MarshalN20 (talk | contribs) |
→Lecen's personal attacks: You should try to take a look at the arbcom case again |
||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
{{od}}Really? Instead of apologizing, you keep justifying your personal attacks? Yes, I was banned for "tendentious editing and battle ground conduct" for a year (not "forever"). However, none of the "findings" against me accuse me of meatpuppeting, Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogynism, eugenics, or promoting propaganda. You are insulting me and I am tired of your harassment. '''Enough is enough'''. Arbitrators please respond!--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:maroon">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] | [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="Olive">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="Olive">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
{{od}}Really? Instead of apologizing, you keep justifying your personal attacks? Yes, I was banned for "tendentious editing and battle ground conduct" for a year (not "forever"). However, none of the "findings" against me accuse me of meatpuppeting, Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogynism, eugenics, or promoting propaganda. You are insulting me and I am tired of your harassment. '''Enough is enough'''. Arbitrators please respond!--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:maroon">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] | [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="Olive">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="Olive">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Again: "MarshalN20 is banned '''indefinitely''' from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces." "Indefinitely" means forever, not a year. --[[User:Lecen|Lecen]] ([[User talk:Lecen|talk]]) 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:56, 1 August 2013
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
Net 4 votes?
Has the rule about 4 net votes needed to open a case changed? The KW/Ironholds case was 5/4 S/O, I thought, so I am wondering why it was opened? EdChem (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- A case is opened "if its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators." In this case, the net-four rule was not met, but the absolute majority was. There were eleven active arbitrators, nine of which were non-recused. Thus, five out of nine was an absolute majority, which granted the opening of the case. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 05:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
EdChem's question is something I was wondering about as well. The absolute majority criterion is covered in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings but it is not mentioned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Deciding of requests. Does anyone object if I update that section? Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good observation. I support the update (Assuming of course, that the former is considered accurate, and the second, incomplete).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it should definitely be updated to be internally consistent. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I have made this edit to the Guide page. Most of it is a direct copy of the motion that last amended these rules. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I have made this edit to the Guide page. Most of it is a direct copy of the motion that last amended these rules. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it should definitely be updated to be internally consistent. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Prodego and Wheelwarring
The case should not have been rushed to close, because the wheel-warring by administrator Prodego has not been addressed, e.g. by removing his administrator status for misuse of tools. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The initiator withdrew the case and as no arbitrator at that point had voted to accept the case then it was quickly withdrawn as policy allows. There is nothing to stop you initiating a new request if you feel that desysopping was not enough and that earlier steps in the DR process either have been or would be ineffective. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with some of what Thryduulf says. While I don't see that any further actions can be taken toward INC, I do think there is a case to be had here as far as Prodego and Kww. — Ched : ? 19:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Concerning recusals
Excuse me for a strong statement but I think it is necessary to get the point across. A member of Arbcom who has recused from a case should not talk about it until it is over. Don't make comments, don't make suggestions, don't engage in discussions, just shut up. Respond to questions by saying that you are recused and therefore cannot comment. If the non-recused members ask for information you can give it to them, but otherwise just be silent. Any other behavior is not a genuine recusal. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Arbs are members of the community and have a long history or offering evidence and workshop suggestions on cases they are recused in --Guerillero | My Talk 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. They recuse as arbitrators, not as editors. — ΛΧΣ21 17:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Arbitrators who are involved in a case have just as much right to comment on it as any other involved editor. Andrew327 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Update on discretionary sanctions review
The committee recently received an enquiry about how our review of discretionary sanctions was proceeding, and I thought I would leave a public note in response. After collating the results of the several clarification and amendment requests we have received about the discretionary sanctions system, we held an internal straw poll to resolve the fundamental questions raised by those requests; I am happy to report that we comfortably reached consensus on all those questions. I then set about rewriting the current set of standardised discretionary sanctions to incorporate that consensus (therefore resolving the outstanding points of order relating to arbitration enforcement). I then passed the rewritten procedures to another arbitrator, who quite extensively simplified the whole set of procedures. The new procedures look rather different from the current ones, so this has turned into a rather extensive review of the whole system. We are finalising the copyedited procedures and will vote on them this week. Although the review has taken some time, I and the other arbitrators who have been working on this believe that such an important piece of procedure is best not rushed. Thank you to all the editors who have waited patiently on the finished product. AGK [•] 11:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Will there be an opportunity for the community to offer feedback on the new procedures before they go live? Is there a defined transition or other defined way of handling existing sanctions/ongoing requests related to existing sanctions when the new procedures go live? Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks in advance for your work and that of your colleagues, AGK. As an administrator active in AE, I would also appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. Sandstein 12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, the changes will be publicly voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions and I imagine most of us will leave the motion there for a few days before voting (or offering alternatives). Current requests will be governed by old procedure until the new one passes. The two are not so different that there will be major confusion in any transitory period. NW (Talk) 13:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, I had actually agreed with the copy-editing arbitrator to publish the draft for community comments before we move anywhere close to "voting", so there will be ample opportunity for meaningful consultation. (Sorry, NW – I forgot to note that fact on-list.)
