found http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=9671&st=0&p=34156&#entry34156 - this falls into the "who cares" category unless there's something more here. --B (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur, but what does this have to do with the case? Nobody involved in this case has oversight permission, so if oversight policy were violated (I don't see how it could have been, but if it were) it's outside the scope of this case. --B (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Un-indent: I did some digging... and found something interesting. The user in question asked SV to leave him alone, obviously she didn't stop. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the deleted revisions of Special:Undelete/User_talk:SlimVirgin/temp were deleted for any privacy reason or anything like that. Rather, ElinorD (talk · contribs) was splitting SlimVirgin's talk page archives into separate pages for her and it looks like she stopped before finishing. I don't see any reason not to make these revisions available for evidence gathering, though presumably that decision should be left to a clerk. Jayvdb, do you feel it would be appropriate to restore this page? --B (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I cant answer that on the spot, but I'll start looking through these deleted revisions. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't the contents of the /GNT page that Cla mentions above though - which has almost certainly been oversighted. No deleted edits. Nothing in the move log. Just multiple deletions int eh deletion log indicating there was somethign there at some point. ViridaeTalk 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure; you will need to ask arbcom about that page. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't the contents of the /GNT page that Cla mentions above though - which has almost certainly been oversighted. No deleted edits. Nothing in the move log. Just multiple deletions int eh deletion log indicating there was somethign there at some point. ViridaeTalk 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I cant answer that on the spot, but I'll start looking through these deleted revisions. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like the deleted revisions of Special:Undelete/User_talk:SlimVirgin/temp were deleted for any privacy reason or anything like that. Rather, ElinorD (talk · contribs) was splitting SlimVirgin's talk page archives into separate pages for her and it looks like she stopped before finishing. I don't see any reason not to make these revisions available for evidence gathering, though presumably that decision should be left to a clerk. Jayvdb, do you feel it would be appropriate to restore this page? --B (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not an arb, but the lack of any revisions seems to me like it has been. My question now is why? Kwsn (Ni!) 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG is added as a party
3) Per arb's comments, JzG is added as a party to the case. Following the close of the case, it is renamed to C68-FM-JzG-SV.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Just want to make it official Kwsn (Ni!) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- This case is complicated enough without that addition. ViridaeTalk 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is a proposal, not a statement of something that has already happened, right? This is a really bad idea. Other than some of the same people being involved, there is zero overlap. I really wish the arbs would reverse themselves on this one. --B (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter - the principles are essentially the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is a proposal, not a statement of something that has already happened, right? This is a really bad idea. Other than some of the same people being involved, there is zero overlap. I really wish the arbs would reverse themselves on this one. --B (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- This case is complicated enough without that addition. ViridaeTalk 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just want to make it official Kwsn (Ni!) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
B is absolutely correct. The arbs need to take the JzG case separately. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Question from FT2
One question that seems important to check with all parties and anyone else:
It might be helpful to give some (simple) wiki-historic background on these matters (so to speak) and "how it reached where it is now", in addition to the usual discussion of the parties' conduct (how they have acted and its impact).
By that I mean, without setting out a fishing net or any kind of wild conspiracy-building, it might be useful to have a couple of comments on the extent to which this is about the conduct of specific individuals, and the extent (if any) to which the problematic conduct(s) are also driven by the playing out of some kind of underlying issue, dispute or division, such as groups, cliques, historic conflicts, or opposing agendas/viewpoints (if any).
I ask since this might be an important factor in assessing the conduct of the parties, in a fair and informed way, and against an appropriate context. Or it might not.
Comments (if any) on the evidence page please. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Further thought: Where possible I'd encourage those giving evidence (on either "side") to ensure they also give consideration to good faith explanations, as necessary. Whilst we're ultimately looking at users' conduct and its impact here, not every problematic action will have been undertaken for a disruptive or hostile reason. Up-front request for a good quality, reasoned discussion. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:Ncmvocalist
tbn = to be numbered.
