re |
Alexia Death (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:Still, you must ask yourself to what degree your reprimanding of an "arrogant admin" on behalf of [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]] contributed to [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]]'s hubris which has subsequently earned him a 96 hour block for edit warring another Estonian related article. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
:Still, you must ask yourself to what degree your reprimanding of an "arrogant admin" on behalf of [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]] contributed to [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]]'s hubris which has subsequently earned him a 96 hour block for edit warring another Estonian related article. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
::I did not reprimand anyone on RJ's "behalf". I did not say a word about the merit of the block. I only raised the arrogant inresponsiveness. If the admin is unfit for the job, this is a totally separate issue from the narrower problem you are raising. If you want to bring PO into this case, you are free to do so. I have no objection to his conduct being discussed by an ArbCom. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
::I did not reprimand anyone on RJ's "behalf". I did not say a word about the merit of the block. I only raised the arrogant inresponsiveness. If the admin is unfit for the job, this is a totally separate issue from the narrower problem you are raising. If you want to bring PO into this case, you are free to do so. I have no objection to his conduct being discussed by an ArbCom. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::If ProhibitOnion is dragged into this, then by causality is [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]].--[[User:Alexia Death|Alexia Death the Grey]] 07:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:07, 2 September 2007
Interesting note
I found it a bit interesting that there are several motions, and some vigorous discussion of them, but no evidence yet. --Rocksanddirt 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- What's the hurry? The editing pattern of Korps! Estonia is well demonstrated on this very page. Take a look at the thread "politely" titled "Smear emanating from FayssalF".[1] Fayssal, you've got my sympathy for having to face what looks like ganging up on you. It is tedious and annoying to repeat your arguments each time a new look-alike account pops up on this page. The pattern is familiar: first there are aggressive accusations from Alexia and Digwuren, then the same from Suva and E.J., then you may expect Staberinde and Martintg to chime in, then, when you think it's over, the same accusations will be repeated by Sander Säde and DLX, etc, etc. This is what I had to go through on WP:ANI on a daily basis. And that's what my grievances are about. Wikipedians are not supposed to be ganged up on. Nobody likes to be witchhunted. This manner of editing results in nothing but stress and frustration on the part of everyone involved. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ghirla, put your evidence where your mouth is. Demeaning generalizing is just your thing and the bigest grievance I have with you.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Rocksanddirt, exactly my thoughts. I expected that the accusers in this case present their evidence first... But for some reason this has not happened.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I could see some motions being first as the actual scope of this is not well defined (to me at least), but everyone has also had several days at least to prepare the evidence statement for when the arb was opened. See the Seven of Diamonds one, within just a few hours of opening there were two very long evidence presentations, buy two involved parties. --Rocksanddirt 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that the initiator of the case has not presented evidence, because he sees an "ArbCom axe" above the heads of Estonian editors more useful then presenting his rather meager evidence. He seems to have plenty of time for other activities on Wikipedia so it is getting harder and harder for me to AGF. Sander Säde 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I could see some motions being first as the actual scope of this is not well defined (to me at least), but everyone has also had several days at least to prepare the evidence statement for when the arb was opened. See the Seven of Diamonds one, within just a few hours of opening there were two very long evidence presentations, buy two involved parties. --Rocksanddirt 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If it is "getting harder for you", don't try. But the evidence will be presented all right. I spend exactly as much time preparing it as I see necessary. The case is very young and its developments sadly generates new evidence. Just have some patience. I am not a lawyer or an evidence producing bot. --Irpen 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think your biggest mistake in this case was involving other Estonian editors who were not party to the issues you have with Digwuren. I think you realise this to some degree, and its wider implications. Two of the 5 in the original RFCU have been offline since July, the third has had practically no involvement, and the remaining two are clean. The honourable way out of this mess is to simply state you have no further issue with these Estonian editors so long as they continue to abid by Wikipedia policies, as we all should. Martintg 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Irpen's strategy
Reading User talk:Jimbo Wales#Eastern Europe, one might suspect that Irpen's main motivation in bringing this ArbCom case is so that he'd get a new chance at pushing his weird "remedy" of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision#Proposing a novel solution that may actually work. The moral standing of such a "strategy" is, needless to say, questionable. Digwuren 04:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- The whole concept of having a central committee dictating content, like this so called "Eastern European Work Group" that Irpen proposes, goes against the whole philosophy of Wikipedia of being an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But Irpen seems to want to turn Wikipedia into a closed shop where only the most "politically reliable" editors were permitted to edit articles. Imagine a Wikipedia where Estonians were not permitted to edit articles about Estonian history while Petri Krohn or Ghirla could, because they were anointed committee members. A Venn diagram with the set of supporters of this proposal and the sets of the protagonists in the various East European disputes would be very revealing. I guess some more cynical people may suggest than in order to propose remedy, one needs to manufacture the problem first. Martintg 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. I see the goal of this ArbCom as sanctioning users guilty of disruptive conduct. --Irpen 05:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Irpen will change his mind once he realises that there's only three Russias, but more than a dozen of former Warsaw Treaty countries, all full of people who know first-hand that Soviet historigraphy is, to a large extent, deliberate lie.