Thryduulf, one of the things I seem to do quite well is setting out procedures for these types of "transitions". Unless my colleagues object, the procedure for the transition between Old DS and New DS will be that: (i) enforcement requests that have no administrator comments before the new system takes effect will be subject to the new system; (ii) enforcement requests that have received comments by one or more uninvolved administrators before the new system takes effect will be subject to the old system; (iii) in no case will any existing sanction be invalidated when the new system takes effect; (iv) subject to the guidelines in i) and ii) for appeals pending at the moment of transition, all appeals will be heard under the provisions of the new system. I think that covers everything, but some other provisions for the transition may be made closer to the time. And to reiterate what NW and I have said to Sandstein, because it bears repeating: there will be an extensive period of review of the new system, in which the comments and suggestions of any unblocked editor will be invited and very welcome. AGK [•] 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, I had actually agreed with the copy-editing arbitrator to publish the draft for community comments before we move anywhere close to "voting", so there will be ample opportunity for meaningful consultation. (Sorry, NW – I forgot to note that fact on-list.)
How recusal works in practice
Given the comments on the IH/KW case about recused arbitrators not taking part in a case in any way, it seems that one or more editors don't understand what recusal means in practice.
One or more then-active arbitrators gave a good explanation in terms of the multiple mailing lists etc in response to one of my questions on either the 2012 or 2011 arbitrator election questions to candidates page so I now understand it. I can't immediately find that now so it would be good if someone could write a simple guide (1-2 paragraphs is probably all it needs) to what recusal means and how the recusal of an arbitrator is handled in practice. I guess this would best fit on the "Guide to arbitration" page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- See Judicial disqualification. Apteva (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Thryduulf. I believe the question you refer to was was in your 2011 arbitrator election questions, specifically What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?. If it helps, here are the answers from the sitting arbs. It's also worth noting that your subsequent question (how would you handle it?) is relevent.
Sitting arbitrator's 2011 election answers |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I hope that helps a bit. WormTT(talk) 11:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was thinking of, particularly the answers of Risker and Roger in mentioning the mailing list. I'll write up something for the guide to help others too based on that. Thanks. 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In baseball, a tie goes to the runner
So, what happens with a case that wound up 6-6 accept-decline, where it calls for 7 to cement a decision, a default to decline? The clerks aren't leaping to remove the case from the main page, I see, so I'd be curious to know just what is going on at the moment in off-wiki channels, i.e. is lobbying of other Arbs to change their vote allowed? 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- We discussed the case among ourselves for a little while, but no one changed their vote. That was a few days ago, before the last vote was cast. I can't recall the last time someone tried to lobby the Committee off-wiki and we actually took it seriously. The case request is mostly just waiting for a clerk to remove it, and that'll be done as soon as someone is available. NW (Talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Lecen's personal attacks
Dear arbitrators,
Lecen continues to cast aspersions about me (accusing me of using Fascist sources & sponsoring political proganda; see [1]). He was already warned in the Argentine History arbitration case to stop these kind of accusations unless he had actual evidence to back his claims. Several days have passed since he made these accusations against me and has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that justifies his claims (making them, in effect, nothing more than personal attacks).
I must emphasize that he has already been warned various times to stop. In fact, these "warnings" do nothing but encourage him to continue casting aspersions. Your leniency on this matter provides him with a sense of superiority that no editor in Wikipedia should have over others. I request the arbitrators to take action or to recommend me a venue where I can notify other administrators about Lecen's continuous personal attacks against me (I am evaluating whether to take this to AN/I or the Arbitration Enforcement board; please provide me with a suggestion).