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Administrators
2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Editorial process
3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing, or unseemly conduct. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed - standard, but slightly modified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Use of administrative tools in a dispute
4) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Decorum
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Threats
6) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Administrators expected to lead by example
7) Administrators are expected to lead by example, and act as role models for users in the community. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette by behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate and disruptive risk being desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- From 2 previous cases - combined both. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Know yourself
8) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
MeatBall:DefendEachOther
9) An administrator is expected to refrain from issuing blocks (or threatening to issue blocks) in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Modified slightly from Tango case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Conduct outside Wikipedia
10) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- From a previous case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Guilt by association
11) Mere membership by an editor in some external website that has members who have been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- From a recent proposed decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Compliance
12) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
tbn) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Previous ArbCom rulings involving FeloniousMonk
1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to several remedies from previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of WebEx and Min Zhu, he was admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved. He was warned in the case of Agapetos angel and was instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. In the case of ScienceApologist, he was counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Straight-forward. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk
2) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement in using his administrative tools ([4]) ([5]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([6]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([7]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).
2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement in using his administrative tools ([8]) ([9]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([10]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([11]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([12]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Open to suggestions for further tweaking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Previous ArbCom rulings involving SlimVirgin
3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to findings and remedies in previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of Lyndon LaRouche 2, the Committee made a finding that she engaged in personal attacks, and she was cautioned not to make any personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. In the case of Israeli apartheid, she was admonished not to use her administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. She was also reminded in that case to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- There is no ArbCom finding that SlimVirgin misused the admin tools during the Israeli Apartheid situation. The only remedy that mentions her name in that case and orders a specific action is, "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." [13] Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Straight-forward. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The remedy in question reads as "All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." -
I'm not familiar with the case, but it appears that SV is included among "all involved administrators".As far as I can tell, SV did not at any time protect or unprotect the page or move the page while it was under move protection. Some clarification would be helpful. --Random832 (contribs) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)- She became an involved admin when she moved the page (at 22:12 on 4 July 2006). She was therefore subject to the whole remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- But saying she was admonished in regards to her use of the administrative tools is disingenuous if there was no allegation that she, personally, had misused the tools in that case. --B (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- She was an involved administrator, so she was admonished - it is irrelevant that others were admonished too. Her name was also specified in the second line (like the others involved). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- But if there was no finding or even an allegation that she did anything wrong, saying she was admonished is silly. It's kinda like when our secretary reminds the whole company to submit their timecards at the end of the pay period. Yes, I, like everyone else, got the reminder. But my boss isn't going to lord it over me on my performance review that the secretary had to admonish me about my timecard. Or, at least, if he does, then my name is Dilbert. This isn't a meaningful finding of fact unless she had actually done something to deserve the warning. My big issue here is that there are legitimate concerns about FM's use of the tools and, according to your claims which I am not yet prepared to offer an opinion on one way or the other, SV's conduct. If those legitimate concerns get lost amongst grandstanding over minor things, then the arbitration committee is less likely to arrive at an appropriate decision. This isn't a legal pleading or a contract negotiation where you might throw a ton of paint on the wall planning to negotiate away a lot of it and hoping that the little bit you care about is going to stick. If any of it has the appearance of a personal grudge