Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-08-14/Arbitration report
Discuss this story
I hope that in the Tea Party case, individual editors can be evaluated instead of simply imposing topic bans on every person included in the original statement. Yes, it'll take more work on the part of arbitrators and clerks but not every editor who was designated as "involved" is equally culpable for the discord that exists. I just hope in the wake of these voting changes, the whole case doesn't get tabled again. Newjerseyliz (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Merely by way of clarification (of the article and of this comment), the proposed motion would have required that the editors named in it refrain from editing one particular page (the Tea Party movement article and its talkpage). It would not have provided for anyone to be "topic-banned", much less "banned" (which usually is read to mean complete exclusion from the site). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Ironholds/Kiefer Wolfowitz debacle is a very sad story for both sides, and I openly disclose that I have tried to maintain friendly relationships with both parties. The case sheds light on behavioral problems, some of which appear intractable, and others the result of maturing visibly on Wikipedia. Both editors had (and perhaps still have) the intelligence and capability to contribute enormously to this project. An inability to let things go has prevented such an idealistic outcome. I will miss one editor's insights into the history of the U.S. labor movement, and if the incident proves to be a blot on the other editor's contributions as a programmer here, then that is also a very sad result. I am saddened, and wish both parties well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Both of them were prolific content contributors, and it's too bad that KW was banned altogether. I hope he makes some sort of effort to change so that can be reconsidered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.148.93 (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I really hope so too, and I have reached out to him to try and make this happen. It is very difficult - we tried to help him in late 2011, as has been documented, but it didn't go very far. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Both of them were prolific content contributors, and it's too bad that KW was banned altogether. I hope he makes some sort of effort to change so that can be reconsidered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.148.93 (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Ironholds/Kiefer Wolfowitz debacle is a very sad story for both sides, and I openly disclose that I have tried to maintain friendly relationships with both parties. The case sheds light on behavioral problems, some of which appear intractable, and others the result of maturing visibly on Wikipedia. Both editors had (and perhaps still have) the intelligence and capability to contribute enormously to this project. An inability to let things go has prevented such an idealistic outcome. I will miss one editor's insights into the history of the U.S. labor movement, and if the incident proves to be a blot on the other editor's contributions as a programmer here, then that is also a very sad result. I am saddened, and wish both parties well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
← Back to Arbitration report