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- By points:
- Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists are regarded fascists by scholars. The Nationalists/Revisionists published books that are deemed pieces of political propaganda by historians. This is a fact. I provided sources in the Arbitration case evidence page and through e-mails to the Arbitrators.
- You and Cambalachero insisted, over and over, to use Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. In fact, you and Cambalachero argued in favor of using them on the Arbitration case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence#Evidence presented by Cambalachero (sources) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence#Evidence presented by MarshalN20 (sources)
- The Arbitrators agreed that the Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists were indeed unreliable as sources and this why you and Cambalachero were both "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies.
- I was warned nowhere about not casting aspersions. The only place in the Arbcom case where aspersions are mentioned are in "proposed principles". My name is not mentioned there.
- I was not warned by anyone and even less "various time".
- The link you provided is a reply I made to an Arbitrator where I said that Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (Fascists) published books with political propaganda in mind and that you and Cambalachero used them as sources. This is a fact. It is the very foundation of the ArbCom case that led you and Cambalachero to be topic banned. --Lecen (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
My only position in the dispute between you and Cambalachero was that sources should not be dismissed simply because certain authors accuse them of being Fascists. Essentially, all I ever did was defend freedom of speech. And I would do the same for "democratic authors" or "communist authors" in any other situation.
I also never disputed the validity of the sources you presented (such as John Lynch or David Rock), and merely suggested that all information (regardless of political leaning) be evaluated on their academic value.
At the Arbitration page, you wrote the following: "two editors who used unreliable sources written by Fascists". Again, I never included a single source (Fascists or non-Fascist) into the article. Your accusations have no foundation.
Cambalachero and me are two different people. Yet, throughout this whole problem you have bundled the two of us as if we were one person. To this point, you keep writing "You and Cambalachero". Why? Because all you ever wrote about (including all diffs used in the evidence page) focused on Cambalachero and his actions rather than mine.
The last three points in your list (4, 5, and 6) clearly show that sense of superiority I mentioned in my first statement. You are not above any of the findings or "Wikiquette" standards and were warned to stop attacking users.
I again ask that you show a single diff where I "use a Fascist author" in any article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, by topics:
- I couldn't dare to place you and Cambalachero on the same category. I believe Cambalachero was far more harmful to Wikipedia than you, since he wrote history as it didn't happen. However, I must be fair: his behavior since the end of the Arbcom case has been exemplary. He is respecting the sanctions; he is not bothering Arbitrators; he is not arguing over and over about the Arbcom case outcome; no friends of his have suddenly appeared on articles they never contributed supporting his point of view. You should try to follow his example.
- "Freedom of speech" is not above Wikipedia:Verifiability nor Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you want to allow "freedom of speech" to Fascists writers and their propaganda books (scorned by respected scholars) you are in the wrong place.
- As it seems, this yet another attempt of yours to discuss the Arbcom outcome and try to change the Arbitrators' mind. You're wasting our time, MarshalN20. Move on. --Lecen (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I stand by my position that freedom of speech is important when analyzing all sources to get a complete comprehension of the literature of a subject. You cannot blind yourself to a certain political view and think that the other view is infallibly correct. That is POV editing.
- But I will not discuss article content, which is what you are turning this into
- The point of my complaint is your continuous personal attacks against me. To count them up:
- Accusation of Fascism ([2]).
- Accusation of nationalist propaganda ([3]).
- Accusation of meatpuppeting ("no friends of his have suddenly appeared on articles they never contributed supporting his point of view"). Adding to this that you have already been warned to stop these meatpuppeting claims ([4]).
- I request, no, I demand that you put an end to your insults.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- By topics:
- Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists were fascists, authoritarians, anti-Semitic, racists and misogynistics who supported eugenics. Their books were pieces of political propaganda. See here.
- Cambalachero wrote several articles using Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. You fiercely supported him. See here.
- Because of that you and him were topic banned from all articles related to Latin American history forever. In your case, you have "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" and was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". See here and here.
- Thus, you can't argue that I'm insulting you because I merely mentioned the very reason to why you were topic banned forever. --Lecen (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- By topics:
Really? Instead of apologizing, you keep justifying your personal attacks? Yes, I was banned for "tendentious editing and battle ground conduct" for a year (not "forever"). However, none of the "findings" against me accuse me of meatpuppeting, Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogynism, eugenics, or promoting propaganda. You are insulting me and I am tired of your harassment. Enough is enough. Arbitrators please respond!--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)