or a smear campaign, the arbiters might decide to ignore the lot of it. --B (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are entitled to your own opinion (whatever it is) - but it will not change the clear fact that she was among 5 administrators admonished for poor judgement - she should not have got involved. If you feel there is some error in the case, then like every other editor, you would need to request for an amendment or clarification, but I doubt the arbitrators are going to find any differently on this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- But if there was no finding or even an allegation that she did anything wrong, saying she was admonished is silly. It's kinda like when our secretary reminds the whole company to submit their timecards at the end of the pay period. Yes, I, like everyone else, got the reminder. But my boss isn't going to lord it over me on my performance review that the secretary had to admonish me about my timecard. Or, at least, if he does, then my name is Dilbert. This isn't a meaningful finding of fact unless she had actually done something to deserve the warning. My big issue here is that there are legitimate concerns about FM's use of the tools and, according to your claims which I am not yet prepared to offer an opinion on one way or the other, SV's conduct. If those legitimate concerns get lost amongst grandstanding over minor things, then the arbitration committee is less likely to arrive at an appropriate decision. This isn't a legal pleading or a contract negotiation where you might throw a ton of paint on the wall planning to negotiate away a lot of it and hoping that the little bit you care about is going to stick. If any of it has the appearance of a personal grudge or a smear campaign, the arbiters might decide to ignore the lot of it. --B (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- She was an involved administrator, so she was admonished - it is irrelevant that others were admonished too. Her name was also specified in the second line (like the others involved). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- But saying she was admonished in regards to her use of the administrative tools is disingenuous if there was no allegation that she, personally, had misused the tools in that case. --B (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- She became an involved admin when she moved the page (at 22:12 on 4 July 2006). She was therefore subject to the whole remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin
4) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([14]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([15]).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Open to suggestions for further tweaking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Repeated" poor judgment with respect to the administrative tools is not currently demonstrated in the evidence. Of your two examples, the WP:V protection warring is inappropriate, but somewhat stale if (and only if) it was an isolated incident. (It happened in July 2007, but if there are other similar incidents, it is obviously an issue.) As for the Category talk:Animal rights activists thing, I'm scratching my head on that one. She moved the discussion of Category talk:Animal rights activists to Category talk:Animal rights movement (list), then deleted the latter. She copied and pasted the content to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights so the discussion was able to continue. There's an obvious reason for centralizing the discussion on a project page rather than having it potentially on multiple cat talk pages, so I have no problem with her intentions there. Moving/deleting the page was a rather bad idea for GFDL reasons - the better alternative would have been to copy/paste it with an edit summary crediting the authors, then blank the original discussion. But this is more an incorrect use from a technical standpoint than it is an intentional abuse. It's important to differentiate between someone abusing the tools and making an incorrect decision because they don't have an engineering or law degree. --B (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- But the finding is about her (SV's) judgement as an administrator (with respect to being subject to a previous remedy, continuing with incivility and most importantly - principle 7) - it may need to be worded better though. I haven't gone into her use of admin tools like for FM, due to the current lack of evidence on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Repeated" poor judgment with respect to the administrative tools is not currently demonstrated in the evidence. Of your two examples, the WP:V protection warring is inappropriate, but somewhat stale if (and only if) it was an isolated incident. (It happened in July 2007, but if there are other similar incidents, it is obviously an issue.) As for the Category talk:Animal rights activists thing, I'm scratching my head on that one. She moved the discussion of Category talk:Animal rights activists to Category talk:Animal rights movement (list), then deleted the latter. She copied and pasted the content to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights so the discussion was able to continue. There's an obvious reason for centralizing the discussion on a project page rather than having it potentially on multiple cat talk pages, so I have no problem with her intentions there. Moving/deleting the page was a rather bad idea for GFDL reasons - the better alternative would have been to copy/paste it with an edit summary crediting the authors, then blank the original discussion. But this is more an incorrect use from a technical standpoint than it is an intentional abuse. It's important to differentiate between someone abusing the tools and making an incorrect decision because they don't have an engineering or law degree. --B (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. Open to suggestions for further tweaking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG
5) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Diffs needed. Working on this still. I'm assuming he's a party of this case until/unless ArbCom specify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
FeloniousMonk desysopped
1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.
