Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-14/Arbitration report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


← Back to Arbitration report

Discuss this story

  • Might I ask please that something is made clearer? The notifications to the new parties were posted on 5th May,[1], [2] over a week before the case closed. (At time of writing it is still not closed but likely to close today.) Perhaps in the circumstances "He explained that he did in fact notify the new parties of these developments" could be changed to "He explained that the new parties were notified on 5th May, over a week before the case closed" or similar.  Roger Davies talk 05:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Roger. I'm sure LR will be onto this. Tony (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have not responded to the proposed decision in the case yet. In the proposed decision the drafting arbitrator introduces additional assertions not covered in the evidence phase, and additional diffs, backed up with loaded language that verge on making the drafting arbitrator a party to the case. Since this is new evidence and new accusations (I think it is safe to use the word "accusations" since any pretence that this is an arbitration rather than a prosecution has long since been discarded), I have asked for time to compose a response. Moreover, since I do not intend to spend a significant number of hours a day working on this, as I have on the encyclopaedia proper, I am anticipating this will be more than just one or two days.
  • Meanwhile if anyone reading this has an opinion on killing Helpful Pixie Bot and Femto Bot, or on my being de-sysopped, they are invited to state it at the talk page
Happy editing! Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • I've commented there about how this canvassing is inappropriate. Hope that helps. Now please don't do this again. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you would like to re-read WP:CANVASS. I didn't ask for support, I asked for opinion. Support is of course welcome, but so are (even slightly rude) comments on the "other side". Informed opinion is even better. Constructive criticism can of course, be left at my talk page at any time, or emailed to me, but, unless urgent, is unlikely to be acted upon until the case is closed. Rich Farmbrough, 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • The "smaller chamber" caption is cute but rather misleading, especially in relation to the story it illustrates. Ten Committee members discussed Altenmann's appeal, and then it went to the community where nearly thirty people discussed the matter, meaning the chamber approached nearly forty participants. That is rather a larger number than would normally decide a ban appeal. Be interesting for a Signpost reporter to look into the records to see if this was actually the largest number of participants in a ban appeal decision. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that there are quite a few editors that do not support Arbcom's decision and think their decision against Rich is both stupid and not in the best interests of Wikipedia. At the very least there are several of us that agree that the decision was too draconian for an offense that primarily relies on arguments against minor edits. Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • And puzzling, given they have not been able to establish a principle about unblocking one's own bots (principles 7, 8, and 9 failed to achieve passing). "We can't agree on what exactly you did wrong, but you did it wrong and we're taking your sysop bit". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be brutally frank, there is so much wrong with the way this case was handled, on so many levels, that I can't even begin to list the problems. Some of them would not have affected the outcome but are stunningly bad. Others might be understandable, but do not reflect well on the arbitrators at all, given that something like this should be carried out with utmost scrupulousness. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      • Also note that the discussion page has been protected, apparently as well as refusing to wait for my comments on the case, the committee have decided discussion is not a good thing. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        • I suspect it was done as much because they are tired of talking about the case as much as they were tired of hearing how badly the case was performed. Kumioko (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the Committee does that every time a case is closed. Lord Roem (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • From what I understand, it's only recently become vogue for them to do so. I challenged a clerk about this, and they were unable to provide any link to any discussion or directive that this should be the case. I think the community is forgetting that ArbCom works for the community, not the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't know about policy, but I can tell you that its been practice at least since January. Lord Roem (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The only fully protected talk page on any case closed this year is one of the RF case talk pages. One. One other talk page was semi protected for "persistent sockpuppetry". No other talk pages are protected. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • There are several discussions even outside of Wiki. I have seen stuff so far on Reddit and twitter as well as the evil Wikipedia report site. The general gist of all of them seems to be that its pretty lame and stupid of Wikipedia to all but ban 1 of 2 editors to make the Millionaires club and complete a million edits. Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Roem is now an Arb Clerk.... I'm sure there is no relation between that and his somewhat inaccurate defence of the page protection. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm glad I'm not the only one that found that to be somewhat suspicious. Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-14/Arbitration_report&oldid=1136619369"