1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Motion regarding Doncram
- Comment:
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Doncram: Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (suspended)
- --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment/Questions I hesitate to complain, but the motion passed seems unreasonable, or the reasoning is not explained, or at least that reasoning for it is not explained in terms that I understand. Does anyone else agree?
- I do appreciate that the motion expires in six months. But... I don't understand why the arbitrators have imposed this; it seems like punishment, and undue. The terms set appear as if they would have been reasonable six months ago, but not now. Note I was under an effective probation for six months, and there were no problems, and I made good efforts to remove sources of some others previous dissatisfaction.
- My request was for the arbitrators to end the case. The request was put into a first motion that eventually received 6 votes of support vs. 7 opposing. The second motion, which appears as punishment to me, empowers any uninvolved administrator to re-impose a non-term-limited edit restriction on new NRHP article creations if they deemed any error on my part (whether related to a new article or not) in a broad topic area (all of NRHP, far more than new articles). Such an admin action presumably would stand until a future arbitration committee came in, if/when I would seek to have that overturned.
- Comments by five arbitrators (DGG, Amanda (DQ), Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Drmies) seemed to me to indicate recognition of the facts of the situation, and to indicate that they did not see reason why the narrow edit restriction should not simply be rescinded. It appeared to me that they had read the request fully, and perhaps looked into the situation a bit more. These nonetheless voted in mixed ways on the 1st motion with one opposing it (their votes respectively were: for, for, 1st choice, 1st choice, oppose). I see no explanation explicitly stated why any arbitrator would oppose the first motion at all, but 7 oppose it. And 11 voted for the second motion (as only choice or second choice), without substantive discussion of DGG and Amanda's oppose votes and their reasoning. Statements like "I prefer" are not explanations.
- I wonder if what really happened is that, late in the year of service, the arbitrators are being very economical in their efforts, and tend to want to go for a "compromise" if one is available. Here, however, the second motion would have represented a compromise six months ago, but it is not a compromise between any two things now. The second motion was apparently intended to be a compromise between ending the case and current status, but what one or two arbitrators thought was current status was wrong (it appeared they thought an NRHP-wide topic ban was in place). So it is not a "middle ground", and that was pointed out. Am I incorrect to feel that the following arbitrators appeared to have unquestioningly accepted that it was a compromise? But why ignore the statements of DGG and Amanda and myself? Or I am missing something. Was the case discussed on the private email list?
- I would like to ask:
- Does anyone else agree that there is not an explicit reasoning given for the outcome chosen?
- And under what circumstances at all would the arbitrators have chosen to end the case? It would be poor if the answer is none.
- I would appreciate if justification for the ruling could be explained. Like in terms that I could explain to someone else, say if they are seeking to discredit me by using the fact of the new sanction being imposed.
- sincerely, --doncram 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Punishment? Unless I misread something, you've had a restriction removed and no restrictions added. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think I explained it adequately. I appreciate that a narrow edit restriction was removed, but I and at least two arbitrators don't think it is right that a probation was imposed, and I don't see explanation of the probation. It's not right in general for administrators to impose things without explaining themselves, and I am asking for explanation, which I am allowed to do. At my Talk page, I was given notice "Discuss this at" this location. --doncram 02:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Doncram, the "probation" motion was proposed on October 22 and your one comment on the matter was made on October 23. Since the motion wasn't enacted till November 5, it's unclear why many more paragraphs of text are needed now that the matter is over. The effect of the two proposed motions is of course identical assuming you do indeed behave as you indicated that you intend to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think I explained it adequately. I appreciate that a narrow edit restriction was removed, but I and at least two arbitrators don't think it is right that a probation was imposed, and I don't see explanation of the probation. It's not right in general for administrators to impose things without explaining themselves, and I am asking for explanation, which I am allowed to do. At my Talk page, I was given notice "Discuss this at" this location. --doncram 02:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Punishment? Unless I misread something, you've had a restriction removed and no restrictions added. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open
Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)