1.1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed; prefer 1.1 Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support either The use of admin tools in dispute isn't a good thing to start with, but continuing to do so after being told by arbcom not to? Come on here. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk placed on civility parole
2) FeloniousMonk is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin desysopped
3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. She may reapply via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, but must demonstrate that she can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support The evidence provided by Mackan79 and the attacks on Shii were completely uncalled for. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ridiculous.--MONGO 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin placed on civility parole
4) SlimVirgin is subject to an editing restriction for six months to one year. Should she make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, she may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any blocks made on SlimVirgin will no doubt be swiftly undone by one or another of her colleagues, leading to potential wheel-warring and further dramatics. Something different needs to be put in place to prevent the "uninvolved administrator" being pilloried by a minority. I would suggest some form of system where if a questionable edit is made, an arbitrator determines whether the restriction has been broached. It's not something that has been done before, but a standard approach to editing restrictions will lead to greater work for Arbcom in the longer term due to the strong likelihood of SlimVirgin being unblocked against consensus. Additionally, I would suggest her sysop rights be removed and only restored following a successful RFA - administrators must have the confidence of the community. Neıl 龱 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't gone over SlimVirgin diffs yet beyond my comments above, so I'm not endorsing anything here ... but I would point out that since the committee can always reverse itself on an appeal, administrative privileges can ALWAYS be restored by appeal to the committee whether that is spelled out in the remedy or not. --B (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why I excluded "the usual means" but I'll add it in. Re: wheelwarring etc., the usual sort of rules apply - I've spelled them out in the enforcement section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't gone over SlimVirgin diffs yet beyond my comments above, so I'm not endorsing anything here ... but I would point out that since the committee can always reverse itself on an appeal, administrative privileges can ALWAYS be restored by appeal to the committee whether that is spelled out in the remedy or not. --B (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any blocks made on SlimVirgin will no doubt be swiftly undone by one or another of her colleagues, leading to potential wheel-warring and further dramatics. Something different needs to be put in place to prevent the "uninvolved administrator" being pilloried by a minority. I would suggest some form of system where if a questionable edit is made, an arbitrator determines whether the restriction has been broached. It's not something that has been done before, but a standard approach to editing restrictions will lead to greater work for Arbcom in the longer term due to the strong likelihood of SlimVirgin being unblocked against consensus. Additionally, I would suggest her sysop rights be removed and only restored following a successful RFA - administrators must have the confidence of the community. Neıl 龱 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG desysopped
5) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.
5.1) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed; no preference until diffs added to my findings. I'm assuming he's a party of this case until/unless ArbCom specify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Both 5 and 5.1 are ridiculous.--MONGO 02:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG placed on civility parole
6) JzG is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. I'm assuming he's a party of this case until/unless ArbCom specify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to a year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Log of blocks and bans. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without the Committee’s explicit approval, unless there is community consensus at the noticeboard to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed - needed so administrators do not wheel-war (block duration per previous case involving admin. and incivility). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Jossi
Proposed principles
Wikipedia is a community-generated encyclopedia
1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that exists because of the community that creates it and maintains it. Because the community generates the majority of the encyclopedia's content, disagreements between editors occur. The respectful airing and resolution of disagreements is normal and indeed desirable in any such community-led project.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. I can be said better, I am sure, but it is key to this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Friendly amendment is to replace the second sentence with "The respectful airing and resolution of disagreements is normal and indeed desirable in any such community project." (or similar wording). Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by IP:80.65.250.135
Proposed principles
Communications outside of Wikipedia
1) Although Wikipedia is NOT a free speech zone, it also is NOT some kind of regime / cult aimed at repressing free speech outside of the project. Editors are free to discuss their thoughts, feelings and perspectives with members of the press. Being on first name terms with journalists is likewise entirely acceptable. Even ones that criticise Wikipedia.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- This isn't perfect and as worded could be wikilawyered or gamed, but consider something like this. It's a rough view on it...
- "The primary concerns of Wikipedia related to editors' communications are 1/ the prevention or reduction of gross breach of integrity of the editorial process, and 2/ the prevention or reduction of social friction, or other actions, that might detract editors from congenially collaborating on the objectives of the project, or significantly impede the aims of the project. Constructive criticism and observations on all levels can be an essential part of this, and editors are not to be censured for privately held views expressed reasonably or which do not imapct the project. In exceptional cases some kinds of communication may be incompatible with the degree of cameraderie needed for collaboration. Editors are expected to bear these in mind in their communications that might impact on the project. But otherwise Wikipedia as a project has no involvement in user communication."
- I think that's more the point. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't perfect and as worded could be wikilawyered or gamed, but consider something like this. It's a rough view on it...