On a more serious note, the anointment's main problem is similar to that of self-selection: it's mostly biased people who tend to self-select themselves, and it's guaranteed biased people who are anointed into such a "committee". A proper siki-spirit alternative would be something diametrically opposite, like setting up something akin Wikipedia jury duty: in case of (some kind) of disputes, the machine would choose a random selection of jurors, who would study the presented arguments, and then decide the proper outcome. Not perfect, either, but still better than what we have now, and even more better than what Irpen is proposing. At the very least, instead of endless edit wars, there would be endless debates. Digwuren 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps an idea to consider too. However, the ideas along the lines of my proposal for Piotrus case are irrelevant to this case. That case was about the content disputes. This one firmly rest on your exceedingly poor conduct that needs to be addressed by the ArbCom regardless of the particular POV that you are pushing. If there was a Russian or Ukrainian nationalists similarly boorish and prone to edit warring I would have called for sanctioning him in just the same way. --Irpen 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true at all. You also showed a lot of support for RJ CG here User_talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations_of_WP:SYNTH_and_WP:OR. BTW, RJ CG has be recently blocked for 96 hours for edit warring Rein Lang, again. [2]. Where are your sanctions against him? Martintg 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Martintg, Irpen is not an administrator. Sander Säde 06:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise that. What I meant to say was: "Where was your call for sanctions against him?" Martintg 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Martintg, Irpen is not an administrator. Sander Säde 06:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true at all. You also showed a lot of support for RJ CG here User_talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations_of_WP:SYNTH_and_WP:OR. BTW, RJ CG has be recently blocked for 96 hours for edit warring Rein Lang, again. [2]. Where are your sanctions against him? Martintg 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Martin, saying "I showed a lot of support" is a misleading oversimplification. All I did was reprimanding an arrogant admin not for a block but for brushing off the questions that were originally asked in quite an acceptable form. Also, from my past experience with the fellow, I kind of recognized the pattern. --Irpen 07:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Still, you must ask yourself to what degree your reprimanding of an "arrogant admin" on behalf of RJ CG contributed to RJ CG's hubris which has subsequently earned him a 96 hour block for edit warring another Estonian related article. Martintg 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did not reprimand anyone on RJ's "behalf". I did not say a word about the merit of the block. I only raised the arrogant inresponsiveness. If the admin is unfit for the job, this is a totally separate issue from the narrower problem you are raising. If you want to bring PO into this case, you are free to do so. I have no objection to his conduct being discussed by an ArbCom. --Irpen 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- If ProhibitOnion is dragged into this, then by causality is RJ CG.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did not reprimand anyone on RJ's "behalf". I did not say a word about the merit of the block. I only raised the arrogant inresponsiveness. If the admin is unfit for the job, this is a totally separate issue from the narrower problem you are raising. If you want to bring PO into this case, you are free to do so. I have no objection to his conduct being discussed by an ArbCom. --Irpen 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)