Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Question: comment |
Pleasantville (talk | contribs) →Disentangling: ink I'm wrong that there are two main issues. There are four |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::I agree with [[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] in part. Ferrylodge's request for review seemed to be primarily based on process, rather than that a ban was not appropriate based on the facts. Therefore a full evaluation of the ban would be necessary for the committee to conduct. Then, if the committee decides that the process was not good enough, the remaining things would be evaluated. my $02. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
::I agree with [[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] in part. Ferrylodge's request for review seemed to be primarily based on process, rather than that a ban was not appropriate based on the facts. Therefore a full evaluation of the ban would be necessary for the committee to conduct. Then, if the committee decides that the process was not good enough, the remaining things would be evaluated. my $02. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Two dollars? Wow... inflation really has been bad for the price of opinions. ;-) --[[User:Ali'i|Ali'i]] 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::Two dollars? Wow... inflation really has been bad for the price of opinions. ;-) --[[User:Ali'i|Ali'i]] 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
It looks like overnight the Workshop page devolved into a game of Clue. That having been said, I think I'm wrong that there are two main issues. There are four: |
|||
*The validity of the CSN (new sockpupputry allegations fall into this category) |
|||
*Ferrylodge's behaviors that provoked community reaction. |
|||
*Contributions that Ferrylodge made the improved Wikipedia |
|||
* Ferrlylodge's apparent lack or remorse and unresponsiveness to community complaints about his behavior. |
|||
This last is what REALLY got him banned: the Wikiworld does not turn on issues like whether WP uses the word womb or uterus or whether Ferrylodge is allowed to control [[Mother]]. Rather, though no one used the term, Ferrylodge was perceived to have a generally sociopathic pattern of behavior. |
|||
These are the things that need to be addressed. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Question == |
== Question == |
Revision as of 12:29, 19 October 2007
Disentangling
Is there a way to separate questions of CSN procedure from issues of Ferrylodge's behavior?
The entanglement of these two issues leads to a lot of muddiness. For example, Ali'i complains of being mispercieved as a Ferrylodge supporter. Is there a way to decrease confusion between these 2 separate issues? --Pleasantville 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The biggest thing is to actually start treating them like two separate issues. So far the case has focused more on whether or not the CSN process was appropriate or not and if there truly was consensus for his banning. Based on the current definition of "community ban", the fact that three admins have said that they are willing to unblock Ferrylodge seems to indicate that the community ban is no longer applicable. Those that want a complete banning Ferrylodge needs to start developing evidence similar to Severa's[1] and use that evidence to develop principles, findings of fact, and remedies that would support a complete banning. Conversely, those that would like to see a preventative measure less than that (or no measure at all), should start developing evidence similar to Ali'i's[2] and coming up with principles, findings of fact, remedies that support those lesser measures.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Bobblehead in part. Ferrylodge's request for review seemed to be primarily based on process, rather than that a ban was not appropriate based on the facts. Therefore a full evaluation of the ban would be necessary for the committee to conduct. Then, if the committee decides that the process was not good enough, the remaining things would be evaluated. my $02. --Rocksanddirt 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Two dollars? Wow... inflation really has been bad for the price of opinions. ;-) --Ali'i 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Bobblehead in part. Ferrylodge's request for review seemed to be primarily based on process, rather than that a ban was not appropriate based on the facts. Therefore a full evaluation of the ban would be necessary for the committee to conduct. Then, if the committee decides that the process was not good enough, the remaining things would be evaluated. my $02. --Rocksanddirt 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like overnight the Workshop page devolved into a game of Clue. That having been said, I think I'm wrong that there are two main issues. There are four:
- The validity of the CSN (new sockpupputry allegations fall into this category)
- Ferrylodge's behaviors that provoked community reaction.
- Contributions that Ferrylodge made the improved Wikipedia
- Ferrlylodge's apparent lack or remorse and unresponsiveness to community complaints about his behavior.
This last is what REALLY got him banned: the Wikiworld does not turn on issues like whether WP uses the word womb or uterus or whether Ferrylodge is allowed to control Mother. Rather, though no one used the term, Ferrylodge was perceived to have a generally sociopathic pattern of behavior.
These are the things that need to be addressed. --Pleasantville 12:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Question
Is there any point to "voting" on people's proposals here? Isn't that what the arbitration committee is supposed to do? I understand people discussing each idea, but what is with the Support or Oppose comments with little else to say? :-/ --Ali'i 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've never been to one of these things before. It would be helpful if someone could point towards guidelines of how this is supposed to work. --Pleasantville 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The various support/discussion of the various proposals are more for the committee to get a feeling for what is behind the proposals. for example: several proposals have been made, some discussion of them and then an alternate version proposed. The idea being to make sure that the community has input to the process as well. The other unintentional consequence is that it gives disruptive users the chance to be disruptive in a way that doesn't harm the encyclopedia, but does give both the committee and other users a chance to see what all the fuss is about.
- That said, you all are doing it just fine it seems to me. --Rocksanddirt 23:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The presentations and discussion in this case, as compared with many other cases, have been well-organized and civil, which will give you a sad picture of what many other cases have been like. Newyorkbrad 12:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- That said, you all are doing it just fine it seems to me. --Rocksanddirt 23:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)