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Shouldn't need saying but apparently it does so let's get it over with. 80.65.250.135 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- You missed the point. When you are on friendly terms with a journalist, citing the journalist in support of your own opinions within article space is seriously inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Using the card of being in good terms with a journalist as leverage in editorial disputes is inappropriate, divisive, and against the principles of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the spirit, but the wording could be better. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- JzG, Jossi, that doesn't sound too good. I did a search in the evidence so far for "journalist" and "Metz" and did not find anything from either of you that actually establishes the sort of connection you refer to, do you have evidence you are planning to introduce about this? Because if not, about all that cane be said is "that's true, but what's your point?" ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is evidence in the evidence page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe take this to the talk for that page, because I looked at the evidence already, as I said, and I don't see where there's any "leverage" ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- fwiw, dave souza and FeloniousMonk do mention "journalist" in their evidence. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe take this to the talk for that page, because I looked at the evidence already, as I said, and I don't see where there's any "leverage" ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is evidence in the evidence page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- JzG, Jossi, that doesn't sound too good. I did a search in the evidence so far for "journalist" and "Metz" and did not find anything from either of you that actually establishes the sort of connection you refer to, do you have evidence you are planning to introduce about this? Because if not, about all that cane be said is "that's true, but what's your point?" ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the spirit, but the wording could be better. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. Shouldn't need saying but apparently it does so let's get it over with. 80.65.250.135 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent> I've only looked at the Picard affair, in which Cla68 says he was commenting on a post by Moulton. That post responded to a question if "Picard called attention to this travesty to the press", and Moulton describes trying to interest "Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press" in the story. He calls Bergstein a "reporter" and a "journalist". Cla68's post introduced the idea of editors "having their real names in the press". As Moulton is currently indefinitely blocked, the proposed wording would not apply to him, and I'm unaware of anyone else using acquaintance or friendship with reporters in a doubtful way. Bergstein had apparently been invited to take part in a Not The Wikipedia Weekly session by Durova, which is completely in order. So, I'm puzzled about the intention of the proposal here. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposal by User:Dragon695
Proposed principle
Guilt by association
1) Mere membership by an editor in some external website that has members who have been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Based on the CAMERA lobbying Proposed decision. There is an allegation being made by some that mere participation in sites such as Wikipedia Review makes one responsible for actions taken by other members of said site. May need to be worded better, but this is what crossed my mind while following this case. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- support - everyone involved seems to run afoul of this sort of idea. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on what that external website is. This finding is obviously about Wikipedia Review. Ok, that's fine. But if someone were a member of, say, Stormfront, and were to make mildly objectionable comments here that might otherwise be ignored or assumed to have been unfortunately phrased, it's not unreasonable to take those comments in the context of the person's membership. --B (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- But even in that case we are only taking the actual offenses against en.wikipedia from the folks who perform them. So, while one may make assumptions about an editor who is a member of a group like stormfront, if the editor behaves themselves here, with the exception of some mild incivility (or even not so mild) it's not an issue with the group membership (even when other members of the group are actively disrupting the project). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but given how upset LauraLove was, I think it better to err on the side of AGF and fight for NPOV on more sound reasoning. Guilt by association is a common ad hominem attack used to discredit the opponents argument, primarily because it is much easier than arguing based on the facts. Emotion always is going to affect our rationality, for better or worse, so the extent to which we can refrain from gaming others' emotions makes for a better collaborative environment. I would note, however, that I thought very highly of a recently outed editor and feel that those who used his personal information to harass his workplace are terribly misguided individuals who need to re-examine their personal ethics. That being said, I do not blame those editors who participate in the forum that was established by the harassers. It is neither appeasement nor is it enabling to have dialogue with one's enemies, its only when you participate in bad behavior that you actually cross the line. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposals by User:Z
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Supposed attack subpage (was mentioned by SV)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Uh... I read here that keeping tabs on other users was completely acceptable, and one user even specifically mentions that they're used in preparation for arbcom or RfC's. I fail how to see how it's an attack page. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- My impolitic-original-research thought is that when you see the univers as us v. them, everything discussing your actions is an attack. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to now state my agreement with Kwsn here. Cla has manipulated a perfectly acceptable means of preparing "evidence", as it were, for a future RfC. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused. are you saying it is or is not an attack page? and is or is not an acceptable way to prepare Rfc's or arbcomm evidence sections? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to now state my agreement with Kwsn here. Cla has manipulated a perfectly acceptable means of preparing "evidence", as it were, for a future RfC. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- My impolitic-original-research thought is that when you see the univers as us v. them, everything discussing your actions is an attack. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uh... I read here that keeping tabs on other users was completely acceptable, and one user even specifically mentions that they're used in preparation for arbcom or RfC's. I fail how to see how it's an attack page. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG's evidence
- (moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence)The diffs JzG provides in his evidence are annotated with my blue italicised comments, as follows:
- [16] apparent Wikistalking - snide comment, but not stalking, not sure spiteful is right
- [17] Snide and unhelpful attack, combined with dismissal of the issue of harassment of editors - sarcasm
- [18] on the matter of antisocialmedia - not sure why this is even here, seems to be Cla68 helping to build a better article - how is this spiteful?
- [19] links to a piece by Cade Metz (who Cla68 knows, Metz having been his outlet in the "secret"! mailing list story) to further his campaign against Jossi (incidentally, the article is characteristically inaccurate, failing to spot that Jossi !voted keep on the criticism fork afd). The irony! Cla689 creating a section on "conflict of interest" while pursuing an apparent conflict of interest... - raising Jossi's COI on Prem Rawat (something Arbcom itself subsequently became aware of, and Jossi himself agreed to refrain from editing Prem Rawat and related articles - how is this evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?
- [20] champions Piperdown - Piperdown was unblocked - how is arguing for a user to be unblocked being spiteful, particularly considering the user WAS unblocked?
- [21], [22] More Wikistalking - first diff is Cla68 (correctly) removing weasel words, second is thanbking someone for showing patience (how are these evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?)
- [23] part of a brief edit war to try to drag Jayjg into a contentious arbitration case, reverted by people including clerks and arbitrators numerous times. - a trawl of the history of that time - [24], shows no such reversions by Cla68.
- [25] a dig at Jimbo and an indication that he is on first-name terms with Metz, a long-standing sniper at Wikipedia - asking Jimbo a question? Calling someone by their first name? How is this spiteful?
- [26] a sockpuppet promotes Cla68's false allegations published in the Register - nothing to to with Cla68 - irrelevant
- [27] trolling re Swalwell, Alberta, a part of the SV = LM meme - agree here, Cla68's comment was not needed
- [28], once again citing Metz. - what? Providing a reference is spiteful?
- To summarise, JzG's "evidence" appears to be a collation of smears. Not one of the diffs JzG gives to back up his description of Cla68 as "spiteful" give much weight to that claim, when viewed either in isolation or as a group. At worst, there are perhaps two examples of sarcasm within the 11 bulletpoints JzG uses. Neıl 龱 08:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- I'm very disappointed in the seeming misuse of diffs in the evidence section (this group specifically, and others more generally). A little more good faith reading of folks comments goes a long way towards not thinking they are attacking you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Cla68
Momentarily, I can't see any sufficient evidence presented to suggest that a finding or remedy be made against this party, mainly due to the lack of policy violations. If there is any new evidence added concerning this party's conduct, I'd appreciate it if a note/link is left here.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing I've seen that might be worth a finding is that cla sometimes has a hard time letting go of an issue. But it's pretty weak. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Administrative Activities Question
In various users evidence sections, there are descriptions of what appear to be inappropriate uses of admin tools by FM and SV. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of thier administrative tool use are these kinds of problematic actions? It looks like FM has made 47 administrator actions since March 17, 2007 (just over a year), and that sv has made 50 administrator actions since February 20, 2008 (three months).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- by Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the percentage that has any bearing. Administrators are expected to abide by policy. Occasional mistakes are ok, but when it becomes a pattern, then that's where the line is drawn (and remedies are considered). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- In my section on FM, I identified 12 of his 40 total logged actions since May 1, 2007 (30%) that I believed to be errant. It's important to keep several things in mind, though. 10 or so of his logged actions were protecting user pages of IP addresses of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs), a chronically annoying, though not banned, user. The two were basically in a tif where Jinxmchue decided to quit using his account and just edit via whatever dynamic IP address his ISP assigned him. FM decided that this needed to be documented on the user pages of these IP address (for example, see User:67.135.49.147) and when Jinxmchue objected, FM protected the pages. While this isn't thrilling conduct, it isn't really abusive either, but the point is, 10 of FM's 40 logged actions were protecting these IP user pages. So the 12 actions I identified were really closer to half of his total incidents of using the admin tools. Sheer numbers really don't mean anything. The second thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between misuse and abuse. Someone may misuse the tools without intending to be abusive. For example, indef blocking an IP (other than an open proxy) is a misuse because IPs change over time. That isn't done to be abusive. There was no malice or anything like that - it's just a bad idea and in one case, while preparing evidence, I found a dynamic or shared IP that he had indeffed and I removed the block because it was clearly someone else trying to use it and the person he was trying to block was long gone from it. This is not intentional abuse - it's just incorrect use - a training issue and a solvable problem. I contend that 8 of the admin actions I documented from FM constituted abuse of the admin tools and 4 were incorrect, though not abusive, use. --B (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- See my assessment, and examine all these assertions with care. .. dave souza, talk 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, wrt Ferrylodge, I meant "previous" to this arbcom request, not that the arbitration committee had predicted that FM would in the future block Ferrylodge and that such a block would be inappropriate. WRT to Rosalind Picard and James Tour, you are right that I missed that user and I have updated my presentation from "not a single" to "a single". Thank you for pointing him out, but it changes nothing I said. S-protecting an article to stop a user who is neither blocked nor banned at the time of the s-protection from editing an article is inappropriate. If FM had known that this was the reincarnation of a banned user, blocking him would have been fine, but s-protecting the article to stop someone from editing an article while they would be otherwise to edit (not blocked) is probably not a correct use of the tools. WRT to the IP indefblocks, I don't question the block, just the indefinite portion of it. IPs can change. That's not an abuse - it's an incorrect use, as I stated above. As for Schlafly, we will have to agree to disagree. I contend that he should have allowed an uninvolved administrator to handle it. --B (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- See my assessment, and examine all these assertions with care. .. dave souza, talk 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- In my section on FM, I identified 12 of his 40 total logged actions since May 1, 2007 (30%) that I believed to be errant. It's important to keep several things in mind, though. 10 or so of his logged actions were protecting user pages of IP addresses of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs), a chronically annoying, though not banned, user. The two were basically in a tif where Jinxmchue decided to quit using his account and just edit via whatever dynamic IP address his ISP assigned him. FM decided that this needed to be documented on the user pages of these IP address (for example, see User:67.135.49.147) and when Jinxmchue objected, FM protected the pages. While this isn't thrilling conduct, it isn't really abusive either, but the point is, 10 of FM's 40 logged actions were protecting these IP user pages. So the 12 actions I identified were really closer to half of his total incidents of using the admin tools. Sheer numbers really don't mean anything. The second thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between misuse and abuse. Someone may misuse the tools without intending to be abusive. For example, indef blocking an IP (other than an open proxy) is a misuse because IPs change over time. That isn't done to be abusive. There was no malice or anything like that - it's just a bad idea and in one case, while preparing evidence, I found a dynamic or shared IP that he had indeffed and I removed the block because it was clearly someone else trying to use it and the person he was trying to block was long gone from it. This is not intentional abuse - it's just incorrect use - a training issue and a solvable problem. I contend that 8 of the admin actions I documented from FM constituted abuse of the admin tools and 4 were incorrect, though not abusive, use. --B (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the percentage that has any bearing. Administrators are expected to abide by policy. Occasional mistakes are ok, but when it becomes a pattern, then that's where the line is drawn (and remedies are considered). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- by Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: